The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBuxton NC - Environmental AssessmentENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Beach Renourishment to Protect NC Highway 12 at Buxton Dare County, North Carolina SM US Army Corps of Engineers° Wilmington District — Washington Regulatory Field Office 2407 W Fifth Street, Washington NC 27889 JULY 2021 For more information and comments, contact Mr. Josh Pelletier, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office, 2407 W Fifth Street, Washington, North Carolina, 27889 (phone 910-251-4605, facsimile 252-975-1399). - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................. i ACRONYMS.............................................................................................................................................................. V 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Applicant...........................................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Activity Location...............................................................................................................................................................1 1.3 Description of Activity Requiring Permit........................................................................................................................... 1 1.3.1 Proposed Avoidance and Minimization Measures.................................................................................................11 1.3.2 Proposed Compensatory Mitigation......................................................................................................................13 1.4 Project Background and History..................................................................................................................................... 13 1.4.1 Project Background...............................................................................................................................................13 1.4.2 Project Planning History........................................................................................................................................16 1.5 Permit Authority..............................................................................................................................................................20 2.0 SCOPE OF REVIEW FOR NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA).............................................................. 25 2.1 Determination of Scope of Analysis for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)....................................................... 25 2.2 Determination of the "Project Area" for Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) ............................................... 27 2.3 Determination of Permit Area for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)................................... 29 3.0 PURPOSE AND NEED........................................................................................................................................ 31 3.1 Purpose and Need for the Project................................................................................................................................... 31 3.2 Volume Changes After the 2017-2018 Project................................................................................................................ 34 3.3 Basic Project Purpose..................................................................................................................................................... 34 3.4 Water Dependency Determination................................................................................................................................. 36 3.5 Overall Project Purpose.................................................................................................................................................. 36 4.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................................................................................ 37 4.1 Results of Coordinating on Public Notice....................................................................................................................... 37 4.2 Additional Issues Raised by the USACE........................................................................................................................... 38 4.3 Comments Raised That Do Not Require Further Discussion........................................................................................... 38 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................. 39 5.1 Site Selection and Screening Criteria............................................................................................................................. 39 5.1.1 Geologic Processes................................................................................................................................................40 5.1.2 Shoreline and Barrier Island Geomorphology.......................................................................................................40 5.1.3 Beach Nourishment Implementation Options.......................................................................................................42 5.2 Description of Alternatives............................................................................................................................................. 44 5.2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1-NO-ACTION......................................................................................................................................... 45 5.2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2-BEACH NOURISHMENT WITH WINTER CONSTRUCTION..................................................................... 45 5.2.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 3 -SUMMER CONSTRUCTION............................................................................................. 49 5.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY..................................................................................................... 51 5.3.1 Rationale for Dismissing Nourishment Using Non -Offshore Sand Sources..........................................................52 5.3.2 Rationale for Dismissing Sand -Retaining Structures and Techniques..................................................................54 5.3.3 Rationale for Dismissing Other Potential Alternatives..........................................................................................57 5.3.4 Nourishment Construction Alternatives Eliminated from Consideration.............................................................60 5.4 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative............................................................................................. 64 6.0 EVALUATION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 404(b)........................................................................................ 65 6.1 Practicable Alternative................................................................................................................................................... 65 6.2 Candidate Disposal Site.................................................................................................................................................. 65 6.3 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Non -Living Environment ............................................. 65 6.4 Potential Impacts on Living Communities or Human Uses............................................................................................. 67 6.4.1 Potential Impacts on Biological Characteristics of Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D).............................................67 6.4.2 Threatened and Endangered Species..................................................................................................................101 6.4.3 General Methodology of Effects Determinations..................................................................................................103 6.4.4 EFH Species or Complexes Considered................................................................................................................128 6.4.5 Potential EFH or HAPC and Fish Species with Potential Effects..........................................................................137 JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) i Buxton, Dare County (NC) 6.5 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)...................................................................................................... 152 6.6 Potential Impacts on Human -Use Characteristics (Subpart F)...................................................................................... 153 6.7 Pre -Testing Evaluation (Subpart G).............................................................................................................................. 154 6.8 Evaluation and Testing (Subpart G).............................................................................................................................. 154 6.9 Actions to Minimize Adverse Impacts........................................................................................................................... 154 6.10 Factual Determinations (Subpart B)............................................................................................................................ 155 6.11 Findings of Compliance/Non-Compliance................................................................................................................... 156 7.0 GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW (33 CFR 320.4 and RGL 84-09).....................................................................157 7.1 Public Interest Factors.................................................................................................................................................. 157 7.2. Other Public Interest Factors........................................................................................................................................ 161 7.2.1 Geologic and Mineral Resources...........................................................................................................................161 7.2.2 Soils and Upland Topography..............................................................................................................................161 7.2.3 Wetlands...............................................................................................................................................................161 7.2.4 Energy Resources.................................................................................................................................................163 7.2.5 Visual Resources...................................................................................................................................................163 7.2.6 Climate Change....................................................................................................................................................163 7.2.7 Soundscapes........................................................................................................................................................164 7.2.8 Noise.....................................................................................................................................................................165 7.2.9 Lightscapes...........................................................................................................................................................165 7.2.10 Infrastructure......................................................................................................................................................166 7.3 Public and Private Need............................................................................................................................................... 166 7.4 Unresolved Conflicts as to Resource Use...................................................................................................................... 166 7.5 Extent/Permanence of Beneficial and/or Detrimental Effects...................................................................................... 166 8.0 CONSIDERATION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS......................................................................................................167 8.1 Geographic Scope for Cumulative Effects Assessment.................................................................................................167 8.2 Identify/Describe the Direct and Indirect Effects.......................................................................................................... 167 8.2.1 Potential Effects on Species of Concern (MBTA, MMPA, State-Protected)............................................................168 8.2.2 Potential Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species (see Section 6.4.3).....................................................169 8.2.3 Potential Effects on EFH, HAPC, or Life Stages of Associated Managed Fish........................................................170 8.3 Temporal Scope of Assessment.................................................................................................................................... 180 8.4 Describe the Affected Environment.............................................................................................................................. 181 8.5 Determine Environmental Consequences.................................................................................................................... 182 8.6 Mitigation to Avoid, Minimize or Compensate for Cumulative Effects.......................................................................... 182 8.7 Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................ 183 8.7.1 Potential Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Project on Species of Concern.....................................................183 8.7.2 Endangered and Threatened Species (ESA-Protected)........................................................................................185 8.7.3 Potential Cumulative Effects of Proposed Project on EFH and HAPC...................................................................186 9.0 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES....................................................................................................189 9.1 Avoidance and Minimization......................................................................................................................................... 189 9.2 Compensatory Mitigation............................................................................................................................................. 189 10.0 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS, POLICIES, AND REQUIREMENTS......................................................................191 10.1 Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).................................................................................................. 191 10.1.1 Other Agency Documented Compliance............................................................................................................191 10.1.2 Consultation with NMFS and/or USFWS.............................................................................................................191 10.1.3 Effects Determination for ESA -Protected Species..............................................................................................197 10.2 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Essential Fish Habitat ............................................ 199 10.2.1 Other Agency Document Compliance................................................................................................................199 10.2.2 Review Required Under Magnuson -Stevens Act ................................................................................................199 10.2.3 Effect Determination..........................................................................................................................................199 10.2.4 Consultation with NMFS.....................................................................................................................................200 10.3 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA).................................................................................... 200 10.3.1 Known Cultural Sites Present............................................................................................................................200 10.2.2 Effect Determination on Cultural Resources......................................................................................................202 10.4 Tribal Trust Responsibilities....................................................................................................................................... 202 10.5 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act -Water Quality Certification (WQC).................................................................... 202 JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) ii Buxton, Dare County (NC) 10.6 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)....................................................................................................................... 203 10.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act —National Wild & Scenic River System............................................................................. 203 10.8 Effects on Federal Projects —Section 14 of Rivers & Harbors Act (33 USC 408)........................................................... 203 10.9 Corps Wetlands Policy (33 CFR 320.4(b)—Wetlands Impacts...................................................................................... 203 11.0 SPECIAL CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................................................205 11.1 Conditions Required................................................................................................................................................... 205 11.2 Required Special Condition(s).................................................................................................................................... 205 12.0 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS....................................................................................................................207 12.1 Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule Review......................................................................... 207 12.2 Presidential Executive Orders (EO)............................................................................................................................. 207 12.2.1 Consultation with Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians (EO 13175).........................................207 12.2.2 Floodplain Management (EO 11988)..................................................................................................................207 12.2.3 Environmental Justice (EO 12898).....................................................................................................................209 12.2.4 Invasive Species (EO 13112)...............................................................................................................................209 12.2.5 Energy Supply (EO 13212) and Availability (EO 13302)......................................................................................209 12.3 Findings of No Significant Impact............................................................................................................................... 210 12.4 Compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines..................................................................................................... 210 12.5 Public Interest Determination.................................................................................................................................... 210 SIGNATURES.........................................................................................................................................................211 REFERENCESCITED...............................................................................................................................................213 APPENDICES A) Geotechnical Data Analyses (CSE 2021) B) Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (CSE 2021) C) Large Sediment Sampling Report (CSE 2021) D) Littoral Processes (CSE 2021) E) Biological Assessment (CZR-CSE 2021) F) Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (CZR-CSE 2021) G) Cultural Resources Survey (TAR 2021) JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) iii Buxton, Dare County (NC) — THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK — JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) iv Buxton, Dare County (NC) ACRONYMS AEC Area of Environmental Concern ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers BA Biological Assessment BAV Beach Action Value BC Berm crest BEACH Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act of 2000 BO Biological Opinion CAMA Coastal Area Management Act CBIA Coastal Barrier Improvement Act CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERC Coastal Engineering Research Center CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHWA Cape Hatteras Water Association CSE Coastal Science & Engineering Inc CWA Clean Water Act CZM Coastal Zone Management CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act CZR CZR Incorporated DPS Designated Population Segment EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GENESIS Generalized model for simulating shoreline change GIBA Globally Important Bird Area HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature LEDPA Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative MAFMC Mid -Atlantic Fisheries Management Council MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MMMA Marine Mammal Protection Act MLW Mean low water MTL Mean tide level NAS National Academy of Sciences NAVD North American Vertical Datum NC 12 North Carolina State Highway 12 NCCRC North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission NCDCCPS North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety NCDCM North Carolina Division of Coastal Management NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (now named NCDEQ) JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) v Buxton, Dare County (NC) NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, effective 09/21/2015 (formerly NCDENR) NCDMF North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation NCDNCR North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources NCSG North Carolina Sea Grant NCDWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources NCNHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission NDBC National Data Wave Buoy NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NMNH National Museum of Natural History NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration NO1 Notice of Intent NOS National Ocean Service NPS National Park Service NRC National Research Council NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OCRM Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management OPA Otherwise Protected Area OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PEPC Planning, Environmental and Public Comment PRD Protected Resource Division [National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA)] SAFMC South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council SARBO South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion Seashore Cape Hatteras National Seashore SERO Southeast Regional Office (NOAA) SHPO North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office SOSUS Sound Surveillance System STWAVE Steady-state spectral wave model USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USDA US Department of Agriculture USFWS US Fish & Wildlife Service USGS US Geological Survey WIS Wave Information Study JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) vi Buxton, Dare County (NC) 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 1.1 Applicant The applicant of the proposed beach renourishment project is Dare County. It is a municipal corporation located in North Carolina. The applicant's contact information is as follows. County Manager: Mr. Robert Outten Address: 954 Marshall Collins Drive, Manteo, NC 27954 Telephone: 252-475-5800 Fax: 252-473-1817 Website: www.darenc.gov 1.2 Activity Location The Buxton project area is located on Hatteras Island in the Village of Buxton in the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Hatteras Island is part of a nearly continuous chain of barrier islands which extend from New York to Florida. As shown in Figure 1.1, the Cape Hatteras National Seashore includes portions of the islands of, Hatteras, Bodie, and Ocracoke, which together offer about 70 miles of ocean shoreline. Asimilar length chain of barrier islands immediately to the south comprise the Cape Lookout National Seashore. The project area faces east to northeast at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Seashore), and encompasses the -0.8-mile oceanfront in front of Buxton (Reach 1) and -2.2 miles of oceanfront of the Seashore (Reach 2) as shown in Figure 1.2. The northern project boundary is located at 35017'53" N 75030'45" W (35.2980 N 75.5125 W), and the southern boundary at 35015'21.5" N 75°31'13.4" W (35.2560 N 75.5204 W). Pamlico Sound borders the project area on the west, and the Atlantic Ocean bounds the project area on the east. Oregon Inlet, the closest inlet to the project area, is located -35 miles north of the project area. The offshore borrow areas where the sand will be excavated are located within the 3-nautical-mile limit and therefore do not fall within federal waters as shown in the figure. 1.3 Description of Activity Requiring Permit Dare County (NC) is proposing a beach renourishment project, which calls for up to 1.2 million cubic yards (cy) of beach quality sand to be pumped onto the 2.9-mile (15,500 linear feet) beach via offshore dredging scheduled to start the summer of 2022. The anticipated average fill density (volume of nourishment per linear foot of beach) is -77 cubic yards per linear foot (cy/lf) of shoreline. This is equivalent to an average beach width increase after a natural profile adjustment of -60 feet (ft). The fill density will be varied according to the site's specific deficit volume and erosion rate with an average of -150 cubic yards per foot (cy/ft) in Reach 1- Buxton. The purpose of the project is to restore sand losses due to chronic erosion and to replenish the additional volume loss due to hurricanes Florence (September 2018) and Dorian (September 2019). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 1 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Dare County conducted a beach nourishment project that started in the summer of 2017 via offshore dredging. The 2017-2018 project placed 2.6 million cubic yards of beach -quality sand along the 2.9-mile length of beach that would be the same site as the proposed renourishment project. It was completed between 21 June 2017 and 27 February 2018 without any major environmental incident. The proposed renourishment project would be implemented using the same construction method (ie - offshore dredging) and would be completed within the same construction window (ie - during summer months). The 2.9 miles of beach that would be filled by the proposed project is calculated to create -4.5 acres of new dune habitat and -18 acres of new dry beach habitat. Figure 1.3 shows typical fill sections for the two project reaches illustrated in Figure 1.2. A dune would be incorporated only along areas of Reachl-Buxton lacking a healthy foredune or where the existing dune requires enhancement to increase storm protection and resiliency. The proposed offshore borrow area (Figures 1.2 and 1.4) is adjacent to the previously utilized borrow area and contains approximately 3.3 million cy of beach quality sediment to a depth of 10 ft below the substrate. Mean grain size in the littoral profile (foredune to -24 ft NAVD) in 2019 was 0.321 millimeters (mm) with 7.2 percent shell content. The subaerial mean grain size (more representative of the recreational beach) was 0.400 mm in 2019. The borrow area (Figure 1.4) has a composite mean grain size of 10 ft of 0.517 mm with 15.6 percent shell material (Figure 1.5). The sediment quality and core density (-1 per 20 acres) meet NC state standards and NPS sediment management framework requirements (NPS 2021a) for beach nourishment sediment quality. The proposed borrow area is part of an isolated underwater ridge that will be excavated mainly over the crest leaving undisturbed areas and topography while avoiding the creation of deep holes during the dredging operation. Figures 1.6 and 1.7 show an example core photo log and stratigraphy log. See Appendix A for detailed geotechnical data and analysis for the beach and borrow area sediments. A submerged cultural resource remote -sensing survey of the proposed borrow area was conducted by Tidewater Atlantic Research (TAR) of Washington, North Carolina. Fieldwork was completed by 24 July 2021, and the results and findings are included as an appendix to this EA (Appendix G-Cultural Resources Survey). Work performed by TAR consisted of a background literature survey, historical research, and cartographical investigation. Field investigations identified one magnetic anomaly inside the proposed borrow area and two within the 200-ft perimeter of the borrow area. All three anomalies represent very small ferrous objects. None appear to represent a potentially significant submerged cultural resource, and therefore, no avoidance was recommended. Analysis of the acoustic data identified no evidence of sonar targets in the borrow area or its immediate vicinity. Consequently, no potentially significant submerged cultural resources will be impacted by dredging in the proposed borrow area or its adjacent 200-ft buffer. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 2 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Devil Hills Wright Brothers National Memorial ,First Flight alntrip FIGURE 1.1. Map of Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The proposed Buxton project area is situated between the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse and Haulover Day Use Area at the lower right corner of the map (NPS 2011). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 3 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Cape Hatteras National Seashore Pamlico Sound 9800+p0 � � 0 I � o u, 1 m o U � � O OLn N O In 9840+00 Z N Cf) t i Y860+00 i I 988D+00 � � 4 12 j Lo N 1900+00 o o -' o o n +CD P- � 9920+00 s c> a�i U) y�O+OQ Cape • Hatteras Light (r�0xooJ Cape Hatteras National Seashore 18g0,00 19g3+77 0 2000,' Scab A t l a n t i c O c e a n Proposed B—....,.. h..... 10-ft Vibracores ��J •/ "No Work" Buffer Zones Previous Cores � 2017 Borrow Area FIGURE 1.2. Map showing the proposed Buxton project area illustrating maximum limits of nourishment along the oceanfront in the vicinity of Buxton (Dare County, NC). The sand source is an offshore borrow area situated about 9,000 feet from the former site of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, and it is an extension of the designated borrow area used in the 2017-2018 beach nourishment project. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 4 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 15 10 5 z 0 -5 O cc -10 m w -15 -20 -25 National Seashore Station 1840+00 ♦ — — Aug 2020 Profile Fill Vol - MHW � MLW Berm Elevation +7.0 ft NAVD _ Berm Width 132 ft Fill Density 50 cy/ft r 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Distance from Baseline (ft) Buxton Station 1890+00 15 Aug 2020 Profile 10 - Fill Vol .-. 5 0 MHW a 0 - -----MLW------- 5 O • i -10 ` - LLJ _15 Berm Elevation +7.0 ft NAVD � Berm Width 256 ft • Fill Density 180 cy/ft • -20 Typical Dune Width 20 ft • -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Distance from Baseline (ft) FIGURE 1.3. Representative fill templates at station 1890+00 for Reach 1 - Buxton and station 1840+00 for Reach 2 - National Seashore. Beach profiles represent the beach condition in August 2020. An initial dune is proposed to be constructed along Reach 1. The dune crest is set to be at +13 ft NAVD and the seaward slope is 1 on 3. The typical dune crest width is 20 ft, and the constructed dry -sand berm in front of the dune is 256 ft for station 1890+00. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 5 Buxton, Dare County (NC) F-N W -30ft 35 ft 40 41ft -50@ -55 @ you ysn eon _ --_ esn_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--------------------------------------- "'500nR 1 6 1500n 2000R 254R 1 y'3200�' J yon- - - - - - - - - - - - - --------...... -.-... ........... ........... ............... ysn eon----- '----------------------- _> = = --'- - - -- - n_._._._._.-,_._._._.___. 2 yarn ------------- .......... ........... ....... ......... . .................. ......... .................... ._"_._._. so; ft 1000ft 1500h 2000R 2900R 1200h 1 ftF yon- - - - -- ft----------------------------- - -:- ----------------- ___-_-_ eon_ ................ _._._._._._._._._ .... _ _ ._._._._._ -._. ------------------ - 0@ lmft 2000@ 3000@ 900n 1- 1500n 2000n 2500h 3200ft 0 800 it Scale (Feet) o Bux-35 • BUX-42 0.596 /-BLX-35 2.6 0.47B 0.1 11.8 3.7 • BUX-41 0,536 15,0 o Bux-04 3,8 BUX-36 6ux-05 0(], 11.1 4.9 • BUX-43 0.552 22.1 7.7/22.5 : 2 • BUX-44 0.557 17.9 10.9 BUX-40 0.681 BUX 39 o a-os 12.5 0.579 • UX 12.6 15.5 0 57 3.8 11.4 3.6 ` ` - -a Bux-M d Bux-33 / / Previous Borrow Area(2018) - � o Bu/34 e Buy-32 / o Bux-29 / / / Baring MGS (mm) Shell % Gravel % Granule % BUX-35 0.478 11.8 0.0 3.7 BUX-36 0.268 1L1 0-0 4.9 BOX-37 0.512 22.5 23 15.3 BUX-38 0.574 11.4 0.0 3.6 BUX-39 0.579 15.5 1 0.0 1 3.8 BUX-40 0.681 16.5 0.0 12.6 BUX-41 0.536 15.0 0.0 3.8 BUX-42 0.596 12.6 0.0 10.1 BUX-43 0.552 22.1 0.9 6.8 BOX-44 0.557 17.9 23 8.5 FIGURE 1.4. [UPPER] borrow area bathymetry and representative sections based on condition surveys in October 2020. Depths are in feet NAVD'88. [LOWER] Mean grain size, percent shell, and percent gravel for core composite samples to 10 ft in the proposed Buxton offshore borrow area based on borings obtained in April 2021. Composite results of the ten 10 ft vibracores are listed in table on the lower right. The ten 10-ft vibracores obtained in 2021 are highlighted in bold text with red dots. Other cores from previous sand searches are shown in small text with black boxes. The mean grain size of the ten 10-ft cores is 0.517 mm with 15.6 percent shell material, 7.1 percent granules, and 0.6 percent gravel by weight. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 6 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Grain Size Distribution Grain Size (mm) 10016 8 4 2 1 0.5 0.25 0.125 0.0625 Borrow Area 10 ft COMP 90 Beach .... ....:....= Project CSE 2403-M Location Buxton (NC) 80 ...:...:................:...... ...:......... = Date May 2021 70 - BA 10 ft COMP Mean 0.517 mm BA 10 ft COMP STD 0.426 mm 60 < BA 10 ft COMP Skew-0.489 mm ' BA 10 ft COMP Kurt 4.107 mm o� 50 BA 10 ft COMP Shell 12.3% 40 ...:............ .. :... .: All Beach Mean 0.321 mm All Beach STD 0.552 mm 30 ... ....:.........:....; ; ... ... ....:. ...... All Beach Skew -1.045 mm = All Beach Kurt 5.621 mm 20 :....:....:....:....:.. .:. ..:... :.......:....:....:.... ...;... All Beach Shell 7.2% 10 . 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Grain Size (0) 1001 90 80 70 60 0 o� 50 40 30 20 10 0 -4 Grain Size Distribution Grain Size (mm) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Grain Size (0) Project CSE 2403-M Location Buxton (NC) Date May 2021 BA 10 ft COMP Mean 0.517 mm BA 10 ft COMP STD 0.426 mm BA 10 ft COMP Skew-0.489 mm BA 10 ft COMP Kurt 4.107 mm BA 10 ft COMP Shell 12.3% Vis Beach Mean 0.400 mm Vis Beach STD 0.636 mm Vis Beach Skew -1.073 mm Vis Beach Kurt 6.358 mm Vis Beach Shell 7.2% FIGURE I.S. Sediment grain size distribution (GSD) for Buxton native beach samples (n=140) compared with offshore samples to 10 ft (composite). The "Vis Beach" consists of all native samples collected on the visible beach (above MTL), while "All Beach" contains all samples. In both cases, the borrow area sediments are expected to be slightly coarser than the native beach initially. Over time, as native and nourishment sediments mix, the grain size of the post - nourishment beach will return to the historical grain size distribution around Buxton. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 7 Buxton, Dare County (NC) QS� Bux-44 o. C-1 kJenceG Erglneeiing Buxton NC X:3051330 Y:567308 X10jElev Of Top: 42.0 ft NAVD 0.5 4 5.8 5.75 � 1 5 5.7 1.5 5.5 5.65 5.6 2 6 5.55 3.035 3.04 3.046 3.05 3.055 X106 2,5 6,5 5.7 5.69 5.68 5.67 5,66 Ai¢A3 .35 JA eu.so 3 7 3.5 ,:; :' 7.5 l9 3.05 3.051 3.052 3.053 3.054 ...................�� r r' X 106 4<� 8 8 8.5 9.5 10 10-5 11.5 12 FIGURE 1.6. Example core photo log for one of the 10-ft borings (BUX-44) obtained by subconsultantAVS in April 2021. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 8 Buxton, Dare County (NC) CORELOG Coastal Science & Engineering Sheet oft COORDINATES: s_t,vurrgs4 PROJECT.' 24030 - Buxton Maintenance Northing: 567308.000 gUX- 4 4 1 LOCALITY: Buxton NC Easting. 3051330.000 Grid Datum: NAD 183 �- sh— - tttie &—rug and M. —) DATE: 2021-Apr-06 TOP ELEVATION: DEVICE DESIGNATION: Coastal Science ri Engineering BORE ANGLE: 90.000 BURDEN BOTTOM BARREL 3 in. Aluminum THICKNESS: 10.0 ft. ELEVATION_ SIZE/TYPE: CORE WATER GEOLOGIST TWK RECOVERY: 10 ft, (100.0%) DEPTH: _42.00 ft. FIELD TEAM: o erationai note on! Classification Of Materials m Remarks d (Description) p A o-1 m 0.0 to 4.0 ft: Medium Sand - w/ minor shell 51: 0.0 ft. to 4.0 ft. • hash 5Y-7/2 Shell: 25.7a Mud: 0.0% ' Mean Grain Size: 0.557mm 1 . 2 Sl 3 �• • 4 , 4.0 to 10.0 ft: Medium Sand - w/ minor fs and 32: 4.0 ft. to 10.0 ft. shell hash 5Y-6/1 Shell: 12.7% Mud: 0.7% Mean Grain Size: 0.413mm 5 .• 6 . 7 S2 8 ' 9 , ' 10 FIGURE 1.7. Core log for BUX-44 showing the lithology, sample intervals, and mean grain sizes. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 9 Buxton, Dare County (NC) The proposed renourishment project would sup plementthe 2017-2018 Buxton beach restoration project. As of August 2020 after hurricanes Florence and Dorian, approximately 75 percent of the 2017-2018 nourishment volume has been lost, implying that the above -established thresholds will likely be met in 2022 if the beach continues to lose sand at the average rates of the past three years since project completion. The 2022 proposed project goals are to: • Replace sand losses due to chronic erosion, fall and winter storms, and hurricanes since the completion of the 2017-2018 nourishment. • Provide a wider beach and buffer storm waves along a critically eroding section of Hatteras Island. • Continue to protect North Carolina Highway 12 (NC 12) and reduce the frequency of storm damages. • Provide a wider recreational beach and create more habitat for wildlife. • Integrate dune management plan into the renourishment design. • Maintain Dare County's eligibility for future Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) community assistance funds. Completion of the proposed project will serve as an important step toward the County's implementation of a long-term plan for beach management. This Environmental Assessment (EA) includes the following: 1) Description of activity requiring a permit (Section 1) 2) Scope of review for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Section 2) 3) Purpose and need for the project (Section 3) 4) Consultation and coordination with federal, state, local entities (Section 4) 5) Alternatives analysis (Section 5) 6) Evaluation and compliance with Section 404(b) (Section 6) 7) General Public Interest Review 33CFR 320.4 and RGL 84-09 (Section 7) 8) Consideration of cumulative impacts (Section 8) 9) Conservation and mitigation measures (Section 9) 10) Compliance with other laws, policies, and requirements (Section 10) 11) Special conditions (Section 11) 12) Findings and determinations (Section 12) 13) References cited Supplementary data and analyses pertinent to the proposed project are contained in Appendices A-G. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 10 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Appendix A) Geotechnical Data Analyses — Contains geotechnical data on the proposed borrow areas and the native Buxton and National Seashore beach, and presents detailed results of beach sampling and borrow -area coring. Appendix B) Monitoring and Mitigation Plan — Based on similar special conditions prescribed for beach nourishment during summer months in North Carolina at Nags Head, Rodanthe, Kill Devil Hills, Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Buxton. Describes the anticipated monitoring and protection measures for the proposed renourishment action. Appendix C) Large Sediment Sampling Report — Provides results of field data collection along the project beach in Spring 2021 per state requirements under CRC Rules 15A NCAC 07H.0312 (new rule). Appendix D) Littoral Processes — Provides detailed discussion and additional data analyses of erosion, wave climate, and littoral processes in the Buxton project area, the project performance of the 2017-2018 nourishment, and the predicted performance of the proposed renourishment project. Appendix E) Biological Assessment (BA) — Analyzes the potential effects of the proposed renourishment on federally listed threatened, endangered, candidate animal species (wildlife, invertebrates, and fish) or plant species, and designated or proposed critical habitats pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). It is an update report of the original BA for the nourishment project. Appendix F) Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (EFH) — Evaluates the impact of the proposed renourishment to essential fish habitat or habitat areas of particular concern for those species managed by the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC) and Mid -Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC). It is an update report of the original EFH for the nourishment project. Appendix G) Cultural Resources Survey — Provides the methodology and results of a submerged cultural resource, remote -sensing survey of the proposed borrow areas, and identifies any magnetic anomalies in those areas. 1.3.1 Proposed Avoidance and Minimization Measures To prevent and minimize potential adverse impacts associated with the proposed project, certain management and avoidance/minimization measures would be implemented during construction. Upon project completion, the project area would be left to adjust naturally and no further maintenance or manipulation of the beach would be involved. Additional monitoring activities before, during, and after construction are anticipated in conformance with the Biological Opinion (BO) for the project (to be issued at a later date). The applicant anticipates that state and federal permits required before this proposed project proceeds with construction would include a variety of conditions specifically related to the protection of water quality and natural resources from construction -related impacts. If the USACE and NPS decide to permit the proposed project, then the following avoidance and minimization measures would be incorporated into the terms and conditions of the USACE federal permit and the NPS Special Use Permit. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 11 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 1.3.1.1 Coastal Resources and Soils/Wetland Resources/Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats • A pre -construction environmental meeting would be convened with the state and federal resource and regulatory agencies, the USACE, the NPS, the NCDEQ, the contractor, and the engineer to review protocols and environmental protection measures mandated under the permits. • Equipment mobilization and use would be via designated beach accesses and along the con- structed berm so as to avoid impacts to vegetated areas. • Pipe and material along the beach would be moved under escort by qualified biologists so as to avoid any nesting activity or sensitive habitat designated by the state and federal resource agencies. • Appropriate measures would be employed to prevent or control spills of fuels, lubricants, or other contaminants from entering waterways or sensitive areas. Actions would be consistent with state water quality standards and the Clean Water Act Section 401 certificate requirements. A hazardous spill plan would be approved by the USACE and NIPS and appropriate resource agencies prior to construction. This plan would state what actions would be taken in the case of a spill, notification measures and prevention measures to be implemented, such as the placement of refueling facilities, storage, and handling of hazardous materials. • Equipment on the beach would be moved to a safe location within the vicinity of the project area upon a weather forecast of high wave and water conditions. • The contractor would not leave vehicles idling for excessive periods when parked or not in use. • Sea turtle nests laid immediately prior to or during construction within the project area would be relocated by trained observers under the guidance of the NPS, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) officials. • Wildlife collisions would be reported to federal and state resource personnel. • Injury or death of wildlife would be reported to USACE and NIPS personnel and other applicable agencies, such as the USFWS and NCWRC. 1.3.1.2 Vegetation No construction activities or equipment storage would occur in vegetated areas. • Post -project dune planting or sand fencing are included in the project plans. Such activities would only occur along the oceanfront of the Village of Buxton (not along the National Seashore), be performed soon after completion of dredging operations, and would be accomplished under the supervision of qualified individuals to insure compliance with the project design, terms, and special conditions of the state and federal permits. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 12 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 1.3.1.3 Threatened and Endangered/Special Status Species • The applicant would coordinate with the resource agencies (NPS, USFWS, NCWRC) regarding the need to restrict construction in the vicinity of active nest building by sea turtles, shorebirds, or nesting water birds if any. (For a more detailed discussion regarding mitigation procedures to protect these species, see Sections 6, 8, and 10.) • The applicant would coordinate during dredging operations with the NPS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding specific restrictions, operations procedures, and protection of turtles, Atlantic sturgeon, whales, and other marine mammals. • The applicant would comply with no -work buffers established by the resource agencies around active nests or other designated habitat requiring protection if any. 1.3.1.4 Cultural Resources • Construction would be stopped if cultural resources are encountered, and the contractor would coordinate protective measures to minimize disturbance with North Carolina's State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Potential cultural resources detected in the offshore borrow area (AppendixG-Cultural Resources) would be avoided during dredging operations by establishing no -work buffers around the objects. 1.3.2 Proposed Compensatory Mitigation Because the proposed project is water -dependent (can only occur in proximity to an aquatic environment) and there is likely to be no change or only an incremental increase in wetland habitat, the proposed project does not need to prepare plans for compensatory mitigation that restores wetlands. The following best -management practices would be observed: • Nourished shoreline would have similar slopes as the existing shoreline. • Use of heavy equipment to shape the pumped sand would leave no trace of disturbance when restoration efforts are complete. 1.4 Project Background and History 1.4.1 Project Background Portions of the Dare County barrier island shoreline have been breached in recent years, particularly along Hatteras Island. The Buxton project area is narrower than other sections of beach on Hatteras Island before its initial 2017-2018 nourishment (USACE-USDOI-NPS 2015). Normal waves are directly impacting developed property, and highway NC 12 is frequently flooded. The only road providing access to historic villages and park resources along Hatteras Island, NC 12 accommodates millions of visitors each year and serves as a critical lifeline for the health and safety of Hatteras communities. Dare County holds no jurisdiction over the maintenance of NC 12, as it is the State's responsibility to maintain the highway. While Dare County is involved in meetings addressing the erosion at Buxton, the county is JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 13 Buxton, Dare County (NC) dependent on the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to develop solutions regarding the highway itself and to act on them. A study commissioned by the County has documented an estimated sand deficit that exceeded 900,000 cubic yards (cy) along the ocean beach in the project area (CSE 2013a). An average annual erosion rate was estimated to be 114,500 cy per year (cy/yr) (USACE-DOI-NPS 2015). A beach restoration project was conducted in 2017-2018 to address the immediate problem of beach erosion along the Buxton and National Seashore area and to protect NC 12 and community infrastructure. Before the 2017-2018 nourishment, the foredune north of Buxton Village breached frequently, damaging NC 12, often to the degree it was too dangerous or impossible to drive on. This caused the NC Department of Transportation to conduct emergency repairs and push the dunes back up to keep NC 12 open (NCDOT, 2015 NC 12 Feasibility Studyfrom Avon to Buxton). While efforts to maintain the protective dune have been successful for limited times between storm events, the condition of the beach has worsened. As beach width and sand volume decline, the vulnerability of NC 12 and infrastructure along the coast increases (NRC 1995). Sand losses due to chronic erosion, storms, and hurricanes in the Buxton project area have accumulated to the point where the amount of sand in the beach zone in 2020 is similar to the condition before the 2017-2018 project, and is significantly lower than adjacent stable sections of Hatteras Island (see Appendix D - Littoral Processes). Continued beach erosion would impact natural, cultural, and human resources in the Buxton and National Seashore area. The narrow beach would allow waves to wash out the foredune during minor storms, leave steep escarpments, breach the dunes in places, and deposit sand on NC 12. There could be loss of bird and turtle nesting habitat seaward of the dune line and loss of vehicle access to communities at Cape Hatteras. Emergency repairs would be required to restore infrastructure and reopen NC 12; however, the underlying sand deficit along the project area would not change, leaving the area vulnerable to repeated damage. Afterthe 2017-2018 nourishment, annual beach condition surveys were conducted in compliance with the state and federal permit requirements. Post -project survey results show that annual volume changes (measured from the foredune to -24 ft NAVD) vary from year to year. Two major hurricanes, Hurricane Florence (13 September 2018) and Dorian (6 September 2019) impacted the project area and removed -303,732 cy and 164,690 cy of sand (respectively) after subtracting the background erosion (CSE 2020). As of August 2020, the Buxton project area retained-634,925 cubic yards more sand than in May 2017 before the 2017-2018 project. This volume is equivalent to approximately 25 percent of the nourishment volume placed in the initial project. While some of National Seashore's beach remains healthier, the 4,500- ft oceanfront of the Buxton Village has experienced higher erosion since project completion, and the beach has returned to its pre -project condition (Fig 1.8). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 14 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 1 I. �• _ .. A,__ n 4iy FIGURE 1.8. Oblique aerial photos looking north of Buxton Village and Cape Hatteras National Seashore. (A) 23 April 2015, two years before nourishment by Don Bowers (B) 27 November2017 during construction (C) 8 January 2018, two months after construction of this section (D) 10 August 2020, approximately 2.5 years after construction (Images B-D captured via UAV by D. Giles) JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 15 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 1.4.2 Project Planning History In preparing this EA, the applicant referenced extensive literature related to Buxton, National Seashore, and environs. The applicant also used the literature review conducted for the Environmental Assessment. Beach Restoration to Protect NC Highway 12, at Buxton, Dare County, North Carolina (USACE-USDOI-NPS 2015), Final Environmental Impact Statement. Beach Nourishment Project, Town of Nags Head, North Carolina (USACE 2010), and Environmental Assessment. Nags Head Beach Renourishment, Town of Nags Head, North Carolina (USACE 2017). After completion of an EA for the initial Buxton nourishment project (USACE-USDOI-NPS 2015), the NC Department of Transportation completed a Feasibility Study of potential transportation improvements to NC 12 from Avon to Buxton (NCDOT 2015). That report projected that erosion was likely to compromise the highway in the short-term (5 years) as well as the long-term (50 years). The present review included articles, reports, environmental impact statements, and environmental assessments on similar projects along the Outer Banks published between 1943 and 2021. Table 1.1 lists some of the key plans and studies which informed the development of alternatives for the proposed project. Additional background information and references are contained in Appendices A-G of this EA. The proposed renourishment project was initiated in accordance with the County's maintenance and monitoring plan, and in recognition of the likelihood of reimbursement from FEMA for restoration of the sand loss due to hurricanes Florence and Dorian. The previous planned and completed projects are listed in Table 1.1 along with the proposed renourishment project. The following sections provide details of previous projects. TABLE 1.1. Annotated list of plans and studies which informed and contributed to the development of alternatives according to the Applicant. USACE - US Army Corps of Engineers. CRA - Coastal Research Associates (Charlottesville, VA). ECU - East Carolina University (Greenville, NC.) CSE - Coastal Science & Engineering (Columbia, SC). CZR - CZR Incorporated (Wilmington, NC). NCDOT - North Carolina Department of Transportation. Date Title Source Description Report on Operation Five Documents impacts of March 1962 Ash Wednesday storm, 1963 High. App 6-19. Closure of USACE which breached Hatteras north of Buxton village within the Buxton Inlet Proposed Action Area. Buxton Beach 1973 Prepared for NPS, report documents the 1973 beach 1974 Nourishment Project• An CRA nourishment project; -1,300,000 cy pumped from Cape Annotated Photographic Atlas Pointto Buxton Action Area; constructed between April and September. Comprehensive shoreline change data spanning 130 years Report on Shoreline includes ocean and sound shorelines. Documents erosion of ocean shorelines averaging -0.8 meter per year and 1983 Movement• Cape Henry USACE sound shoreline at 0.1 meter per year. Documents 30 inlets (Virginia) to Cape Hatteras opened and closed during the past -400 years (ie - approx. (North Carolina), 1849-1980 7.5 inlets per century) with all but three of them (Oregon, Hatteras,) being short-lived. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 16 Buxton, Dare County (NC) FEIS on Hurricane Protection Recommends nourishment along -14 miles of Bodie Island 2000 and Beach Erosion Control: USACE beaches including 10 miles along Nags Head. Addresses Dare County Beaches (NC) many of the environmental impacts that need to be considered for other nourishment projects in Dare County. Report outlines mandate for preserving and protecting Management Policies - The America's national parks. For national seashores, the 2006 Guide to Managing the NPS management policies discourage interference of natural National Park System barrier -island processes, in response to past modification of parks by development, construction/maintenance of roads, and rebuilding dunes. The Creation and Describes Seashore history, including early beach erosion Establishment of Cape control and dune restoration measures in the 1930s, the 2007 Hatteras National Seashore: NPS disposition of the Cape Hatteras Light Station, and efforts The Great Depression through to improve park access by ferry and road construction. Mission 66 North Carolina's Coasts in Presents a theory that Hatteras Island is evolving toward a 2008 Crisis: A Vision for the Future ECU string of isolated islands separated by numerous tidal inlets, due principally to sea level rise. FEIS for the 4.6 million cy beach nourishment project FEIS: Beach Nourishment completed between May and October 2011 along the Town 2010 Project, Town of Nags Head USACE of Nags Head. The 10-mile4ong project used an offshore (North Carolina) borrow source and was constructed by dredge with environmental protection measures prescribed under the permits. Project locally funded. Provides guidance to better plan and manage beach NPS Beach Nourishment nourishment projects when beach nourishment is Guide: Natural Resource determined to be consistent with NPS management 2012 Technical Report NPS Policies. Under NPS policies allowing intervention in natural geologic processes (pg 3), the Buxton Proposed NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRTR- Action must satisfy requirements for sediment quality, 2012/581 endangered species protection, and preservation of natural barrier -island processes. Inventory of Coastal Provides information on prior coastal engineering projects Engineering Projects in the identified in or immediately adjacent to the Seashore: 48 2013 Cape Hatteras National NPS coastal structures, 17 beach nourishments, 5 dredging Seashore projects, and 2 dune construction projects. Evaluates the feasibility and probable costs of beach Shoreline Erosion Assessment restoration and maintenance for up to ten years in the & Plan for Beach Restoration: Rodanthe and Buxton areas on Hatteras Island. It serves as 2013 Rodanthe & Buxton Areas, CSE a primary reference for the Proposed Action and provides Dare County, North Carolina the preliminary technical basis for the Applicant's proposed plan. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 17 Buxton, Dare County (NC) In accordance with the benthic monitoring plan of NCDENR/NCDCM Permit 45-10, presents results of (1) pre - Nags Head 2011 Beach and post -nourishment biological sampling, (2) method- 2014 Nourishment Project• Post- CZR- logy and results from 4 seasonal pre -nourishment benthic Year 2 and Final Report CSE sampling events and 8 seasonal post -nourishment benthic sampling events. Compares results of species abundance and diversity in the Action Area and adjacent unnourished areas. Presents beach -condition survey results covering three years of physical monitoring following construction of the 2011 beach nourishment project. Provides break -downs of Monitoring and Analysis of the nourishment volumes remaining within four segments of 2014 2011 Nags Head Beach CSE the beach and six cross -shore zones. Data document the Nourishment Project longshore and cross -shore adjustment of the nourishment and its response to storm events, including Hurricane Irene (27 August 2011) during construction and Hurricane Sandy (27 October 2012). Environmental Assessment with detailed appendices prepared in connection with the 2018 Buxton Beach Restoration Project in accordance with the National USACE Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The NPS-required 2015 Environmental Assessment USDO1 format followed in close coordination with USACE NPS requirements. Detailed alternatives considered and the Preferred Alternative — Nourishment with Summer Construction for a 2.6 million cy restoration of-15,500 if of NPS Seashore and Buxton Village shoreline to protect NC 12. Environmental Assessment prepared in connection with the 2019 Nags Head Renourishment Project - 10.0 miles at 2017 Environmental Assessment USACE 4.0 million cy. The plan references post -Hurricane Matthew sand replacement (under FEMA community assistance grant) and planned renourishment by the Town of Nags Head with Dare County (no state funding). Feasibility of "5-year" and "50-year" transportation improvements to NC 12 between Avon and Buxton. The 2018 Feasibility Study NCDOT alternatives considered included beach nourishment, dune enhancement, road realignment with, and without bridges, and combinations of road realignment and nourishment. Presents a summary of the planning, permitting, and construction of the 2019 Nags Head renourishment project which placed 4.0 million cy along 10.0 miles of oceanfront via hopper dredges between 1 May and 18 August 2019 with 2019 Final Report CSE one turtle incident onboard the hopper dredge despite all established operational protocols and trawling ahead of the dredge followed. Eight (8) successful turtle nests were laid within the project limits during construction which exceeds the pre -nourishment through 2010 average of -1.8 nests per year along Nags Head. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 18 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Summarizes volume changes and beach condition 2019 Beach Monitoring Report CSE following the 2017-2018 Buxton nourishment project and Buxton -Post Dorian aftermath of Hurricane Dorian. 2019 Shorebird Monitoring and Annual report summarizing bird monitoring and protection Management at Cape Hatteras NPS in the project vicinity. Provides analysis of sand losses along the Buxton project 2020 FEMA Documentation area due to Hurricane Florence (September 2018) and Buxton Nourishment Project CSE (September 2019). Basis for FEMA beach restoration authorization. Review of past and potential future beach nourishment Programmatic EIS for Beach activities within the National Seashore and detailed 2021 Nourishment at Cape Hatteras NPS requirements for implementation and environmental National Seashore protection. Record of Decision (ROD) issued as a companion document in May. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 19 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 1.4.2.1 2017-2018 Beach Nourishment Beach restoration at Buxton was completed on 27 February 2018 after over 8 months of construction. Approximately 2.6 million cubic yards (cy) of beach -quality sand was dredged from an offshore borrow area and placed along the -2.9-mile oceanfront of Buxton and the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. It is the largest beach nourishment project ever completed near Cape Hatteras, and the primary purpose of the project is to protect NC Highway 12. Summer dredging was permitted for this particular project because of inclement wave conditions in the winter months. The Contractor (Weeks Marine) elected to use a cutterhead dredge (CR McCaskill) to start the nourishment on 21 June 2017. Production of construction lagged due primarily to rough sea conditions that frequently curtailed operations and led to mechanical breakdowns. As of 22 August 2017, -1.1 million cy of sand (-42 percent of the total contract volume) was placed on the beach by the cutterhead dredge. In September 2017, four named hurricanes (Irma, Jose, Katia, and Maria) impacted the project area and wave heights were significantly higher than the required safe operating conditions for a cutterhead dredge. Construction had to cease for over 50 days until 11 Oct when the Contractor started to use a hopper dredge (RN Weeks). Despite the intermittent work schedule, construction moved forward. As of 22 December 2017, nourishment in front of the narrow isthmus of NC Highway 12 was completed, and the highly vulnerable section of the road was protected. Weeks Marine's newly constructed hopper dredge, Magdalen, passed the sea trials and obtained the operation certificatejust in time in January 2018 when the project was -80 percent completed. With twice the capacity of RN Weeks, the Magdalen finished the last -0.5 million cy of work and delivered her last load at 1:30 pm on 27 February 2018, almost 5 months later than the Contractor's original estimate. Despite all the delays, the project was completed without any sea -turtle takes or any other environmental incidents and was credited with preventing road closures during construction. Collaborations among the Owner (Dare County), regulatory agencies (USACE, NPS, and NCDEQ), and the Contractor remained excellent during the course of construction. The nourished beach withstood a series of nor'easters in March 2018 without interruption to traffic along NC Highway 12 or any damage to Buxton oceanfront properties. It continues to provide benefits in the form of a wider beach along the undeveloped NPS shoreline north of Buxton Village. 1.5 Permit Authority Federal regulations require the USACE and NPS to involve the interested and affected public in a review and comment process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). During preparation of this EA and supporting appendices, many agencies were contacted for information as documented in each report. These included NCDEQ-Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM), Division JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 20 Buxton, Dare County (NC) of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF), Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-NMFS), and USACE-Wilmington (Planning Section). There are no ethnographic or Indian Trust resources in the project area, so no tribal consultations were required. The proposed borrow areas are located within the 3-nautical-mile state waters limit; therefore, no consul- tations with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) were required. Table 1.2 provides federal and state laws, regulations, and policies relevant to this EA. Table 1.2. US laws and regulations covering the coastal zone (presented in order of year passed) Name Administered by Purpose 1968 National • To reduce the loss of life and damage caused by flooding Flood Insurance • To help victims recover from floods Program (NFIP) Federal Emergency • To promote an equitable distribution of costs among those who are protected by flood insurance and the general public (Created under Management Agency the National (FEMA) (NFIP Coastal Regulations-1968 to Present. (2011). NC Cooperating Flood Insurance Tech. State. Act) www.ncf[oodmaps.com/pubdocs/fact sheets/coastal regs.pdf. Accessed 22 February 2021). 1969 National Council on Prescribes requirements of federal agencies for reviews of proposed Environmental Environmental actions involving work in federal lands or where there is a federal Policy Act Quality ( CE Q) interest. (NEPA) Environmental Establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants 1972 Clean Protection Agency into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards Water Act (CWA) (EPA) for surface waters. Enacted in 1948 as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the CWA was reorganized and expanded in 1972. • To manage the nation's coastal resources, including the Great Lakes • To balance economic development with environmental Office of Ocean & conservation 1972 Coastal Resource • To preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore/ Coastal Zone Management (OCRM) enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone Management Act / National Oceanic (CZMA) and Atmospheric The CZMA also established: Administration NOAA . National Coastal Zone Management Program to balance competing land and water issues in the coastal zone, and • National Estuarine Research Reserve System to identify field laboratories for research to arrive at a greater understanding of estuaries and how humans impact them JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 21 Buxton, Dare County (NC) (NFIP Coastal Regulations-1968 to Present (2011). NC Cooperating Tech. State. www.ncf[oodmaps.com/pubdocs/fact sheets/coastal regs.pdf. Accessed 22 February 2021) • To protect whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions by establishing a national policy: e To prevent marine mammal species and population stocks from National Marine declining to the degree they are no longer a significant part of Fisheries Service their ecosystem. (NMFS)/ • To manage populations to maintain the health and stability of the 1972 Marine marine ecosystem. Mammal National Oceanic and . To set requirements for animal population management that Protection Act Atmospheric places the benefit of the animal before commercial exploitation. (MMPA) Administration . To prohibit the taking (harassment, injury, killing) of marine / US mammals unless exempted or specifically permitted or Commerce Comm authorized as described in Section 101(a) (5) (A) and (D). Department . To require ESA Sect. 7 consultation for the issuance of incidental take authorizations under the MMPA. (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/.; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws- policies#marine-mammal-protection-act. Accessed 22 February 2021) US Fish and Wildlife . To designate/ conserve species that are endangered or threatened Service (USFWS) / US throughout all or a significant part of their range Department of the . To conserve the ecosystems on which they depend 1973 Endangered Interior / National . To replace the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 Species Act (ESA) Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) / US Endangered Species Act (ESA). No pub date. NOAA Fisheries. Commerce https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies#endangered- species -act. Accessed 22 February 2021) Department • To designate relatively undeveloped coastal barrier areas along the Atlantic and Gulf Coast as part of the John H. Chafee CBRS • To outline how to identify, map, and maintain CBRS areas • To minimize the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues, and damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources Coastal To restrict future federal expenditures and financial assistance Barrier Barr USFWS / US which have the effect of encouraging development in these Resources Act Department of the sensitive areas. (CBRA) Interior (NFIP Coastal Regulations-1968 to Present. [2010] NC Cooperating Tech. State. www.ncf[oodmaps.com/pubdocs/fact sheets/coastal regs.pdf. Accessed 22 February 2021) JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 22 Buxton, Dare County (NC) NC Laws and Regulations for Activities in the Coastal Zone (Table 1.3 continued) Name Administering Agency Purpose • To add new areas to the CBRS in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Great Lakes • To expand the existing CBRS along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts 1990 Coastal Barrier • To designate a new category called otherwise protected areas Improvement Act USFWS / US (OPAs), areas established under federal, state, or local law, or (CBIA) Department of the held by a qualified organization, primarily for wildlife refuge, Interior sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource conservation (Reauthorized the purposes CBRA) (NFIP Coastal Regulations-1968 to Present. (2010). NC Cooperating Tech. State. www.ncf[oodmaps.com/pubdocs/fact sheets/coastal regs.pdf. Accessed 22 February 2021). • To establish a cooperative program of coastal area management between the state of North Carolina and local governments o The state establishes Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's), such as wetlands, estuarine waters, renewable NC Division of Coastal resource areas, fragile or historic areas, waterways to Management which the public may have rights of access, natural (NCDCM) hazard areas, and Primary Nursery Areas Coastal Area o Local government takes initiative for planning. State Management Act government shall act primarily in a supportive standard- (CAMA) (1974) setting and review capacity, except where local Department of governments do not exercise their initiative En Environment & Natural Resources • To apply to all 20 coastal counties and all municipalities located (NCDENR) within them • To develop a program of permit review and coordination within areas of environmental concern (NFIP Coastal Regulations -1968 to Present. (2010). NC Cooperating Technical State. www.ncf[oodmaps.com/pubdocs/fact sheets/coastal regs.pdf. Accessed 22 February 2021). Specific coastal management provisions under CAMA are: NC Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 7H.1500. A general permit allowing excavation within existing canals, channels, basins, and ditches in Dredge and Fill NCDCM / NCDEQ estuarine/ public trust waters to maintain previous water depths. Regulations NC Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 7K.0401. Exempting the USACE from permit requirements regarding maintenance of federal navigation JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 23 Buxton, Dare County (NC) channels, including dredging and disposal of dredged materials in Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs). NC Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 7M.1100. Under General Policy Guide- lines (Coastal Area): Providing that excavation/ maintenance material from navigation channels be used in a beneficial way. NC Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 7M.0202. Under General Policy Guide - Dune Creation/ lines (Coastal Area): Allowing dune creation as a temporary Restoration NCDCM / NCDEQ measure to counteract erosion, but only to the extent necessary to Regulations protect property for a short period of time until threatened structures may be relocated or until the effects of short-term erosion event are reversed. NC Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 7H.0106, 7H.0208. Submerged lands Near Shore Sand NC Division of Marine mining rules for estuarine and public trust waters. Mining Fisheries (NCDMF) Regulations NC Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 7M.1201-1202. General Policy Guidelines NCDEQ (Coastal Area): Ocean Mining Policies for federal and state waters (applicable for federal consistency). NC Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 7M.0201-0202. Shoreline Erosion Policies. The following are required with state involvement (funding or sponsorship) in beach restoration or sand nourishment Public Access projects: (a) the entire restored portion of the beach shall be in Regulations NCDCM NCDEQ permanent public ownership, and (b) it shall be a local government responsibility to provide adequate parking, public access, and services for public recreational use of the restored beach.* *Exception: The National Park Service manages parking and public access within the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Sand Scraping/ NC Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 7H.1800. N.C. A General permit allowing Dune Reshaping NCDCM NCDEQ beach bulldozing needed to reconstruct or repair frontal and/or Regulations primary dune systems. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 24 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 2.0 SCOPE OF REVIEW FOR NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) 2.1 Determination of Scope of Analysis for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Scoping is an early and open process to determine the breadth of environmental issues and alternatives to be addressed in a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document. Scoping is used to identify which issues need to be analyzed in detail and which can be eliminated from in-depth analysis. For this project, the Dare County Board of Commissioners, the County's engineering consultant (CSE), and state and federal natural resource agencies used scoping to: 1) Address the purpose, goals, and impacts of the proposed activity 2) Affirm assignments between the County, engineering consultant, USACE and NPS officials, and other participating agencies 3) Identify related projects and associated documents 4) Identify permits, surveys, consultation, and other requirements, and 5) Create a schedule that allows adequate time to prepare and distribute the EA for public review and comment before a final decision is made. In considering the proposed renourishment project, the applicant and its consultants used their extensive knowledge of the project area based on experience with similar projects in the Outer Banks since 2004 and successful completion of the 2017-2018 Buxton nourishment project. The proposed project draws on field surveys and monitoring efforts, the Environmental Assessment (USACE-USDOI-NPS 2015), and monitoring efforts following the 2017-2018 project (CSE 2018, CSE 2019a, CSE 2020). This review was conducted to assess prior work, evaluate beach health indicators, and monitor the stability of the beach, including after tropical storms and hurricanes. The proposed project is a combination of the County's scheduled maintenance project and FEMA's beach restoration project to replenish the sand loss due to chronic erosion and hurricanes. It intends to widen the oceanfront beach and continue to provide an erosion buffer to reduce chronic damage to Highway 12 as well as federal, state, and county infrastructure. The proposed project will fall under the guidelines included in NPS's issuance of a programmatic EIS (NPS 2021a) for sediment management activities along Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CHNS), which was reviewed under public notice and a Record of Decision issued in May 2021 (NPS 2021b). The proposed projectwill be implemented using the same construction method (ie - offshore dredging) during the same construction window (ie - summer months). It will involve the excavation of beach quality sand from an offshore borrow area near Buxton Village via hydraulic or hopper dredge see Fig 1.2). Borrow sediment will be pumped to the beach and spread by land -based equipment (eg - bulldozers) in the beach zone between the dune crest or upper dry sand beach, and the low water mark. The elevation of the nourishment berm will be set at or below the normal dry beach level so that it is naturally overtopped by waves during minor storms. The nourishment profile will adjust rapidly to prevailing wave conditions, resulting in a gradual shift of sand into deeper water as the profile JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 25 Buxton, Dare County (NC) equilibrates. Backshore areas are expected to be enhanced gradually after construction by natural sand delivery from the widened beach. The project length will be the same as the 2017-2018 project extending 15,500 linear feet (-2.9 miles) from near Mile Post (MP) #59 to -4,000 feet south of MP #62 (see Fig 1.2). The northern-11,000 linear feet (-2.1 miles) of the projectwill be located within CHNS, and the rest of the project area (-4,500 linear feet) will be located within CHNS, in front of the Village of Buxton. Maximum nourishment volume will be 1.2 million cubic yards, and the maximum average fill density (volume of nourishment per linear foot of beach) will be -77 cy/ft, which is equivalent to an average beach width increase of-60 ft after natural profile adjustment. The anticipated maximum impact area through the fill for a 2.9-mile-long project is -142 acres. However, construction will move along the beach so that different smaller portions (eg -300 linearfeet of beach, or<-4 acres) of the -142 acre impacted area will be affected at differenttimes. The proposed project is expected to create -4.5 acres of new dune habitat, and -18 acres of new dry beach habitat. The environmental impactzone of the project encompasses -818 acres, consideringthe extra area in the outer littoral zone that may ultimately experience onshore -offshore sand exchange after completion of construction. The maximum scale is expected to provide approximately three years of erosion relief, dune growth, and NC Highway 12 protection under normal conditions. The final project volume will be determined according to state and federal permit conditions, the County's available construction funds, and the bids submitted by contractors. The proposed borrow area for the renourishment project is adjacent to the 2017-2018 borrow area and within the sand search area delineated in Figure 1.2. Sediment quality is similar to the existing beach in terms of grain size distribution and color (see Figures 1.5-1.7 and Appendix A). The applicant has obtained 10 borings to 10 ft below the substrate and additional shallower borings to confirm that sediment quality exceeds North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) standards. Additional cultural resource and geophysical surveys were conducted to insure no impacts on culturally significant sites, hard bottom, or other protected resources. The anticipated borrow area will be approximately -200 acres with excavation depths -10 ft below the existing substrate. The proposed borrow area is within an unnamed shoal complex having considerable natural relief. Excavations are not expected to leave deep holes relative to the surrounding topography. The proposed projectwill require summerdredging because of safety issues, includingthe lack of a nearbysafe harbor for ocean dredges and offshore crew members. Construction duration is expected to be a maximum of -3 months if work is permitted between 1 May and 30 September. Construction will be bid to allow work in either the summer of 2022 or the summer of 2023. The preferred start date for construction is May 2022, but the final schedule is dependent upon dredging companies' workloads which normally have substantial lead times and tend to reflect on the bid prices. For example, the initial 2017-2018 Buxton nourishment project was bid for work in either the summer of 2016 or the summer of 2017. The lowest bid for the 2016 schedule was -$12 million higher than the lowest bid for the 2017 schedule, therefore, the County elected to enter into an agreement with the contractor for construction starting in the summer of 2017. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 26 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 2.2 Determination of the "Project Area" for Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 1531 et. Seq.) mandates that all federal agencies consider the potential impacts of an action on federal lands on the species listed as threatened or endangered. The Proposed Action would impact the beach and inshore zone where certain threatened and endangered species may be present during part of their life cycles. Because of the potential adverse impacts if construction occurs when certain species are present, the Applicant has identified and evaluated biological resources at risk under a Biological Assessment (BA) (Appendix E of this EA). Formal consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is required for projects of this type. The Biological Assessment(Appendix E) is required to assistfederal resource agencies in evaluatingthe impacts of the project and to enable a biological opinion (BO) regarding whether the project would or would not jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species. The BO is a prerequisite for a decision by the US Army Corps of Engineers to issue a permit for construction. Biological resources addressed in the BA and present Environmental Assessment include terrestrial, intertidal and subtidal species, alongwith identification and special attention tothreatened and endangered species, particularly nesting shorebirds and sea turtles. The BA addresses the habitats on which biological resources of the Action Area depend. This EA is presenting the No -Action alternative and two action alternatives for consideration for the proposed project. The two action alternatives are for beach restoration along the Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Seashore) and the village of Buxton. The action alternatives were designed to augment the natural supply of sand along the ocean beach and reduce the frequency of dune breaches and storm damages to NC 12 and community infrastructure. The Environmental Assessment examines three alternatives: • Alternative 1-No-Action • Alternative 2-Winter Construction • Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) -Summer Construction Additional alternatives were considered during the early stages of planning, but were dismissed from further analysis in the 2017-2018 project planning (USACE-DOI-NPS 2015). Portions of the 2017-2018 project were built efficiently by direct pumping from the borrow area (see Fig 1.2) using a traditional suction-cutterhead dredge and submerged pipeline. Such dredges are less likely to entrain endangered species (USACE 2010). However, given the inclement sea conditions during construction, the 2017-2018 nourishment also required hopper dredges for extended periods to complete work in the fall and winter. Non -capture sea -turtle trawling was required for hopper dredge operations, and the 2017-2018 project was completed without any sea -turtle takes with up to two hopper dredges used by the contractor (Weeks Marine). Hopper dredges have taken sea turtles while operating, including numerous takes at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay (NMFS 2003, USFWS 2007a, USACE 2008). The nature of channel dredging at confined entrances and the unavoidable concentration of sea turtles at the mouth of estuaries increase the chance JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 27 Buxton, Dare County (NC) of dredge and turtle encounters. Turtle concentrations tend to be lower in open -ocean and offshore borrow areas, such as the proposed sand source for Buxton. The 2011 Nags Head nourishment project involved hopper dredge operations between May and October, but was conducted without any turtle mortalities by the dredges. The 2019 Nags Head renourishment project used two hopper dredges between May and August 2019, and one turtle was taken on 10 August (CSE 2019b). Therefore, the threat to sea turtles of projects like the proposed activity is recognized by the applicant. The applicant prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) (Appendix E) in connection with the proposed project and anticipates a request by the USACE to USFWS and NMFS for formal Section 7 consultation when the USACE permit application is placed on public notice. Officials at USFWS and NMFS have been involved in pre -application meetings and have had opportunities to provide input prior to completion of the BA and EA. As applies to Section 7 of the ESA, the scope of the proposed project area is demarcated by the alongshore project boundaries and the designated offshore borrow area as shown in Figure 1.2. This 3-mile beach includes -2.2 miles in the undeveloped Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Seashore) and -0.8 mile along the Seashore, in front of the village of Buxton (Fig 1.2). The design beach width throughout the planned nourishment area would range between -40 ft and 125 ft after normal profile adjustment. The north and south ends of the project would taper gradually back to the existing shoreline over a minimum distance of500 ft. Sand would be placed in a normal configuration, which closely matches the grades and slopes of the native, dry -sand beach between the toe of the foredune and mean high-water line. Designated, endangered, threatened, and species of concern with the potential to occur within the proposed project area are the roseate tern (E-endangered), red knot (T-threatened), piping plover (T), American peregrine falcon (E), gull -billed tern (T), Caspian tern (T), common tern (E), eastern black rail (T), and bald eagle (T). Fish species of concern include Atlantic sturgeon (E), shortnose sturgeon (E), and giant manta ray (T). Several species of sea turtles are afforded special protection, including the green (T), hawksbill (E), Kemp's ridley (E), leatherback (E), and loggerhead (T). Also, various species of whales and mammals may migrate through or close to the area, including blue whale (E), finback (E), humpback (E), North Atlantic right (E), sei (E), and sperm whale (E), and the West Indian manatee (T). Habitat exists for the seabeach amaranth (T) and seabeach knotweed (E), although there have been no instances of their occurrence documented (USACE-USDOI-NPS 2015). A state -protected species, diamondback terrapin (SC - state listed species of concern), has also been found in the project vicinity. The applicant recognizes that dredge location or operations may pose an obstacle to the nesting, feeding, or migratory movements of these species, but it is far less likely to affect the sturgeon and the whales than the loggerhead sea turtle. Protections for the loggerhead and various other species are discussed elsewhere in this EA and in Appendix E (Biological Assessment). Section 7 of the ESA would also apply to the proposed project's water acreage and ocean bottom within the boundaries of the borrow areas and to the dredges' nautical locations offshore of Buxton beach. The JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 28 Buxton, Dare County (NC) dredge would relocate according to the project construction plan and if dredgingo perations were to affect an endangered species. The borrow area is located off Buxton (1.5-2.5 miles offshore) within the 3- nautical-mile limit, and therefore does not fall within federal waters. 2.3 Determination of Permit Area for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) The scope of the permit area for Section 106 of the NHPA is demarcated by the project boundaries and the designated offshore borrow areas described in Section 2.2. As a condition of any federal and state permits for the proposed project, the applicant, through the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), must consult with North Carolina's State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding potential cultural resources that may be present or impacted in the general vicinity of the project under Section 106 of the NHPA. Cultural resources encompass archaeological and historic objects which may exist within the project area, including the offshore borrow areas where dredging operations occur. The applicant has consulted with SHPO regarding the proposed project in the onshore construction area and the offshore borrow area for the 2017-2018 nourishment project. The applicant contracted for a cultural resources survey of the proposed borrow areas and an inventory of historical buildings and shipwrecks that may be present in the proposed project area (Appendix G-Cultural Resources Survey). Per state requirements for borrow area confirmation (15A NCAC 07H.0312 Technical Standards for Beach Fill Projects), the survey included magnetometer, shallow seismic and sidescan-sonar geophysical data collection, and identification of any targets which may represent debris, fishing gear, undersea cables, or shipwreck remains. Field investigation identified one magnetic anomaly inside the proposed borrow area and two within the 200-ft perimeter of the borrow area. All three anomalies represent very small ferrous objects. None appear to represent a potentially significant submerged cultural resource, and therefore, no avoidance was recommended. Analysis of the acoustic data identified no evidence of sonar targets in the borrow area or its immediate vicinity. Consequently, no potentially significant submerged cultural resources will be impacted by dredging in the proposed borrow area or its adjacent 200-ft buffer. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 29 Buxton, Dare County (NC) — THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK — JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 30 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 3.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 3.1 Purpose and Need for the Project The purpose of the proposed project is to restore sand losses due to chronic erosion and to replenish the additional volume loss due to hurricanes Florence (September 2018) and Dorian (September 2019) in accordance with the County's Beach Maintenance and Monitoring Plan (CSE 2018a) as stated in Section 1.3. The proposed project goals are to: • Provide a wider beach and buffer storm waves along a critically eroding section of Hatteras Island • Reduce the frequency of storm damages to North Carolina Highway 12 (NC 12) and existing community infrastructure • Replace erosion losses and augment the regional supply of beach sand by using a non -littoral borrow source of compatible sediments from an offshore borrow area • Provide a higher level of storm protection • Provide a wider recreational beach and create more habitat for wildlife • Integrate a dune management plan into the renourishment design • Maintain Dare County's eligibility for future FEMA community assistance funds Completion of the proposed project will serve as an important step toward the County's implementation of a long-term strategy for beach maintenance and protection of Highway NC 12 in the Buxton area. Under federal and state requirements, Dare County has submitted a permit application to the USACE and NIPS for the proposed project to renourish the Buxton project area. The proposed project will fall under the guidelines included in NPS's issuance of a programmatic EIS (NPS 2021a) for sediment management activities along the Seashore, which was finalized by ROD in May 2021(NPS 2021b). Before the USACE can issue a permit allowing beach nourishment, it must consider and assess the potential impacts of the action on the natural and human environments pursuant to the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The USACE permitwould be issued in coordination with USFWS and NMFS to determine whether the proposed project meets the standards and requirements for issuance of a major permit for construction activities in critical areas and in the coastal zone (eg - Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). State action and a permit for construction in state waters are required under the NC Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), which is a prerequisite for the federal permits. After hurricanes Florence (September 2018) and Dorian (September 2019) occurred, the storm impacts were determined by FEMA to be extensive and to qualify for federal assistance under Category G community assistance grants following a federal disaster declaration. Hurricanes Florence and Dorian produced high water levels (storm surge), increased wave energy, and generated hurricane -force winds as they passed off the coast of the Outer Banks. The storm caused significant damage to the beachfront with severe erosion and the formation of extensive escarpments on the frontal dune and nourishment berm. Figure 3.1 illustrates the topography and bathymetry of the Buxton project area from the most recent survey in August 2020. High tides driving minor storms once again produce runup and damaging wave action along Buxton Village and NC 12 (Figure 3.2). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 31 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 1740+00 Feet NAVD Cape Hatteras 30 ft 12 National Seashore 1760+0Q raft Pamlico Sound STA 1770+50 1780+00 1 n 1800+00 1820+oo w .E J 1840+00 — -_�J it IL c O N 1860+00 ` O c -40 ft — 1880+QQ o Atlantic Ocean Buxton a 12 N0 ft 9900+QO Proposed 19zQ+QQ Borrow Area STA 1925+50 t �a+oo Cap • Hatteras Light Cape Hatteras National Seashore l t96p+oo 0 2,000 N\, Scale (Feet) FIGURE 3.1. Digital terrain model (DTM) showing topography and bathymetry in the project area in August 2020. Highway NC 12 is most vulnerable to breaching in the area around stations 1840 to 1880 where bounding wetlands on its west side preclude road realignment without major impact to critical salt marsh habitat. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 32 Buxton, Dare County (NC) FIGURE 3.2a. Ground and aerial images taken 15 April 2021- looking south. The Village of Buxton north limit is located approximately at the end of the northernmost building showing near the bottom of the photo. Three years after the initial 2017-2018 beach restoration project, almost all nourishment sand was lost to areas outside of the project limits beyond the depth of closure or downcoast. There was little dry -sand beach in front of the oceanfront, and sandbags were installed as a temporary shoreline protection measure. NC Highway 12 was once again vulnerable to flooding and breaching. "max FIGURE 3.2b. Ground and aerial images taken 15 April 2021 - from the Village of Buxton looking northwest and upcoast along the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 33 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 3.2 Volume Changes After the 2017-2018 Project Pursuant to Dare County's request, CSE conducted a comprehensive beach condition survey from 22-24 October 2018 after the passage of Hurricane Florence to determine the sand volume within the calculated limits between the foredune and the depth of closure at -24 ft NAVD (CSE 2018b). These calculation limits have been adopted for purposes of designing and tracking project performance in the Environmental Assessment by the USACE and the NPS (USACE-DOI-NPS 2015). CSE used the volumes from June 2018 (ie - Year 1 post -project beach condition survey) as the baseline condition and subtracted them from the results of the October survey (post -Florence). This yields the change in volume compared to conditions prior to the hurricane season. To isolate incident -related damage, these losses were adjusted for background erosion that was predicted to occur duringthe time period between the pre -storm (June 2018) and post -storm (October 2018) surveys. The annual background erosion was estimated to be 114,500 cy per year (cy/yr) (USACE-USDOI-NPS 2015). This is equal to 9,542 cy per month. During the four -month period between the pre- and post -storm surveys, background erosion was estimated to be 38,168 cy. Therefore, the net sand volume loss due to Hurricane Florence is 303,732 cy along the 15,500-foot project area between the foredune and the FEMA depth limit. At Dare County's request, CSE conducted a comprehensive beach condition survey from 24-27 November 2019 after the passage of Hurricane Dorian to determine the sand volume within the calculation limits between the foredune and the depth of closure at -24 ft NAVD (CSE 2019a). These calculation limits are consistent with the ones used in the volume loss estimates after Hurricane Florence. CSE used the volumes from June 2019 (ie -Year 2 post -project beach condition survey) as the baseline condition and subtracted them from the results of the November survey (post -Dorian). This yields the change in volume between these two surveys, and background erosion between June and November was subtracted from the volume change in orderto isolate incident -related damages due to Hurricane Dorian. During the five -month period between the pre- and post -storm surveys, background erosion was estimated to be 47,710 cy. Therefore, the net sand volume loss due to Hurricane Dorian is 164,690 cy along the 15,500-foot project area between the foredune and the FEMA depth limit. These losses caused by hurricanes Florence and Dorian represent -18 percent of the total nourishment volume placed in 2017-2018. Therefore, an additional basic purpose of the proposed project is to aid the recovery of the beach after Florence and Dorian. Figure 3.3 shows the volume changes by reach along the Buxton project area between June 2018 Year 1 (pre -Florence) and Year 3 August 2020 relative to the original nourishment volume. 3.3 Basic Project Purpose The proposed activity is a renourishment project in which an ocean -certified dredge will be extracting sediment from borrow sites offshore of Buxton beach within the 3-nautical-mile limit in the Atlantic Ocean. The sediment to nourish the beach would be pumped onshore and placed along a -2.9-mile stretch of beach. It would then be shaped by land -based equipment to the grades and slopes that are typical for a beach in that setting. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 34 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Volume Changes by Reach from Foredune to -24 FT NAVD (Relative to Pre -Nourishment Condition of May 2017) ■ 2017-2018 Nourishment 2,500,000 1 Year 1 Pre -Florence (June 2018) Year 1 Post -Florence (October 2018) ■ Year 2 Pre -Dorian (June 2019) 2,000,000 ■ Year 2 Post -Dorian (November 2019) ■ Year 3 (August 2020) 1,500,000 0 0 � o o 0 0 1,000,000 w 0 Ln CD On ON Ln 500,000 O O 0 .0 0 o Ql n`O m 0 00 Ln Ln O l0 I Ln �r r c-i nj N O O� ■ ■JL_ N ma R1 (Buxton) R2 (National Seashore) Total (4,500 ft) (11,000 ft) (15,500 ft) 1400 1200 a .� 1000 a� E 0 4- 800 600 Unit Volumes Comparisons Along the Entire Project Area (From Foredune to -24 ft NAVD) Reach 2 - National Seashore —Pre-Project (May 2017) —Year 1 Pre -Florence (June 2018) —Year 1 Post -Florence (October 2018) Year 2 Pre -Dorian (June 2019) Year 2 Post -Dorian (November 2019) —Year 3 (August 2020) Reach 1- Buxton 400 ' 1770+00 1790+00 1810+00 1830+00 1850+00 1870+00 1890+00 1910+00 1930+00 North Station south FIGURE 3.3. [UPPER] Beach volume changes between June 2018 (pre -Florence) and August 2020 relative to the beach condition before the 2017-2018 project in May 2017 along Buxton's engineered beach (NC) from the face of the dune to the depth of closure at -24 ft NAVD. [LOWER] Variations in beach volume by station along Buxton's engineered beach (NC) relative to the May 2017 pre -project condition. These results show that despite large volume losses of the 2017-2018 nourishment project, approximately two-thirds of the stations retain more sand (thick black line) than the pre -nourishment condition (thick red line). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 35 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 3.4 Water Dependency Determination This determination is to be made in all instances where the proposed activity includes a discharge into a special aquatic site. Special aquatic sites (as defined in 40 CFR 230.40- 230.45) are (1) sanctuaries and refuges; (2) wetlands; (3) mud flats; (4) vegetated shallows; (5) coral reefs; and (6) riffle and pool complexes (USEPA 1972). The proposed project is not located near special aquatic sites as defined above, nor is it pumping directly into a special aquatic site. Although the proposed project will involve activities in oceanic waters, it does not require access or proximity to or sitting within a special aquatic site to fulfill its basic purpose. Therefore, it is not considered as water -dependent based on the above definition. 3.5 Overall Project Purpose The County of Dare recognizes that the 2.9-mile project area is a major environmental and economic asset for the Outer Banks and Dare County as well as NPS. The proposed project is part of the maintenance of the initial 2017-2018 nourishment and is also consistent with the long-range goals of the Countyto protect NC Highway 12 and protect the natural environment of the beach. The renourishment plan will place a maximum of 1.2 million cubic yards on the beach in the same area previously nourished (see Figure 1.2). Land -based equipment will move the sand to shape a "stable" beach* (see Figure 1.3) contour that would widen and expand the acreage of the beach. As part of the renourishment design, sand would be moved to build up the dunes along the Village of Buxton, making improvements to the dune system that would enable the beach to better withstand storms and protect property (see Figure 1.3). *[Astable beach is herein defined as a beach with sufficient width and sand volume to withstand normal yearly fluctuations in its profile without damage to the foredune. Beaches with insufficient sand volume in their profile have a deficit, which con be approximated by comparing nearby stable beaches with eroded beaches as discussed in Appendix D (Littoral Processes).] The applicant sees the goal of maintenance nourishment as essential in the context of a long-term beach monogementplon, because the Buxton beach provides habitat to a variety of coastal species and benefits the property owners and visitors who vacation there. The County is part of a lively commercial district, which supports seasonal and year-round tourism, and is an important tax base for the region. In addition, it is desirable for the County to support the regular restoration of Buxton beach to protect NC Highway 12 and maintain the stability of the beach and improve storm protection for property and infrastructure. By implementingthe plan, the County is seeking to provide long-term protection of real estate values and the County's tax base. The overall purpose of the renourishment project is to maintain the beach at Buxton at the same or better levels of stability and to protect its benefits as an important recreational, environmental, and economic asset in the state and region. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 36 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 4.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Federal regulations require the USACE to involve the interested and affected public in a review and comment process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). For the original project EA (USACE-USDOI-NPS 2015) and the present EA, this was accomplished as outlined below. A number of federal and state agencies were consulted and solicited for input into the scoping and alternatives development process. This section documents the prior and present scoping process for the proposed project and identifies future compliance needs and permits. 4.1 Results of Coordinating on Public Notice While planning the initial 2017-2018 nourishment project, Dare County convened public forums in Manteo (county seat) and Buxton on 18-19 August 2014, and the park service convened public forums at the same localities on 27-28 January 2015. Public comments were solicited during a public scoping period between 12 January and 27 February 2015. These were invited under formal NPS public scoping in response to a Notice of Intent (NO1) published in the Federal Register on 29 December 2014, pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) notified the public of a request from Dare County, North Carolina for a Special Use Permit from the National Park Service for activities related to beach widening in the Buxton area within and adjacent to Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The public comment period extended to 27 February 2015, and written comments were collected through the Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/caha). Following receipt of public comments in response to the Notice of Intent, the National Park Service met with the US Army Corps of Engineers officials and determined that the Proposed Action should be evaluated under onejoint Environmental Assessment (EA) by the USACE and the National Park Service. Accordingly, the National Park Service issued a Public Notice of Termination (dated 17 June 2015) of the EIS and its intent to prepare the initial EA (FR Vol 80, No 116, pg 34691). Over 260 comments on the Proposed Action were received. The majority of comments were concerns about not implementing the project soon enough because of the situation's urgency. The public was alerted to watch for updates and information on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore website, at local media outlets, and on the PEPC website. This process was concluded successfully, and the original project EA was published and submitted with permit applications on 15 September 2015 (USACE-USDOI-NPS 2015). The original project was placed on public notice underjoint applications to the US Army Corps of Engineers (#SAW-2015-01612), state of North Carolina (#CAMA 136-15), and National Park Service for a Special Use Permit (#GOV-16-5700-014). All permits for the initial Buxton nourishment were received between late December 2015 and March 2016. Project implementation occurred between June 2017 and February 2018. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 37 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Following the Buxton nourishment project, the NPS initiated the draft EIS Regional Sediment Management Framework for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in the summer of 2019. The document anticipates the scale and scope of potential beach nourishment and dune restoration projects that are likely to occur along the National Seashore during the next twenty years. It specifically references projects at Buxton and Avon among other sites and considers the frequency and cumulative impacts of such projects on the natural resources within Park boundaries. The draft EIS was completed and placed on notice for public comment in September -October 2020. NIPS issued the final EIS and Record of Decision in March (NPS 2021a) and the Record of Decision was issued in May 2021 (NPS 2021b). Dare County's engineer for the Buxton nourishment projects served as a consultant to the NPS team that prepared the draft EIS and is using the document as a resource and check for consistency for the present Buxton EA document. For the proposed renourishment project, on 22 August 2019, the applicant's engineering consultant (CSE) convened a renourishment scoping meeting with representatives of NCDCM in which CSE provided an overview of the 2017-2018 nourishment project and the purpose and goals for the proposed renourishment project, including post -storm restoration under FEMA Category G funding. On 7 November 2019, a scoping meeting was held between the applicant and USACE, NPS, and other local, state, and federal agencies to discuss the general need and rationale for the proposed renourishment project. Attending were members of the County, NCDEQ (formerly NCDENR), NCDCM, NCWRC, USFWS, NOAA-NMFS, NPS, and USACE-Wilmington (Planning Section). Also consulted were NCDEQ-NCDMF, NCNHP, and SHPO. A timetable was presented noting the requirements for environmental review and comment by the USACE, NPS, USFWS, and other federal and state regulatory and resource agencies before any action could be taken. The applicant has applied the experience from the 2017-2018 nourishment project in the planning for the renourishment project. Internal scoping of the proposed project among the County (applicant), NPS, and the project engineers continued through the completion of the present document. The Applicant submitted the DWR Pre -filing Meeting Request Form on 14 June 2021 in the Clean WaterAct Section 401 Certification Rule. The USACE (Wilmington District) issued Public Notice (SAW-2021-01266) on 28 June 2021 after receiving the Applicant's permit application, and the comment period was ended on 28 July 2021. No ethnographic or Indian Trust resources are known to be present in the project area, so no tribal consul- tations were required. 4.2 Additional Issues Raised by the USACE No additional issues have been raised by the USACE or NIPS. In this EA, the applicant is addressing the primary areas of concern, including summer dredging, sediment quality, issues related to endangered and threatened species, essential fish habitats, water quality and turbidity, and benthic organisms. 4.3 Comments Raised That Do Not Require Further Discussion No comments have been received regarding the proposed project prior to submission of this EA. Therefore, there are no comments that require further discussion at this time. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 38 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS NEPA and Section 404(b)(1) guidelines require an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives and the effects of those alternatives (including the "No -Action Alternative") through careful analysis. Discussion of the "No -Action Alternative" provides a baseline against which the action alternatives can be compared. In addition, under current North Carolina Coastal Zone Management (CZM) regulations, only three alternatives are allowed to deal with severe beach erosion: (1) no action (ie - abandonment), (2) retreat and relocation, and (3) beach nourishment. These three alternatives were discussed in detail in the EA documents for the 2017-2018 Buxton beach nourishment project (USACE-DOI-NPS 2015). For the proposed renourishment project, site selection, screening criteria, and alternatives are evaluated and analyzed. 5.1 Site Selection and Screening Criteria Any manipulation of the shoreline is recommended only after an analysis of the degree to which such measures would impact natural resources and coastal processes. This analysis is completed through an evaluation of alternatives so that an informed decision can be made. In conducting this EA, the applicant will seek to minimize impacts in the immediate project area and its vicinity. Site selection was determined by a request of Dare County to construct a beach renourishment project along a 2.9-mile stretch of shoreline along the Village of Buxton and the National Sea Shore. The applicant seeks to construct an engineered beach indistinguishable from the natural beach and to provide expanded habitat areas between the ocean and threatened structures. The one action alternative presented here, "Beach Renourishment With Summer Construction" (the Preferred Alternative), was developed based on the 2017-2018 nourishment project experience in the same area as the proposed project. The County's main goal in implementing the renourishment project is to meet the following objectives: • Provide a wider beach and buffer storm waves along a critically eroding section of Hatteras Island • Reduce the frequency of storm damages to North Carolina Highway 12 (NC 12) and existing community infrastructure • Replace erosion losses and augment the regional supply of beach sand by using a non -littoral borrow source of compatible sediments from an offshore borrow area • Provide a higher level of storm protection • Provide a wider recreational beach and create more habitat for wildlife • Integrate a dune management plan into the renourishment design • Maintain Dare County's eligibility for future FEMA community assistance funds The proposed project would be consistent with federal and state regulations for construction activities in the coastal zone, specifically the beach area, and would seek to minimize the impact on marine and wildlife species during construction. It would be funded by Dare County with hurricanes Florence (2018) and Dorian (2019) remediation funded by FEMA. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 39 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Screening Criteria were used to evaluate alternatives for the proposed renourishment project. These were geologic processes, shoreline and barrier island processes, and beach nourishment implementation options. 5.1.1 Geologic Processes The applicant recognizes that present-day geologic and coastal processes are integral to the natural shoreline system in which the Buxton project area is located, making it subject to the effects of wind, tides, waves, and storms. Having sought solutions to erosion on its beach since the 1970s, Dare County (applicant) is committed to preserving the beach for the protection of the NC Highway 12, conservation of its sediments and related coastal resources, and for the enjoyment and benefit of the citizens and visitors to Hatteras Island. Forthis reason, the applicant supports a soft -engineering solution like the 2017-2018 project that is designed to work with nature, using scientifically collected and analyzed field data to support its plan. The applicant has determined that maintaining a stable beach on an ongoing basis over many years is presently the most responsible approach to balancing the welfare of the community with the protection of geologic processes. Beach nourishment, when performed properly with similar sediments, adds volume and dimension to the beach zone, providing an additional buffer to absorb the energy that builds barrier islands. 5.1.2 Shoreline and Barrier Island Geomorphology Barrier islands are formed and shaped by waves, tidal currents, and winds. At geologic time scales of greater than thousands of years, they are ephemeral, temporary landforms dependent on the available sediment supply and specific position of sea level (Hayes 1994). At decadal to century time scales (time scales relevant for community planning), barrier islands exhibit a continuum of shoreline changes ranging from high erosion to high accretion. The majority of US East Coast barrier islands are changing at <1 meter per year at century time scales (Dolan et al 1990). Permanent infrastructure is not possible at geologic time scales on barrier islands or over much of the coastal plain, but it has been essential for some coastal islands at century time scales. Barrier -island development has been a critical driver of the tourism economy in the US (Houston 1995, 2002, 2013). Fortunately, not all barrier islands are developed and a large percentage (>50 percent) of the ocean coasts of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina remain undeveloped, mostly as wildlife preserves. The development of alternatives took into account the fact that relocation of existing development and community infrastructure is not possible by the applicant for a number of legal and socio-economic reasons: 1. A limited right-of-way has been established through easement agreements for locations of infrastructure. 2. Hatteras Island within historic villages outside the National Seashore boundaries is heavily developed, and there is little landmass in the Outer Banks to which to retreat. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 40 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 3. In 2013, there were 8,572 real-estate parcels valued at approximately $2.1 billion on Hatteras Island (Lane 2013) and few undeveloped parcels zoned for development, meaning a tremendous upheaval to the economy, lifestyle, and property values if relocation were pursued. Property taxes totaled more than $9 million per year to Dare County. Occupancy receipts totaled approximately $106 million in 2011, despite a two -month closure of road access on NC 12 between August 27 and the end of October, due to Hurricane Irene. The occupancy tax earned $2.1 million for Dare County. 4. Relocation or abandonment would likely generate intense public opposition. 5. For a well -established, historic community, nourishment presently provides a relatively cost- effective means of protecting property, maintaining the shoreline position, and preserving the local tax base (L Montgomery, www.news-record.com/opinion/columns/07/07/14/the-rising- tide). The cost of property abandonment would be many times greater than the cost of nourishment over the next several decades (factoring in multiple renourishments every five years or so) (USACE 2010). Buxton, Frisco, and Hatteras Village contain almost50 percent of the real-estate parcels on Hatteras Island and, therefore, a large percentage of the property tax base of the island. Island property values declined during the 2008 national recession from upward of $3 billion around 2005, but rebounded as the overall economy improved (Lane 2013; Hranicka 2020). The extended closure of NC 12 due to storms produces a ripple effect through the economy, including substantial lost tourism revenues and taxes. Repeated closures at an increasing frequency would compound the problem and potentially undermine property values and the property tax base in addition to jeopardizing many of the businesses on the island. Tourism is estimated to account for at least 11,260 jobs in Dare County (Lane 2013) with 2,618 jobs (-23.2 percent) on Hatteras Island. These jobs represent an estimated payroll of $41 million which adds to the total state and local taxes generated. The Hatteras Island tourism economy contributed $10.3 million to the state and $9.4 million to local taxes in 2011. NC 12 has been damaged by erosion and breaches of the primary dune numerous times since it was built. According to NC Department of Transportation records (NCDOT 2015, J Jennings, District Engineer, August 2014), the segment of road between Oregon Inlet and Hatteras Village has required over $104 million for maintenance and repairs between 2003 and 2013. Repairs have been most extensive in the Pea Island section between Oregon Inlet and Rodanthe. However, the Buxton Action Area also required dune rebuilding, road resurfacing, and related maintenance. Assuming the Buxton section of NC 12 only represents 10 percent of NCDOT expenditures, it equates to approximately $1 million peryear. The Applicant has a fixed budget for the Proposed Action which is expected to provide benefits in the form of a wider beach and better protection to Buxton Village and NC 12 for a variable number of years depending on which alternative is implemented. There would be indirect and direct costs to the Applicant under each alternative. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 41 Buxton, Dare County (NC) The "Preferred Alternative" selected for analysis is expected to mimic natural processes and have a negli- gible effect on coastal processes and endangered and threatened species. It is expected to restore and widen the beach and protect existing property during storm events. 5.1.3 Beach Nourishment Implementation Options The applicant will use experience and survey results from the 2017-2018 Buxton beach restoration project to guide decisions regarding beach nourishment implementation options for the proposed renourishment project. Beach nourishment —the addition of beach -quality sand to the littoral zone from non -littoral sources (Fig 5.1) (NRC 1995)—can be accomplished by a number of methods, including truck hauling and dredging via cutterhead dredge or trailing -arm hopper dredge. Cost is generally a function of the distance between the borrow source and the placement area and the means of conveyance. Therefore, nearby sand sources are favored for economic reasons. Experience from the 2017-2018 nourishment project is instructive when considering alternatives for renourishment. The project involved excavations of quality sand via hopper and hydraulic dredges from an offshore borrow area. Over 2.6 million cubic yards of sand were added to the beach, widening it by an average of -150 ft. Work was accomplished with associated environmental protection measures over an eight -month period (June —February). During construction, the project was impacted by four named hurricanes (Irma, Jose, Katia, and Maria) (September 2017) and several northeast storms. During the first two years after project completion, hurricanes Florence (September 2018) and Dorian (September 2019) impacted the project area with large waves but negligible damage to property and community infrastructure. In addition to protecting NC Highway 12 and restoring a recreational beach, the 2017-2018 project helped preserve property values and the local tax base. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 42 Buxton, Dare County (NC) r-60ft -150ft L Constructed Berm -100ft— Adjusted Berm 11 Not To Scale Initial Constructed Profile +7 It -- 17'1 0 Beach Nourishment loft Normal Adjusted Profile At 1-2 Years 0 Post Project Accretion —+7It Post Project Erosion loft —>-18ft FIGURE 5.1. Idealized initial nourishment profile for sand placement seaward of the foredune and upper beach. Upon project completion, storm waves and winds quickly shift some nourishment sand toward the dune, as well as into deeper water. The resulting "equilibrated" profile would exhibit a narrower berm (ie - "dry sand beach") as illustrated. Note the initial constructed profile (berm width) would vary between -75 ft and 200 ft according to the specific sand deficit and erosion rate at a particular segment of beach. The area of intertidal wet sand is expected to remain constant, but be displaced seaward after initial equilibration of the nourishment sand. In some areas, extra sand will be placed and shaped into a protective dune seaward of existing vegetation lines to accelerate dune formation. An active program of sand fencing and vegetation will be implemented along the oceanfront to maintain as much of the nourishment sand as possible on the active beach while minimizing sand encroachment on existing structures. Summer dredging was permitted for the 2017-2018 project because of hazardous wave conditions in the winter months. The Contractor (Weeks Marine) elected to use a cutterhead dredge (CR McCaskill) to start the nourishment on 21 June 2017 which was over one month later than originally planned due to equipment delays on another project (C Brousard, Weeks Marine, pers Comm June 2017). Production of construction lagged due primarily to rough sea conditions in July and August that frequently curtailed operations and led to mechanical breakdowns. As of 22 August 2017, -1.1 million cy of sand (-42 percent of the total contract volume) was placed on the beach by the cutterhead dredge. In September 2017, four named hurricanes (Irma, Jose, Katio, and Maria) impacted the project area and wave heights were significantly higher than the required safe operating conditions for a cutterhead dredge. Construction had to cease for over 50 days until 11 Oct when the Contractor started to use a hopper dredge (RN Weeks). During each work shutdown, the dredge had to return to a safe harbor over 100 miles away in Norfolk (VA). Despite the intermittent work schedule, construction moved forward. As of 22 December 2017, nourishment in front of the narrow isthmus of NC Highway 12 was completed, and the highly vulnerable section of the road was protected. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 43 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Weeks Marine's newly constructed hopper dredge, Magdalen, passed the sea trials and obtained the operation certificate in January 2018, in time to complete the final -20 percent of the project. With the double capacity of RN Weeks, the Magdalen finished the last -0.5 million cy of work and delivered her last load at 1:30 pm on 27 February 2018, almost 5 months later than the Contractor's original estimate. Despite all the delays, the project was completed without any sea -turtle takes or other environmental incidents. Collaborations among the Owner (Dare County), regulatory agencies (USACE, NPS, and NCDEQ), and the Contractor remained excellent during the course of construction. The newly nourished beach has withstood a series of nor'easters in March 2018 and 2019 without closure of NC Highway 12 or damage to Buxton oceanfront properties. If summer dredging had not been permitted, the duration of construction would have been even longer and the road could have breached again during nor'easters. During the first three years after completion, the 2017-2018 nourishment project had lost more sand than expected with annual losses through August 2020 averaging-650,000-700,000 cy/yr. The main reasons are likely as follows. • Shoreline offset at the existing groins which accelerates erosion at the south end of the project • Normal nourishment sand spreading at the project boundaries (ie - End Loss) • Four named hurricanes impacting the project area in September 2017 during construction • A series of nor'easters impacting the project area in March 2018 after project completion • Recent hurricanes Florence and Dorian impact • Sand shifted offshore beyond -24 ft NAVD and downcoast due to the existence of a deep trough between the beach and outer bar • Deterioration of the groins at the south end of the project In preparing this EA for the proposed beach renourishment project, the applicant considered alternate borrow sources, construction methods, and placement configurations. This EA addresses methods and sources deemed feasible and most advantageous with respect to project longevity and environmental protection given a fixed construction budget established by the applicant. Beach nourishment performance and longevity are highly dependent on sediment quality and project length (NRC 1995, Dean 2002). Accordingly, certain construction methods and sand sources were eliminated from further consideration as discussed later in this section. 5.2 Description of Alternatives Three alternatives are considered for detailed analysis —the "No -Action Alternative" and the two action alternatives. Off -site and on -site alternatives dismissed for analysis are also discussed in this section. • Alternative 1-No-Action • Alternative 2-Beach Nourishment with Winter Construction • Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) -Beach Nourishment with Summer Construction JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 44 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 5.2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1-NO-ACTION Under the "No -Action Alternative," the US Army Corps of Engineers and National Park Service would not issue permits to Dare County for beach nourishment along the shoreline in Cape Hatteras National Seashore and the Village of Buxton Beach. The No -Action Alternative provides a basis for comparing management direction and environmental consequences of the action alternatives. Should the No -Action Alternative be selected, Dare County, the State of North Carolina, and local entities would respond to future maintenance needs associated with the current natural conditions of unabated erosion in the Buxton Action Area. Current responses to that erosion by the NC Department of Transportation would continue, including sand scraping and road repairs. As erosion progresses and sufficient room to maintain a protective dune no longer exists, the state and individual property owners are likely to implement short-term emergency measures such as sand -bagging. This alternative assumes that a high potential exists for NC 12 to be closed due to major storm damage and that NCDOT would carry out repairs as needed to reopen the road. Possible emergency repair options to reopen the road would include a temporary bridge or emergency beach nourishment, as were completed in 2012 at the Pea Island breach and in 2014 north of Rodanthe. NCDOT (2015) evaluated various alternatives for realigning or bridging sections of NC 12 between Avon and Buxton. If a breach occurred as feared during a major storm(s), Hatteras communities, as in the past, could be isolated from the mainland until the road was reopened. Emergency services would have to seek alternative ways of transporting sick or injured people off the island until repairs could be made. The normal transport of food and goods for families and materials to repair damaged houses and businesses would be interrupted. Other than helicopter lifts and boat traffic, travel would cease, and transporting of goods and services would likely occur by ferry or small plane. Furthermore, under the "No Action Alternative," Dare County would no longer be eligible for FEMA funds because it would not have met FEMA requirements for maintaining the project. 5.2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2-BEACH NOURISHMENT WITH WINTER CONSTRUCTION Alternative 2-Winter Construction consists of beach nourishment in the wintertime via dredge using an offshore borrow area and placement along-15,500 linear feet of shoreline along Cape Hatteras National Seashore and the Village of Buxton; ie the Buxton Action Area (see Fig 1.2). Alternative 2- Winter Construction requires contracting with a professional dredging company experienced and equipped to conduct a project of this type and scale. The specific design, plans, and specifications of the nourishment project on which dredging companies would provide bids for construction would be prepared by the Applicant's consultant, a registered engineering firm with demonstrated experience in these types of projects. If permitted, the Applicant, its consulting engineer, and the dredging company would coordinate the work closely with representatives of the US Army Corps of Engineers and the National Park Service to ensure the project complies with federal and state permits for construction. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 45 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Beach nourishment by dredge involves hydraulic excavations of a borrow area, pumping via pipeline, and discharge of a sediment -water slurry along the beach. Water drains, leaving the sediment in place to be shaped by land -based equipment such as bulldozers. A nourished beach is typically constructed in sections, adding sand to the active beach zone working parallel to shore. Bulldozers distribute the sand from the pumpout point to elevations and slopes typical of a natural beach (Dean 2002). Surveys before and after sand placement are used to confirm how much sand has been added in each section and whether the elevation and slope of the new beach conform with the plans and specifications for the project which reflect the approved profiles in the permits. Alternative 2-Winter Construction would involve excavation of sand by ocean -certified dredges from a borrow area -2 miles seaward of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse (see Fig 1.2). The dredges would be either cutter head dredges or self-propelled hopper dredges. If traditional suction cutter head dredges are used, excavations would be limited to -10 feet below the substrate and would be pumped directly onto the beach via a submerged pipeline. Sections of pipe (typically 40 feet long) would be added as construction progressed along the beach. Approximately 200-300 feet of beach would be nourished over a 24-hour period, working from one of two landing points for the submerged pipeline. The landward limit of sand placement would be seaward of the foredune along the existing dry -beach area. Initially, the material would be shaped to form a gently sloping berm at or below the normal dry -beach level in the Action Area. The seaward edge of the nourishment would be sloped by dozers to match a typical beach slope in the swash zone, the area over which waves break and run up the shore. After project completion, the nourished profile would generally adjust to waves. If hopper dredges are used, excavation depths would be shallower, but would not exceed -10 feet in the aggregate (after multiple passes) within the designated borrow Area. Hopper dredges tend to leave some undisturbed areas. Hopper dredges are self-propelled vessels that pump sand into the hopper of the ship then motor to a pumpout point where a length of submerged pipe extends -1,500 feet offshore from the beach. Sand in the hopper is pumped to shore and distributed by the same methods used for cutter head dredge discharges. The environmental impacts of such cutter head and hopper dredges are essentially the same on the beach, but vary at the borrow area as discussed later. Using either type of dredge, excavations would be restricted to the approved offshore borrow area and would avoid cultural resources, shipwreck debris, or obstructions that may be present. Further, the borrow area would be chosen based on havingsand that closely matches the existingsand in the Action Area. Along the beach, no sand would be placed on the foredune or private property. Upon completion, the nourished beach would be left to equilibrate under wave action —that is, even out and develop a profile and slopes typical of a natural beach. Normal safe operations require dredging equipment and personnel to move to a safe harbor before a storm event occurs. Operations can only resume after seas return to operational conditions. Due to the sailing time from the Proposed Action Area to the nearest safe harbor in the Norfolk, Virginia, area, each northeast storm event is likely to suspend dredging operations for a minimum of three days. Based on average storm frequencies of 1 per 6 days during winter months in the Action Area, dredging JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 46 Buxton, Dare County (NC) efficiency is expected to be <50 percent for either hopper or suction cutter head dredges. When common winter storms pass through the Buxton area, pipe on the beach may have to be removed temporarily and stored on high ground. The scale and scope of Alternative 2-Winter Construction would be dependent on the number of operational days that are possible in the Action Area within the assumed four -month window for construction. Winter construction would be limited to those days when waves are less than the threshold for safe operating conditions (Fig 5.2). Factors to consider are the average frequency of northeasters and tropical storms (1 per 6 days) (USACE 2010), projections of efficiencies for winter dredging in the northern Outer Banks (USACE 2000, 2010), and experience within similar settings (CSE 2012, 2014). Under Alternative 2-Winter Construction, construction would be limited to 2-3 days per week of 24-hour operations pumping sand, interrupted by moving the dredge(s) to a safe harbor during storm forecasts. The scale, scope, and construction duration for Alternative 2-Winter Construction is based on a fixed budget established by the Applicant. Based on preliminary planning and design, and the assumptions of dredging efficiency and unit costs, Alternative 2-Winter Construction would limit the excavation and placement of volumes to roughly half that of the Preferred Alternative (ie --600,000 cy). This equates to a maximum average fill density of -40 cubic yards per foot along 15,500 linear feet. It can be shown that a fill density of this magnitude equates to a maximum average beach width increase of -35 feet in this setting (Overton and Fisher2005, Kana et al 2015). It would take 30 dredging days averaging 20,000 cubic yards perdredge perdayto accomplish the work. At<30 percent production efficiency, morethan a three- month construction duration would be required if only a single, ocean -certified dredge is used. The total nourishment volume that would be accomplished under Alternative 2-Winter Construction would be LESS than the sand losses since completion of the 2017-2018 initial nourishment within the Buxton Action Area and would not provide enough volume to accomplish the purpose and goals of the proposed project. Alternative 2-Winter Construction would require a staging area for mobilization of equipment and temporary storage of shore pipe, which are typically 40-foot lengths of 30-inch-diameter steel pipe. As beach building occurs, the equipment and pipe would be stored on the newly constructed beach and would move with the active work area. For the Buxton Action Area, two landing points are likely to be used. One would be -4,000 feet south of the Haulover Day Use Area on Seashore property, which marks the approximate north limit of the Proposed Action. The other would be positioned near the north boundary of the village of Buxton. Pumping onto the beach would begin at these landing points and proceed northerly or southerly for up to -4,000 feet, adding shore pipe as the beach is built. Upon completion of an -4,000-foot section of the project, pipe would be removed and shifted to the nextwork area, proceeding in the other direction from the landing point. At any point in time, there would be between -100 feet and 4,000 feet of beach impacted by the presence of the pipeline. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 47 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Figure 5.2. Graph showing the monthly average wave climate from 2003-2020 at NDBC Wave Buoy Station 41025 at Diamond Shoals (NC) near Buxton compared with the wave climate at the USACE Field Research Facility at Duck (NC). The criteria for safe dredging apply to hopper -dredge operations using ocean -certified equipment per informal guidance by dredging contractors. Suction-cutterhead dredges generally cannot operate safely in waves >3 feet (USACE 2010). The graph shows that average monthly wave height exceeds 5 feet from September to April in the Proposed Action Area. Calmest conditions occur in June and July when average wave heights are less than four feet. (Source: NDBC) The active beach pumping area would extend -300 feet alongshore on a given day. Pipe -loading equipment, support vehicles, fuel barge, and a portable office and shelter for workers would move with the active work zone and would be cordoned off from the public. The active work area would be marked by flagging ribbon and would be limited to hard-hat personnel who have completed safety briefings. Dredge safety personnel would be stationed at the safety fence to prevent unauthorized entry and safeguard the public from areas where heavy equipment is operating. Upon completion of construction, all equipment and supplies would be removed from the site. The beach would be graded to eliminate tire tracks, depressions, and mounds. The staging area(s) would be restored to pre -project conditions. If compaction measurements show values above USFWS thresholds after project completion, the Applicant would seek guidance on whether tilling of the beach should be performed and implement tilling at the direction of state and federal resource agencies. Work under Alternative 2-Winter Construction would be completed during winter months within particular environmental windows for construction prescribed by the permits. The previous window for hopper dredging underthe 1997 South Atlantic Regional Opinion (SARBO) is December 1 through March 31 (NMFS 1997). The 2020 SARBO does not specify a limited window for hopper dredging due to sea turtle presence and also considers impacts to other species such as migration periods for whales. Based on this more recent biological opinion, there can be benefits as well as negative consequences of hopper dredging during any month which must be considered in the planning for any offshore dredging. The applicant JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 48 Buxton, Dare County (NC) recognizes the potential for impacts and accordingly plans to implement the mitigation and monitoring required to minimize impacts, including use of endangered species observers (ESO) on board the dredges. The location of the Action Area is about 110 miles from the nearest safe harbor that can accommodate large ocean -certified dredges. Oregon Inlet (-36 miles from the Proposed Action Area) is too shallow for entry by large hopper dredges (typical draft unloaded is -15 ft). Further, recent nourishment projects along the northern Outer Banks have proven that offshore dredging is best conducted during the summer season, the only time of year when average waves are lower than safe operating conditions for the present fleet of ocean-going dredges. These projects include the initial 2011 Nags Head nourishment project, followed by Rodanthe in 2014 (USACE 2013), and five major projects in 2017, including Duck, Kitty Hawk, Kill Devil Hills, Buxton/NC Highway 12— Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and Nags Head beach renourishment in May -August 2019. Given the highly dynamic and storm -prone coast, calmer and more temperate conditions help to ensure the safety and efficiency of these construction projects. For these reasons, "Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" is presented in this EA as the preferred alternative. 5.2.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 3 -SUMMER CONSTRUCTION Alternative 3 - Summer Construction consists of beach nourishment during summer months via dredge using an offshore borrow area and placement along up to 15,500 linear feet of shoreline along Cape Hatteras National Seashore and the Village of Buxton (ie, the Buxton Action Area) (see Fig 1.1). It differs from Alternative 2-Winter Construction in terms of the amount of sand placed and the season of construction. Sand excavation and placement would be as described under Alternative 2-Winter Construction. However, the project would be constructed duringfair-weathermonths in summer when dredging efficiency can be maximized in the Action Area. Under a fixed budget established by the Applicant, Alternative 3 - Summer Construction would provide up to twice as much volume for the given budget as Alternative 2. Preliminary design calls for the addition of up to -1.2 million cy for purposes of replacing eroded sand and providing "advance nourishment" for certain future losses. This quantity of nourishment sand would widen the beach by -70 feet after normal adjustment of the profile (see Fig 2.1). The higher volume (approximately twice that of Alternative 2- Winter Construction) would provide approximately three years of erosion relief based on the performance of the 2017-2018 project (CSE 2020). The additional sand would increase project longevity along significant portions of the project length before the beach returned to a deficit condition. Alternative 3 provides up to -1.2 million cubic yards to erode under normal yearly processes (annual loss rates in the range-300,000 cubic yards per year, which is roughly twice the long-term historical loss rate (CSE 2013b). Given the uncertainty of storm intensity and erosion rates after the project, this additional volume (relative to Alternative 2) is critical for meeting the goals and objectives of Dare County. Alternative 3 - Summer Construction would be performed by trailing arm suction hopper dredges or traditional hydraulic cutterhead dredges with booster pumps. The dredges would reach from the borrow area to the furthest segment of the project beach, a distance of-18,000 linear feet. (The two JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 49 Buxton, Dare County (NC) dredge types were generally described under Alternative 2-Winter Construction.) The Applicant desires permits which allow both hopper and hydraulic dredges to be used at the discretion of the dredging contractor. Allowing both types provides the most flexibility to accomplish the work in the shortest time. It also allows the contractor to use the resources it determines to be the most advantageous to minimize the environmental risks and maximize dredging efficiency. One or more hopper dredges and a hydraulic dredge may work on the project at the same time. The objective is to complete the project in one season and in the shortest time possible. As a result of prior correspondence from the Dredging Contractors of America (USACE 2010) and discussions with qualified dredging contractors, the Applicant has concluded that the Proposed Action could not be accomplished safely or cost-effectively during fall or winter in the Buxton Area by either cutterhead or hopper dredges. In the summer, cutterhead dredges are less preferred, because offshore mean wave heights exceed threshold conditions for that type of dredge (Fig 2.2, also Appendix D - Littoral Processes). The use of hopper dredges in the summer, with the cutterhead as an option during calmer seas, is the Applicant's preferred approach to ensure the Proposed Action is completed. The Proposed Action involves dredging and placement of up to -1.2 million cubic yards on the target beach. The average production per day varies according to sailing distance from the borrow area to the beach, as well as weather and environmental restrictions placed on the project. Based on project experience at Nags Head (CSE 2012), one hopper dredge can excavate and place from 15,000 to 30,000 cubic yards per day (24-hour period). Under ideal conditions, a hydraulic dredge can excavate up to 60,000 cubic yards per day. That volume would decrease with increased wave heights and work stoppages as well as relocation due to severe weather. Therefore, project duration is dependent on average daily production. A single hopper dredge operating at an efficiency of 60 percent and a daily production of 20,000 cubic yards per day would require 100 calendar days (-3.5 months) to complete the project. Efficiency is measured as the actual dredgingtime divided bythe total time available. Givingthe contractor flexibility to use both hopper and hydraulic dredges, with an average (net) production of 30,000 cubic yards per day, the project would require 40 days (-2 months) to complete. Net production at Nags Head for the 2011 project was-42,000 cubic yards per day with two dredges, one hopper dredge and one suction cutterhead dredge, operating May 27 to August 27. Net production dropped to-13,000 cubic yards per day between August 27 and October 27 with two smaller hopper dredges operating (CSE 2012). The downtime associated with shutdown and redeployment of the dredges during weather events is the main factor contributing to the efficiency and construction duration of the Proposed Action. May to August is a period of relative calm compared to fall and winter months (September to March) in the Proposed Action Area. Permitting the dredges to work over the warm and calm weather months (May to August), along with allowing both hopper and hydraulic dredges, would mitigate some of the risks to personnel and equipment and would provide conditions where the work could be completed in a much shorter time period, thus reducing the duration of environmental impacts. The production efficiencies for Nags Head (2011) was close to 80 percent from June through August, a rate that JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 50 Buxton, Dare County (NC) incorporates downtime due to Hurricane Irene and other weather events (CSE 2012). Projections of dredging efficiency under Alternative 3 take into account the possibility of hurricanes and other high wave events during summer in the Action Area. Equipment requirements and operations under Alternative 3-Summer Construction would be the same as Alternative 2-Winter Construction. However, work during summer months, when threatened or endangered species may be present, would require modification of operations as follows: 1) Endangered species observers would be stationed on dredges to alert dredging personnel and record encounters. This would include authority to suspend operations while wildlife resources officials are contacted in the event of a take as defined under the Biological Opinion applicable for the Proposed Action. 2) Certified trawlers would be retained to trawl for sea turtles ahead of operating hopper dredges and relocate turtles if encountered, or operate as non -capture trawling per final recommendations of NMFS. 3) Continuous nightly beach patrols would be performed by certified monitors to locate any turtles that are stranded behind the dredge pipe on the beach and relocate them to the waters' edge or deal with them according to directives by and in consultation with USFWS and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 4) Vehicle ingress and egress at night would be with escorts by certified, endangered species observers. 5) Lighting at the Action Work Area on the beach would be minimized in conformance with USFWS requirements for beach lighting. 6) The use of bulldozers at night would be reduced to the minimum required for safe operations as sand is being discharged. 7) The order of work (sections to be filled) would be accomplished inclose coordination with NPS officials so that there would be the least practicable disruption to bird -nesting activities along Seashore lands. 8) No -work buffers along the beach would be established around the turtle or bird nests in coordination with USFWS, NCWRC, and NPS officials Other operations modifications as may be recommended by federal and state resource agencies. 5.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY Several alternatives were identified during the planning process and internal and public scoping. Some of these alternatives were determined to have unacceptable impacts or to be technically or economically infeasible. Other alternatives identified during initial scoping were determined to be outside the project purpose, not allowed under existing North Carolina laws, or beyond the means of the Applicant. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 51 Buxton, Dare County (NC) The following alternatives eliminated from further study are presented in several categories: 1. Alternate nourishment borrow sources, 2. Erosion control methods designed to retain sand, and 3. Shore -protection methods involving hard structures. 5.3.1 Rationale for Dismissing Nourishment Using Non -Offshore Sand Sources Based on previous practice along the US East Coast, the following classes of borrow sources have been used for beach nourishment (CERC 1984): - Lagoon sediments - Offshore deposits - Inland deposits - Inlet shoals - Recycled spoil sediments - Freshwater pond deposits - Nearshore bars -Accreting spits/beach deposits - Imported material In general, economics favors the borrow source(s) that matches the native beach quality, involves the shortest transportation distance, and minimizes environmental impacts. Large-scale projects, such as the Buxton renourishment project, require large volumes of material that may not be available in only one offshore deposit. The following sediment sources are considered unacceptable forthe Proposed Action. Lagoon Deposits in Pamlico Sound - Generally, sand in the sound is much finer than sand on the beach and contains levels of mud and silt unacceptable for beach nourishment. Additionally, the environmental impacts of a large-scale dredging project (up to -1.2 million cubic yards) in Pamlico Sound would be high because of the greater diversity of estuarine organisms and submerged vegetation present. In a US Geological Survey (USGS) paper written in cooperation with the National Park Service, Dolan and Lins (1986) discussed the use of beach nourishment for shoreline stabilization, stating: ... artificial beach nourishment ... has long been considered the most desirable method of protection because (1) placement of sand on a beach does not alter the suitability of the system for recreation, (2) nourishment cannot adversely affect areas beyond the problem area, and (3) if the design fails, the effects ... are soon dissipated. Perhaps the greatest disadvantage of artificial nourishment is that great quantities of sand of suitable quality (type and size) are not readily available. In the past, sand was dredged from sounds and bays immediately inland from the beach or transported from inland sources. Because of recent concern about estuarine ecology, however, and because materials dredged from sounds and bays are generally too fine to be effective in beach nourishment, estuarine and baysources have been less desirable and are no longer readily available. The only future source of large quantities of sand for nourishment of the Outer Banks appears to be offshore areas, such as Diamond Shoals and coastal inlets [Dolan and Lins (1986), pg 34]. Inlet Shoals (Inshore) — Significant accumulations of sand occur in the ebb- and flood -tidal delta shoals of Oregon Inlet -36 miles north of the project site. The mean grain size of these deposits tends to be much finer than native beach sand (USACE 2010). The flood shoals are located inshore of the JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 52 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Oregon Inlet bridge and would have to be pumped either directly to the project site with the aid of many booster pumps or pumped offshore to hopper dredges which could transfer and pump out the material after sailing nearly 80 miles (roundtrip) to the project site. Additionally, these ephemeral flood -tidal delta shoals are habitat fora number of protected shorebird species. The environmental consequences, level of coordination required, the potential for disapproval by conservation groups and regulatory agencies, the cost implications due to pumping distances, and the unsuitable sediment size make this source of sand infeasible when compared to the offshore borrow sources. Significant deposits of sand are available from the ebb -tidal delta shoals of Oregon Inlet. The navigation channel across the outer bar is dredged frequently by the USACE. Typically, the dredged material is disposed of on the beaches at the northern tip of Pea Island adjacent to Oregon Inlet. CSE (2012) determined the location of the placement of the dredge spoil, sampled the material, and analyzed the sand samples for texture and suitability for beach nourishment. The material from Oregon Inlet is generally fine-grained sand (<0.25 millimeter mean diameter) and much finer than native beach sand along Nags Head (USACE 2010). The Buxton beach sand is slightly coarser than Nags Head (CSE 2013b) (Appendix A - Geotechnical Data). It can be shown that placement of finer sand on a beach typically leads to rapid dispersal into the underwater part of the beach zone (Dean 2002). This lessens the benefit of nourishment (narrower dry -sand beach) and reduces wave attenuation relative to sediment sizes that match the visible beach. Nearshore Bar(s) Along the Project Area — Sand stored in nearshore bars (water depths <20 ft) is part of the active beach profile and is an important component in the beach system that provides wave dissipation. Access to the material would be difficult by deep -draft hopper dredges. Additionally, the material in longshore bars is generally too fine for retention on the dry beach and is inappropriate for beach nourishment. Grain size data for samples in the Buxton Action Area support this finding (see Appendix A - Geotechnical Data). Accreting Spits/Beach Deposits — Major deposits of beach sand are accumulating on Cape Point within Seashore jurisdiction (Fig 5.3). Excavation of these deposits would involve significantly more environmental consequences than offshore deposits because Cape Point is designated as critical habitat for the piping plover. Inland Deposits — Material imported from sand mines in Currituck County (-75 miles from Buxton) was used for building dunes in Nags Head and Kitty Hawk after Hurricane Isabel. No known sand mines are available in the Buxton Action Area which could provide sufficient quantities to complete the proposed nourishment project. Use of distant sand mines would be cost -prohibitive, based on trucking costs for much shorter haul distances between Currituck spit and Kitty Hawk (-16 miles). Dune -building projects at Nags Head and Kitty Hawk were $16.00 per cubic yard and $15.15 per cubic yard (respectively) in 2005 following Hurricane Isabel (CSE 2005a). This represents nearly twice the unit costs of nearby offshore borrow areas (including pumping and mobilization and demobilization costs). Under a fixed budget established by the Applicant, a doubling of transportation costs would result in a major reduction in the total project volume, which would reduce the project longevity and would not accomplish the goals and objectives of the Applicant. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 53 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Figure 5.3. Oblique aerial photos of Cape Point, a highly accretional cuspate foreland which accumulates sediment eroded from the east and south Buxton oceanfront's. Cape Point is an important habitat for endangered and threatened species, such as the piping plover. The left image is looking north with Cape Point in the foreground and the Village of Buxton along the top. The right image is looking west across the Cape Point foreland with the east -facing beach alongthe lower edge of the picture and the broad south -facing beach arcing toward the top left corner of the picture. [Images by CSE on 10 September 2014] Freshwater Pond Deposits — No known freshwater ponds are nearby that require maintenance excavations or that could provide the quantities of beach -compatible sediment required for the Proposed Action. Recycled Spoil Sediments — No feasible sources of dredge spoils are available to be pumped to the beaches of Buxton. Primarily for reasons of sediment quality, environmental impacts, economics, or unavailability within economic transportation distances, the alternative borrow sources discussed herein are not deemed acceptable for the Buxton beach nourishment project. The alternative of nourishment using non - offshore sand sources is not considered for further analysis in this EA. 5.3.2 Rationale for Dismissing Sand -Retaining Structures and Techniques A number of erosion -control methods can be used to intercept mobile sands in the beach zone. These include three general types of sand -retaining structures —jetties, groins, and breakwaters —and one technique —beach dewatering systems. Jetties and groins are shore -perpendicular barriers extending from the upper beach/toe of dune to some distance offshore. They may be constructed of timber, steel sheet piles, quarry stone, pre -cast concrete units, orsand bags. In the presence of a predominant trans- port direction (north to south along the beach in the Action Area), sand tends to accumulate along the upcoast (north) side of the structure, producing a salient (bulge) in the shoreline related in size to the JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 54 Buxton, Dare County (NC) length of the structure. When the groin is filled to capacity, excess sand would be transported by waves around or over the structure to the downcoast (south) shoreline, leaving a salient in place. The beach along the upcoast side of the groin or jetty would generally be wider than the beach downcoast for some distance in either direction, which is also a function of groin length (ASCE 1994). Commonly, observable modification of the shoreline due to the presence of groins orjetties can be detected 10-20 times the groin length depending on numerous factors (CERC 1984). Groins, jetties, and breakwaters are a proven method for reducing sand losses along beaches on the upcoast side of a structure and have been used previously in the Buxton Action Area to protect the US Navy Facility and Cape Hatteras Lighthouse (Machemehl 1979, NIPS 1980, USACE 1996, NIPS 2013a). Intermittent breakwaters and nourishment have been incorporated into a shore -protection plan for Colonial National Historical Park in Virginia (NPS 2012a). Figure 5.4 shows existing groins at the south end of the proposed Buxton project and their impact on the shoreline near Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. The groins were constructed in 1969 (Machemehl 1979) and have produced a salient (bulge) in the shoreline along Buxton Village. The salient results from the groins holding a segment of beach in place while the beaches north and south of the groins continue to erode. While groins, jetties, and breakwaters combined with nourishment may reduce sand losses and improve project longevity, they are not permissible under existing North Carolina CZM rules and regulations. The applicant met with federal and state regulatory and resource agencies on 7 November 2019 and outlined the proposed project in a pre -application meeting. During the meeting, the applicant requested guidance regarding permissible groin repair work under existing NCDCM regulations. Repairs of the existing three groins at the south end of the Proposed Action Area were considered by the applicant for purposes of restoring functionality. Deterioration of the groins since they were constructed around 1970 (Machmehl 1979) has rendered them less effective at retaining sand along the critically eroded section of Buxton Village. The applicant and its consultant, CSE (2013c), determined that nourishment end losses could be reduced significantly if the original profile of the groins could be restored and voids in the structures filled. The regulatory agencies and representatives of the National Park Service (NIPS) indicated that existing rules precluded such repairs because of the state of the structures and that including rehabilitation work on existing groins would seriously delay or prevent the issuance of state and federal permits for nourishment (H Coats, NCDCM, pers Comm November 2019). As a result of this input, the applicant instructed its engineer to eliminate groin rehabilitation from the proposed plan. Groins and jetties are not evaluated further in this EA because they are not allowed along the northern Outer Banks under present state CZM rules and regulations. Breakwaters are shore -parallel structures placed close to the beach to modify and reduce wave energy and sand transport along the coast. In the sheltered lee of breakwaters, sediment falls out of suspension and accumulates in the form of a salient. In extreme cases, sand would build out to the breakwater, forming a tombolo spit of high ground between the beach and the structures. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 55 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Breakwaters are not evaluated further in this EA because they are not allowed along the North Carolina coast under present state CZM rules and regulations. Beach dewatering is a technique for sand retention whereby wave swash is withdrawn by suction through a system of pipes and vacuum pumps. The water is discharged offshore or in holding ponds for gradual percolation into the ground. By drawing off part of the swash before it runs back down the sloping part of the beach, less sand moves in the return flow. The result is the accumulation and retention of sand in the dry beach zone in the area where pipe is in place. Results are mixed and depend on many factors (Turner and Leatherman 1997). FIGURE 5.4. [UPPER] Oblique aerial photograph looking north along the Buxton Action Area with the moved Cape Hatteras Lighthouse at the lower left side of the image and the Village of Avon at the top right corner of the image. White foam lines of breaking waves over the near shore bar parallel the beach. The east -facing shoreline bulges seaward in the middle of the image. This bulge marks the location of three groins fronting the former US Naval Facility and former location of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. The salient (bulge) visible to the north (upper right) is Rodanthe and Salvo. [Image courtesy of USACE-Wilmington District taken 9 September 2000] [LOWER] Ground photo looking south of two of the groins at former location of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. The structures extend into the ocean from right to left and are constructed of pre -cast concrete sheet piles linked by timber whalers. Some sheets have collapsed or washed out as indicated by the gaps in the structure along the top edge of the image. [Image taken 4 November 2013 by Coastal Science & Engineering] JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 56 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Such a system is not considered viable for the project at Buxton for several reasons: 1) Beach dewatering requires an extensive network of perforated pipe to be buried close to the surface of the beach —a permanent installation (which would potentially interfere with turtle nesting activities) 2) The system requires pumps, infrastructure, and discharge points that are not available 3) The sand deficit along the Action Area greatly exceeds the scale of the existing beach where such a system would be installed 4) Dare County and the Park Service do not wish to install permanent infrastructure (piping) along high-energy beaches subject to significant seasonal fluctuations in width and elevation 5) Beach dewatering does not augment the sand supply in the beach zone, but rather captures some fraction of sand moving downcoast at the expense of adjacent areas Beach dewatering systems are not evaluated further in this EA because they do not meet the purpose of the project or they are not allowed under present state CZM rules and regulations. 5.3.3 Rationale for Dismissing Other Potential Alternatives Other potential alternatives considered and dismissed include: • Structural shore protection —including seawalls, revetments, and bulkheads • Structure relocation —including NC 12 realignment • Structure abandonment • Alternative transportation system • Nourishment along other erosion hotspots such as the Hatteras Village reach west of Buxton, which is narrow and vulnerable to another breach As previously described, hard erosion -control structures are prohibited under North Carolina CZM rules and regulations. Installation of a protective seawall along the most vulnerable sections of NC 12 would also not meet the purpose and needs of the project. The Applicant (Dare County) has no authority to move, elevate, or abandon NC 12. The road alignment is as far landward as practicable without encroaching on existing tidal wetlands at the margin of Pamlico Sound. Such alternatives would not meet the purpose and needs of the project. NCDOT (2015) completed the NC 12 Feasibility Study from Avon to Buxton and outlined possible short- term (5-year) and long-term (50-year) alternatives for protecting and maintaining Highway NC 12 between Buxton and Avon. The short-term alternatives include A) minor road realignment (15-65 ft west of the existing roadway); B) road relocation 100-180 ft to the west including four bridge spans (totaling -600 ft) over areas of poor soils such as fringing salt marsh; and C) beach nourishment along 1.1 miles of shoreline totaling-642,000 cy (NCDOT 2015, p 28). A fourth short-term alternative (D) would combine road relocation with nourishment reducing the volume to-391,000 cy for a 5-year project. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 57 Buxton, Dare County (NC) The NCDOT (2018) alternatives are based on projections of the average shoreline changes for the study area (2-8 feet per year) over a 45-year time span. Forecast shorelines are then compared with the seaward edge of pavementto determine whether the NCDOT minimum 230 ft bufferto mean high water is maintained under each alternative. Moving the road landward, for example, would help maintain the separation distance and reduce the volume of nourishment required. The applicant has rejected alternatives involving road realignment because the existing road and right of way are controlled by NCDOT and any realignment onto NPS lands would require extensive reviews and approvals. This would result in significant delays in project implementation. The existing alignment is also as far landward as practicable without encroaching on sensitive wetlands at the edge of Pamlico Sound. The proposed project is consistent with NCDOT short-term Alternative C - Nourishment, but differs in scale (length and volume) to account for higher anticipated loss rates following the experience of the 2018 project which provides site -specific data that were unavailable for NCDOT (2015). Officials at NCDOT (eg - J Jennings, Regional Director, pers Comm July 2018) have emphasized to Dare County officials that preemptive projects such as road realignment or beach nourishment are not possible under their existing authorities and therefore, none of the short-term alternatives are budgeted as of this writing. NCDOT advised the applicant that no road maintenance work can be done until NC 12 is directly encroached by erosion as it was in the Action Area after Hurricane Dennis (1999) which breached the dune and washed out a section of the road. Hurricane Irene (2011) also breached a section of the dune near Buxton Village washing sand across NC 12. Since then, the majority of the Action Area has retained a protective dune with the aid of nourishment in 2017-2018. This has reduced the need for post -event repairs to NC 12 by NCDOT in recent years. NCDOT (2015) assumed a higher shoreline change rate (using modeled 95 percent confidence interval around the average shoreline change) to formulate long-term (50-year) alternatives. The various road relocation alternatives are rejected by the applicant for the same reasons as the short-term alternatives. NCDOT (2015) projects that the Nourishment -Only Alternative will require approximately 6.6 million cy along 2.7 miles with a 5-year nourishment interval over a 50-year period. The applicant's preferred alternative is generally consistent with the NCDOT (2018) long-term beach nourishment alternative but provides a greater volume based on beach recession rates that significantly exceed the long-term averages. Relocation or abandonment of existing buildings, infrastructure, and sand -trapping structures is rejected by the applicant because it would not meet the purpose and needs of the project. Dare County has no jurisdiction over existing private structures and cannot remove them under present state law even if they are condemned by the State. The County does not own the existing groins which are functioning to maintain the shoreline salient at Buxton to some unquantified degree. Removal of the groins, emergency sand bags, and several rows of houses would be exceedingly costly as a result of (1) the high value of beach resort property, (2) the cost of litigation necessary to force property owners to JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 58 Buxton, Dare County (NC) abandon homes and businesses if they do not agree to buyouts at market prices, (3) loss of tax revenue, and (4) loss of rental income and its ripple effect on the local economy. Property abandonment and relocation associated with ongoing beach erosion are encouraged under existing state CZM regulations. Considering present property values, the economic costs of property abandonment are exceedingly high and generally involve extensive litigation, as demonstrated by a recent case at Nags Head (Sansotta vs Town of Nags Head, US District Court -Eastern District of North Carolina 2:10-CV-29-D). The Town of Nags Head settled with a property owner around 2015 and agreed to pay the owner $1.5 million for six houses that had been sitting in the surf zone for nearly ten years and were rendered uninhabitable. Alongthe Buxton Action Area, abandonment and removal of existing groins would lead to rapid erosion of the salient. Figure 5.5 illustrates the likely eventual adjustment of the shoreline if the groins and developed properties were removed. A new shoreline would equilibrate between the Canadian Hole (middle right side of image) and Cape Point (upper part of the image). Such abandonment or removal of groins would ultimately lead to shoreline recession of hundreds of feet, taking out a length of NC 12 in the approach to Buxton Village and multiple rows of houses, hotels, and businesses. The aggregate value of properties lost would be at least an order of magnitude greaterthan the Applicant's budget for the proposed project (ie>$250 million).Associated with abandonment would be even greatereconomic impacts of the road closure, loss to the tax base, loss of business revenues, and other disruptions to the life and well-being of the communities at the Cape. For reasons stated above and other practical considerations, structural alternatives, structure relocation, and structure abandonment are eliminated from further study because they do not meet the purpose and needs of the project, or Dare County has no authority to impose them, or they are not allowed under state law. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 59 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Figure 5.5. Oblique aerial photograph on 10 September 2014 looking south along the Proposed Action Area with the Canadian Hole area of the Seashore in the middle and Cape Point at the top of the image. The Village of Buxton is marked by the pronounced salient (bulge) in the shoreline. A dashed line extending landward alongthe shoreline marks the projected alignment of the dune line if the groins were removed. The equilibrated shoreline would be straighter, but at the cost of losing a long segment of NC 12 and several rows of houses and businesses in Buxton. The predicted shoreline (dashed line) represents the anticipated impact after several decades of erosion. As the salient along Buxton erodes, the east shore of Cape Point would accrete as implied by the dashed line positioned seaward of the existing dune line at the top of the image. [Image by Coastal Science & Engineering 2014.] 5.3.4 Nourishment Construction Alternatives Eliminated from Consideration In addition to the two nourishment placement alternatives retained for further analysis (previous section of EA), four alternative placement methods were considered (Fig 5.6). Placement Option 3 entails intermittent placement, leaving some gaps along the shoreline. Sometimes this is done to concentrate the nourishment volume where it is needed most for shore protection or recreation as in the case of Hunting Island, South Carolina, in 1991 (Kana and Mohan 1998). However, it has also been recommended under the assumption that it is a way to maintain a benthic community in close proximity to nourished areas from which organisms can rapidly colonize the new beach (Peterson and Bishop 2005, Peterson et al 2006, NIPS 2012b). No documented cases of intermittent nourishments are known to exist whereby this theory can be evaluated using quantitative measurements of the benthic community structure. If this alternative were implemented at Buxton, a number of effects would have to be considered. First, the no -work gaps would require fill sections to be much wider along work areas to accommodate the design volume. The total project length is relatively short at -3 miles. If two 0.5-mile gaps were added to the project, the average fill density of nourished sections would increase by 50 percent. At initial placement, the project sections would have to be up to 400 feet wide, tapering rapidly to no added beach width. If gradual tapers on the order of 1,500 feet were provided, little space would be left for full sections. This would JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 60 Buxton, Dare County (NC) produce a highly scalloped shoreline and lead to erosional end effects (Dean 2002). It would also increase the vulnerability of the foredune alongthe unnourished segment until sand spread into the gap. The process of sand spreading into the gaps occurred over several years after the 1991 Hunting Island project (Kana and Mohan 1998). Nags Head (2011) was a continuous nourishment, using offshore borrow areas along 10 miles without gaps. Within the first three months after completion, pre- and post -project benthic monitoring documented rapid recovery of the benthic communityto comparable levels asthe adjacent unnourished areas (CZR-CSE 2014). Other projects have similarly documented rapid recovery of benthic communities within weeks to months after large-scale continuous beach fills (Van Dolah et al 1994, USACE 2001, Jutte et al 2002). For the reasons outlined above, Placement Option 3 is no longer considered for the proposed Buxton renourishment project. PlacementOption 4 has been used afterstorms in many localities because it incorporates dune nourishment with berm nourishment. Many federal projects incorporate some form of protective dune or storm berm above the normal dry beach level. This alternative necessarily requires placement on the face of existing dunes leaving no undisturbed area seaward of the vegetation line as construction proceeds. The Buxton project is situated in a part of the coast subject to strong winds. As the Nags Head (2011) project demonstrated, a significant volume of sand shifted landward by natural processes after project completion. Post -construction measurements documented upwards of 800,000 cubic yards (-17 percent of the total nourishment volume) shifted into the foredune and upper beach area within three years of project completion (CSE 2014). The average post nourishment dune accretion rate at Nags Head was -4.2 cubic yards per foot per year for the first three years of the project (CSE 2014). Dune growth was aided by strategic placement of sand fencing in many areas. Where existing dunes were relatively high, foredune vegetation served as a barrier to trap wind-blown sand, mimicking the natural process of dune growth along stable barrier beaches. The rapidity of dune growth along Nags Head provides a realistic measure of likely dune growth rates at Buxton after nourishment, given the proximity and similar exposure to winds at both sites. The Preferred Alternative will place nearly all of the nourishment volume on the existing dry sand, wet sand, and shallow subtidal beach. A small percentage of the fill (<10 percent) will be used to rebuild a protective dune along sections of the Action Area that lack a foredune at the time of construction. Sand fencing will also be incorporated into the Preferred Alternative to trap and retain nourishment sand that naturally migrates landward upon completion of construction. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 61 Buxton, Dare County (NC) XV Vegetation Line FaredUne +T Pr�eLow l+Va1er ----�-� _- � -----� IT pipe+ides No Work Sam Crest � Toe Of Nourishment - — No Foredune . !Ll- - Vegetation Llne Berm Crs v o Pretawwater-------� ---�----�-'--,- _- n Not To Scale Toe Of Nourishment Vegetation Llne Foredune Pre Berm Cresf No YYart — FroLcwWater No work Trough _---1----- tangslt"Oar S _ n Not To Scale Nourishment Underwater -24 R Normal Limit Of Sand Movement Foredune For une Pre Low Water --- u Work---- -- ---� Feeder � � NOurishmany W1 FIGURE 5.6. Diagram showing four beach -nourishment placement options which are rejected from further analysis for the proposed project at Buxton. [UPPER] Labeled 3 - This diagram illustrates the concept of intermittent fill whereby no -work gaps are left between nourished sections. As discussed in the text, this placement option is not feasible for the relatively short length and high volume of nourishment needed at Buxton. [SECOND] Labeled 4 - This diagram and an associated cross-section to the right show nourishment incorporating a dune and berm with most of the material placed above the low water contour. The preferred alternative is to minimize direct sand placement on the established dunes or back beach areas so as to avoid turtle -nesting areas of the beach. [THIRD] Labeled 5 - This diagram and an associated cross-section to the right show nourishment placed underwater seaward of the outer bar. In theory, such placement would eventually result in sand shifting landward toward the beach. However, it is difficult to control underwater placement, and an unacceptable delay occurs before the added sand provides direct benefits in the form of a wider beach. [LOWER] Labeled 6 - This diagram illustrates the concept of feeder nourishment whereby all the fill is placed near the upcoast end of the project. Over time, the material is expected to migrate downcoast, replacing lost sand. This option is rejected because the feeder beach would extend so far offshore that it would modify wave patterns and potentially cause erosion at the flanks of the feeder beach before sand spread downcoast (Dean 2002). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 62 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Ad isadvantage of Placement Option 4 is that the majority of nourishment volume is initially perched on the existing beach above low water. This configuration is unstable and subject to large-scale erosion (profile adjustment) until sufficient volume shifts underwater to form a stable base for the fill. Erosional escarpments in the berm tend to persist, particularly where the berm elevation is set well above the normal wave uprush limit. A small federal project at Hunting Island, South Carolina, designed to provide emergency dune protection, set the berm elevation at (-)+11 feet NAVD. This was roughly 4 feet higher than the normal dry -sand beach in the area (USACE-Charleston District, C. Mack, coastal engineer, pers. comm., December 2003) (CSE 2005b). As this highly eroding section of beach receded, escarpments 4-5 feet high persisted for months, inhibiting turtle nesting activities, which were severely limited before nourishment due to the highly eroded condition of the beach. For the reasons outlined above, Placement Option 4 is rejected for the proposed Buxton renourishment project. Placement Option 5 involves nourishment along the lowerforeshore well beyond the inner surf zone. Ideally, the sediment would be deposited in water shallow enough to eventually migrate onshore and add to the beach volume. If the material is placed too far offshore, it would likely not move into the active beach zone, as was the case for a project off the barrier beaches flanking Mobile Bay, Alabama (Douglass 1997). Placement control is difficult under this alternative because it is analogous to emptying a dump truck without spreading the material evenly along the Action Area. In the case of the Mobile project, near shore disposal was constrained bywater depths needed for loaded hopper dredges. Placementwas, by necessity, in water exceeding 25 feet deep, the approximate operational depth of the loaded vessel. This placed the material beyond the active littoral zone with little associated nourishment benefit (Douglass 1997). The risks of such fill placement being able to meet the goals and objectives of the project are considered unacceptably high by the Applicant. For reasons outlined above, Placement Option 5 is rejected for the proposed Buxton renourishment project. Placement Option 6 involves nourishment along one short segment of beach at the upcoast (ie - north) end of the project. All fill would be concentrated in that area, with the expectation of gradually feeding the downcoast Action Area. Feeder beaches have been used adjacent to inlets and navigation projects (CERC 1984) for reasons of economy and size of dredge. Small harbor dredges working channels may only be able to pump a distance of 2,000-4,000 feet. Therefore, the dredge spoil is placed as far away from the inlet as practical, but not extended over long distances downcoast to other areas that may need sand. Oregon Inlet disposal along Pea Island is an example of a feeder beach repeatedly nourished to provide sand gradually to downcoast areas (Dolan and Lins 1986). This concept is problematic for the Buxton project for two reasons. First, the scale of the Buxton renourishment project (up to -1.2 million cubic yards) greatly exceeds the volumes typically removed from inlet and harbor entrances where feeder beaches have been used. A Buxton feeder beach would produce a very large salient (bulge) in the shoreline extending over 1,000 feet offshore for a limited length of beach. This would alter wave patterns and lead to focused erosion at the ends of the feeder, with the degree of erosion related to the scale of the feeder beach. This interruption of normal transport would increase the likelihood of a dune breach associated with end effects of the nourishment (NRC 1995, Dean 2002). A breach of the foredune would damage NC 12 and infrastructure. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 63 Buxton, Dare County (NC) A variation on the feeder beach concept would stockpile a large portion of the sand somewhere along the Action Area for later distribution by mechanical means after the turtle or bird nesting period or storm emergencies. The primary issue with stockpiles is the lack of room along the existing dry -sand beach or backshore area within the Action Area for a large stockpile. For example, if 50 percent, or-600,000 cubic yards, of the project volume were retained in a stockpile, -375 acre-feet of storage capacity would be required. Such a stockpile would average 25 feet high and require over 15 acres of land, which would not be practical for the Proposed Action. Also, such a stockpile for later placement along the beach would significantly increase the project costs (or reduce project volume) due to the need for double handling of the nourishment sand. For reasons outlined above, Placement Option 6 is rejected for the proposed Buxton renourishment project. 5.4 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative In accordance with Section 404b1(CFR 40 Part 230), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) must identify the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) before it can issue a permit. The LEDPA is the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment and provides protection that best preserves and enhances historical, cultural, and natural resources. The LEDPA is identified by the Responsible Officer after weighing long-term environmental impacts against short-term impacts when evaluating and considering what is the best protection of the resources. The Buxton project area is situated in the area of the Outer Banks known as "the Graveyard of the Atlantic." Since recordkeeping began in 1526, -5,000 ships have been documented lost at sea along the North Carolina coast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard of the Atlantic). Due to its geographical position, the ocean beach experiences more dynamic, wind and wave energy immediately offshore and onshore, which is exacerbated by frequent storm events in the winter (November -March). In the case of beach nourishment in a high-energy site such as Buxton, the environmentally preferred alternative may not be the most preferable alternative, because project safety during construction must be considered above all. While winter operation would reduce interference with nesting and migratory species, it would risk human lives and slow the project efficiency, increasing the costs and the length of time needed to complete it. Storms would reduce the days a dredge can be operational and would also place dredging crews and natural resource monitors at personal risk. With summer construction, the wind would be calmer, waves lower, and dangerous storms would be less likely to occur. Human lives would beat far less risk, and those endangered or threatened species which maybe impacted would be protected with USFWS- and NMFS-approved mitigation procedures. After weighing long-term environmental impacts against short-term impacts, the applicant considers the "Preferred Alternative —Beach Renourishment With Summer Construction" the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative for the proposed Buxton beach renourishment project. Operational productivity and human safety are the primary factors the applicant considered in recommending the "Preferred Alternative —Beach Renourishment With Summer Construction. " JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 64 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 6.0 EVALUATION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 404(b) As discussed in Section 5.4, the applicant has determined that the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for the proposed Buxton renourishment project is "Beach Nourishment with Summer Construction." The 2017-2018 Buxton beach nourishment project had numerous delays in the fall and winter, and it has proved that for efficient completion and crew safety, summer construction is the "Preferred Alternative" for the proposed renourishment project. 6.1 Practicable Alternative The "No -Action Alternative" is not a practicable alternative of the three alternatives presented for further analysis. The beach at the Buxton project area will continue to experience sand loss, and NCDOT would continue to conduct sand scraping and road repairs. The project area will continue to experience a higher rate of erosion in front of the Village of Buxton, and "No -Action" would fail to address the additional sand loss due to hurricanes Florence and Dorian. It is possible that emergency measures would be implemented to protect the higher -risk properties, while the remaining beach would diminish in width. The "No -Action Alternative" does not provide a solution to the problem of ongoing erosion, does not address the additional sand loss from hurricanes, and does not follow the requirements specified in FEMA's Public Assistance Project and Policy Guide (FEMA 2020). No action would cause more environmental damage as the beach degraded, causing habitat loss while undermining the natural beach profile and the protective dune system. It has been determined that there are no other practicable alternatives to the proposed renourishment in the summer months that would be less environmentally damaging. 6.2 Candidate Disposal Site The proposed project is a renourishment project, which deposits sediment from offshore borrow sites on the beach. Disposal sites do not apply. 6.3 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Non -Living Environment Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics N/A No Effect Negligible Effect Minor Effect (Short -Term) Minor Effect (Long -Term) Substrate X Suspended Particulates/Turbidity X Water X Current Patterns and Water Circulation X Normal Water Fluctuations X Salinity Gradients X Substrate is rated a minor effect (short-term) because the borrow -area sediments consist of sand -sized material with minor percentages of fine-grained or coarse -grained material. Borings confirm that under- lying sediments remaining in the borrow areas after dredging will be similar to the dredged sediments, JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 65 Buxton, Dare County (NC) leaving a similar substrate for recolonization and use by marine organisms. Similarly, the addition of sand to the beach will displace profiles seaward, but will lead to similar slopes and morphology as the pre - nourishment beach, based on the similarity of sediment grain -size distribution in the borrow areas. Following the 2017-2018 Buxton nourishment project, the profiles of the project area equilibrated within approximately one year, aided by the high waves associated with Hurricane Florence (2018) and Hurricane Dorian (2019) (CSE 2020). Benthic monitoring studies in connection with a beach nourishment project at Nags Head in Dare County (-50 miles north of Buxton) demonstrated no significant difference in species abundance and diversity between the borrow areas and the control areas, indicating no significant adverse impacts to the substrate after removal of the nourishment volume (CZR-CSE 2014). Suspended Particulates/Turbidity is rated a minor effect (short-term) because sediments in the borrow areas are relatively coarse -grained (ie - medium to coarse sand), which settle rapidly if released into the water column. Fine-grained material (silts and clays) comprise <1 percent of the sediments in the borrow areas (see Appendix A-Geotechnical Data Analyses). This low percentage reduces the extent and duration of turbid plumes around the dredge or at the discharge point along the beach. The borrow areas are subject to high wave energy (>15 ft waves each year), which disperses fine material and results in low silt concentrations in the upper layers. During the 2017-2018 nourishment project, typical plumes around the discharge point extended <500 ft alongshore. The plumes subsided soon after the cessation of pumping. There is no evidence of long-term changes in turbidity along the project area after the 2017-2018 project. Suspended sediment characteristics along the Buxton project area fluctuate as a function of wave energy. Water is rated no effect because borrow sediments are generally inert and do not contain foreign material that will dissolve quickly in sea water or otherwise change water chemistry. Current Patterns and Water Circulation are rated no effect because borrow -area excavations will be small in relation to water depths offshore and, therefore, will not significantly modify wave energy over the borrow area or along the beach. The nourished beach will maintain similar morphology and topography as the existing beach while displacing the shoreline an average of-60 ft seaward after equilibration of the profile. Appendix D-Littoral Processes contains detailed analyses and modeling of wave transformation over the borrow areas with and without the project providing support for this effects assessment. Normal Water Fluctuations are rated no effect because the project will not change tides or wave energy at the shoreline. However, a wider beach will potentially reduce runup compared with highly eroded sites in the Outer Banks where the profile is steep at the edge of the foredune. During Hurricane Irene (2011), runup heights along the nourished section of a construction site at Nags Head in Dare County (-50 miles north of Buxton) were measured at -9-9.5 ft NAVD whereas runup at Duck —where incident wave energy is similar, but the beach is narrower —reached over 13 ft NAVD (CSE 2012, McNinch et at 2012). Salinity Gradients are rated no effect because the project does not involve sediments that would change the salt content in the ocean. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 66 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 6.4 Potential Impacts on Living Communities or Human Uses 6.4.1 Potential Impacts on Biological Characteristics of Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D) Potential Impacts on Biological Characteristics Biological Characteristics N/A No Negligible Minor Effect Minor Effect Major Effect Effect (Short -Term) (Long -Term) Effect Threatened and endangered species X Fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other aquatic X organisms Other wildlife X 6.4.1.1 Project Location, Habitats, Species Hatteras Island is part of the string of barrier islands and spits that form the Outer Banks. It has a land area of -33 square miles and a population of 4,322 as of the 2010 census. Buxton is the largest community by population on Hatteras Island, home to the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse as well as the elementary and secondary school that serves all residents of the island. Being located along the shoreline, the Buxton project area is characteristic of the ecological habitats normally associated with developed barrier - islands, including dunes, wet and dry beach, and ocean shore. On the sound side near the project, maritime forests, shallow bays, temporary ponds, salt marshes, and tidal flats occur. Vegetation — According to NCNHP (2017), there are 11 species with some level of special status that have been documented within a one -mile radius of the Buxton proposed project area on dunes, behind the dune line, and within marshes. Harsh conditions, such as wave and wind exposures, affect the amount of vegetation cover on the beach and dunes. Many of the plant species found in these areas are well adapted to these harsh conditions. Within the Seashore and portions of Buxton on the upper beach, vegetation cover is a sparse (20 percent coverage) monoculture of American searocket (Cakile edentula ssp. edentula). Vegetative cover on dune slopes ranges from sparse to dense (30-80 percent coverage) patches of some easily recognizable species, including sea oats (Uniola paniculata), shore little bluestem (Schizachyrium littorale), saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), largeleaf pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonariensis) and firewheel (Gaillardia pulchella), lanceleaf greenbrier (Smilax smallii), and prickly pear cactus (Opuntia pusilla) [ N C N H P 2017]. Terrestrial and Marine Wildlife — The Outer Banks, particularly the less developed sections, is a perma- nent and temporary home to a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic life, including threatened, endan- gered, and other protected species. These species depend on the special habitats resulting from the transition between the northern and southern habitat zones and the dynamic nature of the barrier islands. Special -status species are discussed in further detail as follows. The Cape Hatteras National Seashore is designated a Globally Important Bird Area (GIBA) as a critical natural landform along the Atlantic Flyway. The Seashore and environs serve as major resting and feeding grounds for migratory birds throughout the year. The barrier -island ecosystem is also important to several JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 67 Buxton, Dare County (NC) species of shorebirds for use as nesting grounds. Shorebirds are most abundant from late spring through the summer months. The Buxton project area along the Seashore at the northern two-thirds of the proposed nourishment, and migratory birds most often would frequent the less -developed areas offered bythe Seashore. The NCNHP has documented four species of birds with some level of special status within a one -mile radius of the proposed project area (least tern, harrier, black rail, and peregrine falcon), but only the least tern might be in the project area (NCNHP 2017). The Outer Banks, particularly the less -developed portions, also provides habitat for a variety of reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and fish. Since 1996, NCNHP has documented five reptiles with special status in the project area —three species of sea turtles (loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley), one coastal turtle (diamondback terrapin), and one watersnake (Carolina watersnake). One amphibian (oak toad), one land mammal (red wolf), one marine mammal (West Indian manatee), and two fish species (Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon) with special status have been documented by NCNHP within one mile of the proposed project area. The diamondback terrapin and Carolina watersnake are both marsh dwellers and are unlikely to occur in the proposed project area (the watersnake can also be found in freshwater habitats). The oak toad, manatee, and red wolf are also unlikely to occur within the proposed project area. With the exception of the sea turtles and the two sturgeon (which are addressed elsewhere in this document), the other species are also unlikely to occur in the proposed project area. Many of these element occurrences were in the back -barrier and/or terrestrial habitats, which will not be affected by the project. (NCNHP 2017) State Natural Areas —The Turtle Pond and Cape Hatteras Lighthouse natural area is a Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA) under an agreement between the National Park Service and the NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). Within the Turtle Pond RHA, an Interdune Pond natural community has been documented. The Buxton Woods Natural area is located just west and southwest of the Turtle Pond RHA and a portion of the Woods is also an RHA. The following natural communities have also been documented within the Buxton Woods Natural Area: Interdune Marsh, Interdune Pond, Maritime Evergreen Forest (Mid -Atlantic Subtype), Maritime Shrub Swamp (Dogwood Subtype), and Maritime Swamp Forest (Typical Subtype). These Natural Heritage Areas are depicted in Figure 6.1. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 68 Buxton, Dare County (NC) i 1 Pamlico Sound I f Project f Area Buxton o O o Buxton Woods Coastal Reserve Cape Hatteras Lighthouse Y O Atlantic Ocean a� Turtle n Ponds '?r9rud Billy Mitchell Aii " Hatteras Bight H'tt'—, e, ht Figure 6.1. Map of Buxton -Cape Hatteras area showing the approximate boundaries of the Buxton Woods Coastal Reserve and Turtle Ponds, the two Natural Heritage sites located about 1 mile from the Proposed Action Area. 6.4.1.2 Special -Status Species (Federal and Statel For federally -protected species, those listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS or NMFS are afforded federal protection under the ESA of 1973 (as amended) and are addressed in Section 6.4.2. Other federal species that potentially may be affected by the proposed project are birds and mammals. Many bird species that may occur in the proposed project area/vicinity are federally protected under the Migratory Bird Protection Act of 1918 (MBTA) (eg- colonial waterbirds, other shorebirds, and birds of prey). For MBTA-protected species, there is no provision for incidental take related to dredging or filling, or crushing by equipment. The US Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 as amended (MMPA) protects all marine mammals including cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), sirenians (manatees and dugongs), sea otters, and polar bears within the waters of the United States. For state -protected species in North Carolina, animal species designated by the NCDEQ-NCWRC and the NCDEQ-NCNHP as threatened, endangered, or species of concern are also afforded legal protection by the ESA (Article 25, Chapter 113, General Statutes 1987). Plant species in North Carolina —determined by the Plant Conservation Program (NC Department of Agriculture) and the NCNHP as threatened, endangered, or special concern —are protected by the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 69 Buxton, Dare County (NC) During the preparation of Appendix E—Biological Assessment, 26 species with special status were excluded from evaluation as they were deemed not likely to occur within the proposed project area or vicinity. Twenty-nine (29) federally or state -listed species were identified as having the potential to occur within the proposed project area. These included 12 bird species, three fish species, two plant species, six mammal species, and six reptile species. The 55 species considered are shown in Table 6.1. Species listed only by the state, and not federally listed as threatened or endangered, that have the potential to occur within the proposed project area are discussed in Section 6.4.1.7 (State -Protected Species). TABLE 6.1. Threatened, endangered, and candidate/proposed species with the potential to occur within the action/analysis area as determined by state and/or federal agencies with jurisdictional authority. The species lists were obtained from appropriate agencies (FWS, NMFS, NCNHP, and NCWRC) and reviewed; species without the potential to occur were excluded from further review with a no -effect determination based on the rationale codes as shown below. 1 Status Codes: E/E=federally and state listed endangered; E*=state listed endangered; T/T=federally and state listed threatened; T*=state listed threatened; SC=state listed special concern; V=state listed vulnerable; P= federally proposed for listing; Exp=experimental population, non -essential. z Exclusion Rationale Codes: ODR=outside known distributional range of the species; HAB=no habitat present in analysis area; and SEA=species not expected to occur during the season of use/impact SPECIES COMMON AND STATUS' POTENTIAL RATIONALE FOR HABITAT DESCRIPTION AND RANGE SCIENTIFIC NAME TO OCCUR • Elkhorn coral T No ODR Coral reefs in southern Florida, the Bahamas, and (Acropora palmata) across the Caribbean Staghorn coral T No ODR Back and fore reef zones in southern Florida, the (Acropora cervicornis) Bahamas, and across the Caribbean BIRDS Caspian tern T Yes Primarily coastal shorelines/waters but also larger (Hydroprogne cospio) lakes and rivers of North America Eastern black rail Variety of heavily vegetated salt, brackish, (Loterallus jamaicensis T/PT* No freshwater wetland habitats of Mexico, Central jamaicensis) American, Caribbean, and US east of Rockies Piping plover Coastal shorelines, sandflats at the end of sand (Charadrius melodus) T/T Yes spits and barrier islands, gently sloped foredunes, sparsely vegetated dunes, and washovers Red -cockaded woodpecker E (PT)/E No HAB Mature pine forests with an open understory (Picoides borealis) Roseate tern (Sterna Nest on ends of or breaks in small barrier islands dougalliidougallii) E/E Yes other than NC; NEUS population may use NC beaches as stopover during seasonal migrations Fall and spring migrant; uses NC beaches for Peregrine falcon E * Yes resting and as winter visitor; can be seen on (Falco peregrinus) telephone poles on Pea Island/Hatteras Island. No suitable nesting habitat in project vicinity. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus Year round resident in vicinity but no nesting leucoephalus) T* Yes habitat in project vicinity. Forages along the seashore. Gull -billed tern Breeding summer resident early fall migrant; rests (Gelochelidon niloctica) T* Yes on sandbars and spits with other terns; feeds over coastal grasslands, dunes, marshes Red knot (Colidris T Yes Coastal shorelines/interitdal areas for resting and canuta rufa) feeding during spring and fall migration JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 70 Buxton, Dare County (NC) SPECIES COMMO RATIONALEFOR HABITAT DESCRIPTION AND RANGE MAND •EXCLUSION2 BIRDS(concluded) Common tern Breeds on bare sand on barrier islands and (Sterna hirundo) E' Yes dredge spoil islands; summer resident; more numerous in fall migration Least tern Sc Yes Open sandy beaches, sparsely vegetated areas (Sterna ontillorum) often on islands through the southeast US Black skimmer Open sandy beaches, sparsely vegetated areas (Rhynchops niger) SC Yes often on islands throughout southeast US, colonial nester; mostly summer resident in NC American oystercatcher Sc Yes Coastal shoreline and estuaries, oyster beds, (Haematopus palliatus) mudflats, beach nester Wilson's plover (Charadrius wilsonia) Sc Yes Beaches, island end flats, estuarine islands Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) SC No HAB Forests or thickets on maritime islands Snowy egret (Egretta thula) Sc No HAB Forests or thickets on maritime islands Tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor) SC No HAB Forests or thickets on maritime islands Least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) Sc No HAB Fresh or brackish marshes Glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) SC No HAB Forests or thickets on maritime islands Atlantic sturgeon Western Atlantic waters- fresh water rivers to (Acipenseroxyrinchus) E/SC Yes spawn, estuarine waters asjuveniles, marine waters as subadults and adults (10-50m depths) Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) E/E Yes Rivers and estuaries of the east coast of US Smalltooth sawfish E No ODR US DPS; shallow warm estuaries and off warm (Pristis pectinate) water beaches and warm deep water reefs Tropical, subtropical, temperate oceans Giant manta ray T Yes worldwide and near productive coastlines (Manta birostris) seasonally; estuarine waters near inlets; scatterec and fragmented populations Oceanic whitetip shark T No ODR;HAB Worldwide surface waters of tropical, subtropical (Corchorhinus longimonus) offshore open ocean of >600 ft depth FLOWERING Seabeach amaranth T/T Yes Overwash flats, dunes, and accretion areas on (Amoronthus pumilus) barrier islands of the Atlantic Ocean Seabeach knotweed E Yes Beach dunes and interdune swales and overwash (Polygonum glaucum) sands, margins of salt ponds Georgia sunrose P No HAB Maritime forests (Croconthemum georgionum) Gulfcoast spikerush E' No HAB Brackish marsh (Eleocharis cellulose) JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 71 Buxton, Dare County (NC) SPECIES COMMON AND POTENTIALTO RATIONALE FOR HABITAT DESCRIPTION AND RANGE NAME EXCLUSIONSCIENTIFIC OCCUR FLOWERING PLANTS Lanceleafseedbox (Ludwigia lanceolate) E' No HAB Brackish marsh Florida adder's mouth (Malaxis spicata) SC-V No HAB Swamps, low woods, streambanks Four angled flatsedge (Cyperus tetragonus) I I SC-V No HAB Open woods, thickets, barrier islands Worldwide oceans; occasionally in coastal Blue whale HAB;SEA waters but thought to occur generally more (Balaenoptera E Yes offshore than other whales; poleward migration musculus) in spring; 0 NC strandings 1997-2020; recent documented sighting 27 mi off Cape Hatteras Deep offshore waters of all major temperate Fin whale to polar oceans; may be in NC waters during (ealaenoptera physalus) E Yes winter migration from north to south; 3 NC strandings 1997-2020, 1 in proposed construction window (May) Humpback whale Worldwide oceans equator to subpolar; winter (Megaptera E Yes migration to tropical and subtropical waters; novaeangliae) 50 NC strandings 1997-2020, 8 from May to Oct Worldwide temperate to subpolar oceans; nursery grounds in shallow coastal waters; North Atlantic right movements strongly tied to prey food whale (Eubolaena E Yes distribution; in lower latitudes and coastal glacialis) waters in winter, more inshore during spring migration; 6 NC strandings 1997-2020, 2 during proposed construction window (Aug and Sept) Subtropical to subpolar waters on continental edge and slope; usually observed in deeper Sei whale E No HAB;SEA oceans far from coastline; move to northern (Balaenoptera borealis) latitudes in summer; 2 NC strandings 1997-2020; not in proposed construction window or Dare County Sperm whale (Physeter Worldwide oceans; uncommon in waters <300m; macrocephalus) E Yes HAB 9 NC strandings 1997-2020, 2 in proposed construction window (June) Florida coast and Caribbean; rare visitor to West Indian manatee T/ T Yes NC waters and further north; 5 NC strandings (Trichetus manatus) 1997-2008 all inshore, 2 in proposed construction window (July, Aug) NC's Albemarle peninsula, species found from Red wolf (Canis rufus) Exp/T No HAB agricultural lands to pocosins in areas of low human density, a wetland soil type, and distance from roads. Northern long eared bat NC represents southern coastal extent of range; (Myotis septentrionalis) T/T No HAB; needs forests (live and snags) for summer roosts. Project meets 2017 SLOPES IV.B conditions Buxton Woods white- footeddeermouse (Peromyscus leucopus SC No HAB Only found in maritime forest of Buxton Woods buxtoni) JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 72 Buxton, Dare County (NC) SPECIES COMMONPOTENTIALTO RATIONALE FOR HABITAT DESCRIPTIONAND R SCIENTIFIC NAME OCCUR EXCLUSION' Green sea turtle Global distribution in tropical and subtropical (Chelonia mydas) T/T Yes waters along continents and islands; inshore and nearshore waters of NC; nests on ocean beaches Hawksbill sea turtle Circumtropical; usually in waters <20m; rare in INC (Eretmochelys imbricate) E Yes waters but has stranded on NC beaches; nests on ocean beaches elsewhere Kemp's ridley sea turtle E/ E Yes Neritic habitats including Gulf of Mexico and US (Lepidochelys kempii) Atlantic seaboard; nests on ocean beaches Leatherback sea turtle E/E Yes Pelagic species found globally, but also forages (Dermochelys coriaceo) in coastal waters; nests on ocean beaches Loggerhead sea turtle Circumglobal in temperate and tropical oceans; (Caretta caretta) T/T Yes nest on ocean beaches; critical migratory habitat in NC offshore waters within project area Diamondback terrapin SC Yes Coastal salt marshes and shallow bays; nests in (Malaclemys terrapin) sand dunes or in scrub near ocean Carolina watersnake (Nerodio sipedon SC No HAB Salt or brackish marshes williamengelsi) Outer Banks king snake (Lompropeltisgetula SC No HAB Maritime forests, thickets, and grasslands of the sticticeps) Outer Banks Timber rattlesnake (Crotolus horridus) SC No HAB Wetland forests in the coastal plain. Carolina pygmy rattlesnake SC No HAB Pine flatwoods, pine oak sandhills, or other (Sistrurus miliarius) pine/oak forests Eastern chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia syn. Deirochelys SC No HAB Quiet waters, ponds, ditches, sluggsish streams reticularia) Carolina swamp snake (Seminotrix pygaea SC No HAB Lush vegetation of ponds, ditches and sluggish paludis syn. Liodytes streams pygaea paludis) 6.4.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (M BTA)- Protected Species Details for each ESA -protected species are contained in Appendix E-Biological Assessment. Bird species that are federally protected underthe Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Act are evaluated below. Other birds with federal protection include some species that are also listed by the State of North Carolina as threatened or endangered or of special concern. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 73 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Colonial Waterbirds, Other Shorebirds, and Birds of Prey Caspian Tern The largest of all the terns, the Caspian tern can be found on five continents and is a permanent resident of but sparse breeder on the coastal plain of North Carolina while an uncommon to rare transient in the piedmont and mountains. The bird was proposed for threatened state status by the NC Wildlife Commission in 2017 but was not included in the latest State of North American Birds Watch List published in 2016. There is little information on population trends, but the species appears stable overall; however, where it is considered rare or vulnerable, it is mostly due to the scattered nature of breeding colonies. The 2017 survey of colonial waterbirds by the NCWRC reported a 46 percent decrease in relative change in number of sites where the species was nesting over a 13-year period; the number of nests met the population goal of the North Carolina Waterbird Program only in 1993, 1995, and 1999 (Schweitzer et al 2017); the nest sites goal was met (one) in the 2020 NCWRC survey but the number of nests goal was not (Johnson et al 2020). The 2020 NCWRC estimated number of Caspian tern nests compared to the 14-year average declined (-16 percent) as did the number of 2020 sites compared to the 14-year mean (-100 percent) (Johnson et al 2020). Found near large bodies of water, lakes, lagoons, beaches, and bays with a preference for quieter water, it is seldom seen foraging over open sea, although it may forage along the ocean beach edge. During breeding season, it forages mostly in fresh and brackish impoundments and marshes and leaves the saltwater habitats to other terns. It has a thick based and prominent red bill sometimes with a black tip, a rather thick neck, and in flight, the tail has a shallow fork. A breeding adult has a black cap, frequently raised, and the undersides of the wings are mostly white to grey with black on the outer primaries (photo of breeding adult courtesy of Nick Rosen/Macaulay Library). The species nests on open ground it scrapes on islands and coasts; in Dare County about 10 to 12 pairs nest annually, but mostly in vicinity of Oregon Inlet, with fewer pair and/or less frequency near Hatteras Inlet (LeGrand 2018-11-09). The 13-year average of nests in North Carolina documented by the NCWRC is 18 +/- 3 at one to three sites (Schweitzer et al 2017). Each pair will typically raise only one brood per season and a nest will contain one to three eggs. Usually a solitary bird who nest by themselves, this bird aggressively defends the its breeding area and will chase and pursue other potentially predatory birds and even draw blood on the head of humans who threaten too near; ironically, the entire colony will take flight when a bald eagle appears, which then exposes the chicks to predation by gulls (Cornell University- All About Birds 2020). The species is noteworthy for extended adolescence and prolonged care of adults for their young for as many as eight months. The diet of Caspian terns consists mostly of fish and it will hover above the water, then plunge and dive below the surface to capture prey; it will also consume insects and eggs and young of other birds. Threats to the species include predation and human disturbance to beach nest areas. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 74 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Gull -billed Tern The gull -billed tern (Gelochelidon niloctia) is afforded federal protection underthe MBTA and is state -listed as threatened in North Carolina (2014). It is endangered in Maryland, and is legally protected in Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina, Alabama, California, Louisiana, and Michigan. It is included in the Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008) for the US southeastern coastal plain. Without taking conservation action, the species could become a candidate for ESA listing. This medium-sized tern has a light gray to white body light F courtesy of Glen Fergus. Source: CZR porated 2017. gray wings tipped with black, a black bill, and black legs. Their tails are short and notched. They have a wingspan of about 35 inches and are -14 inches in length (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide). Gull -billed terns are year -long residents of coastlines along North and South America and the Caribbean Islands (http://www.allaboutbirds.grg). Breeding occurs in summer along the Gulf coast from Mexico to Florida and from Florida to New Jersey along the Atlantic coast (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide) with most Atlantic hatching occurring in June (USFWS 2010). The subspecies was probably extirpated in Maryland, while population numbers have declined in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and possibly Georgia (Molina and Erwin 2006). Other than Texas, where over 60 percent of the eastern subspecies (G. niloctia arena) was reported in 2006, it is not considered abundant in its North American range. In North Carolina, breeding pair numbers have declined from 1977 levels, but numbers were fairly stable with 200-250 pairs from 2000 to 2010. State census data (2010) indicated a reduction in the number of North Carolina colony sites and a center abundance shiftfrom the Cape Fear River area to the northeastern part of the state (USFWS 2010). The species tends to nest in small, scattered, and often ephemeral colonies (Molina and Erwin 2006) on exposed, sparsely vegetated sandy beaches and dredge spoil sites. They feed on mudflats, marshes, and dunes(http://www.georgiawi[dlife.com). Gull -billed terns are common in Dare County during mid -May through July where they breed, build nests, and hatch their young. Beginning in August, the terns begin to migrate south, and by September, very few are left. This tern leaves the North Carolina coast by November, but returns by the end of March (http://www.ebird.org). A 2013 NPS nesting survey conducted for its annual Seashore colonial waterbird study found 6 gull -billed tern nests in early June. This number is lower than previous years with 15 nests counted in 2011 and 43 nests counted in 2012. Lower nest numbers in 2013 are likely due to habitat changes caused by Hurricane Sandy (2012) and extreme winds and high tides caused by Tropical Storm Andrea, which washed out nesting sites in early June 2013 (NPS 2014). In 2014, only one nest was observed resulting in no chicks; three nests in 2015 resulting in no chicks; and 23 nests in 2016 with a total of 40 eggs resulting in three chicks (NPS 2014, 2015a, 2016a). The 2016 annual survey showed Ocracoke Island remains the only nesting location for gull -billed tern in the Seashore (NPS 2016a). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 75 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Human disturbance at nesting sites is one of the biggest threats to gull -billed terns. Eggs and young in nests can be crushed by vehicles, people, and pets (http://www.georgiawildlife.com). Other losses include elimination of natural nest sites from beach erosion, feral predation, development, perturbations to estuarine functions, or modification of upland foraging habitats near breeding areas (Molina and Erwin 2006). Gull -billed terns are considered to be more susceptible to disturbance than other terns. Constant disturbance of gull -billed tern nesting sites can upset important activities essential for species survival and can even cause terns to abandon nesting sites. According to Molina and Erwin (2006), this species often nests on man-made substrates, which suggests it could be responsive to breeding site management. Least Tern The least tern (Sternulo ontillorum) is protected under the MBTA and is listed as special concern in North Carolina, due to continued disturbance of nesting sites along the coast. Most states along the Atlantic coast listthe leasttern as endangered, threatened, or special concern due to loss of nesting habitat (http://www.a[laboutbirds.Qrg). Populations located in Cali- fornia and the interior of US are federally listed as endangered. It is also included in the Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008) for the US southeastern coastal plain. Without taking conservation action, the species could become a candidate for ESA listing. The smallest of the American terns, least terns are -9 inches in length with long, narrow wings reaching a 20-inch wingspan (http://www.allaboutbirds.grg). Breeding plumage includes a black cap on the head, white forehead, a short, white eyestripe, and a yellow bill with a black tip. The body shows a grayish -white back, white underside, and short, notched tail, supported by yellow legs. During the nonbreeding season, least terns have a black eyestripe that extends to the back of the head, a white cap, and a black bill. Males and females look alike and immature terns appear similar to wintering adults (https://www.audubon.org/ field -guide). Least terns build their nests on sandy or gravelly beaches or along wide, sandy river banks and lake shores. They also may use flat gravel rooftops to nest. Guilfoyle and Fischer (2006) estimated that of the 50 percent of all coastal pairs nesting on rooftops, 90 percent occurfrom Florida (both coasts) north to North Carolina. Eastern populations occur all along the Atlantic US and Gulf Coasts and in the Caribbean during breeding season. In Dare County, least terns begin to arrive in early April and are abundant May through August. By the end of September, very few may remain until the beginning of October (http://www.ebird.org). By November, all have flown south to coastal areas along Central and South America for the winter. Atraditional nesting site for the least tern is the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. In 2013, Cape Point had the largest colony with 329 nests out of the 802 total observed. The 2013 total is only slightly lower than the 832 nests observed in 2012 (NPS 2014). Since 2007, the highest number was in 2011 with 1,063 nests, JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 76 Buxton, Dare County (NC) much higher than the 381 nests observed in 2010 (NPS 2014). In 2014, there were 469 nests that produced a total of 134 chicks, which is the highest number of least tern chicks on record (NPS 2014). The number of nests declined in 2015 (291 nests) and 2016 (295 nests) (NPS 2015a, 2016a). For the past three years, Hatteras Island had the largest number of least tern colonies. In 2018, 475 nests were identified in 14 colonies in the seashore with -70 nests detected within the project area (NPS 2019). The biggest threat to the least tern, and many shorebirds that use sandy beaches for nesting and foraging, is human disturbance. Recreational use, residential development, and water diversion are hazardous to the least tern's survival (http://www.allaboutbirds.org). As gravel rooftops are being phased out due to storm safety concerns and energy efficiency, the loss of this alternate nesting habitat further threatens this species. In 2010, two instances of least terns nesting on non -gravel roofs were documented in Florida, but this is not considered a long-term alternative (Warraich et at 2012). (The two roofs had been gravel and were previously used by nesting terns.) Despite increased development, the least tern population has steadily increased since 1997, with the largest colonies found at inlets (Schweitzer 2012). Common Tern Common terns (Sternulo hirundo) are the most widespread tern species of North America. One of the most rapidly declining beach -nesting species, the common tern was once a common nester in North Carolina. Due to loss or disturbance of nesting habitat, breeding populations have severely decreased in the last 40 years (www.ncbirds.carolinabirdclub.org). Protected under the MBTA, the common tern is listed as a special concern species in North Carolina and listed as threatened, endangered, or special concern in other states (www.ncbirds.carolinabirdclub.org). Of medium -size, common terns are 12 inches long and display a 30-inch wingspan. Males and females look similar with black caps and wingtips, grayish -white bodies, red legs and bills with a black tip, and long deeply forked tails during the breeding season (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide). Nonbreeding and immature terns display a partial cap, and juveniles have a brownish head and brown stripes across their backs (htt www.allaboutbirds.org). Breeding areas for common terns include Canada, US states I ' ' "` " " Y ✓ .. " "' yu'�'"" V"" C bordering Canada, and beaches along the Atlantic coast from tub. Source: CZR Incorporated 2017. Canada to North Carolina. Guilfoyle and Fischer (2006) estimated that less than 1 percent of the world population breeds alongthe coast of North Carolina where they use bare sand islands, dredge islands, and sandy beaches as nesting sites (www.ncbirds.carolinabirdclub.org). They build nests on the ground in shallow depressions or scrapes, sometimes with dead vegetation and shells (http://www.ailaboutbirds.org). During migrations, they may also be found around lakes and marshes. Common tern sightings have been documented in North Carolina during the winter months, but it is believed that these may be misidentifications, and that common terns are absent from North Carolina JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 77 Buxton, Dare County (NC) between November and January(www.ncbirds.carolinabirdclub.org). In 2011, the largest colonies of common terns in the state were observed on Big Foot Island, Clark Reef, Cape Hatteras, and Cape Lookout National Seashore, with about one -quarter of nests built on dredged material (Schweitzer 2012). In Dare County, common terns are mostly seen from April through October (http://www.ebird.org). They appear in April during spring migration, some remaining to breed in the vicinity of the proposed project area while others continue further north. Local breeders begin to leave in the fall and arejoined by northern breeders on their way south for the winter in South America. The Cape Hatteras National Seashore is a traditional nesting site for the common tern. From 2007 to 2013, the lowest number of nests observed was 19 (2008) and the highest number was 218 (2012), followed by a substantial decrease to 34 nests in 2013 (NPS 2014). The lower nest numbers are likely due to habitat changes caused by Hurricane Sandy (2012) and extreme winds and high tides caused by Tropical Storm Andrea that washed out nesting sites in early June 2013 (NPS 2014). The 2018 census found 72 nests with 12 chicks (NPS 2019). In 2014, colonies were observed on Ocracoke Island and Green Island with a total of 38 nests that produced two chicks. The lowest number of nests occurred in 2015, with 16 that produced six chicks, all on Ocracoke Island (NPS 2015a). In 2016, with colonies on Hatteras, Ocracoke, and Green Islands, the number of nests increased to 91, with 42 chicks (NPS 2016a). In 2014 and 2015, an increase in laughing gulls (Leucophoeus otricillo) may have caused a lower number of common tern nests on Green Island. Factors that threaten breeding populations along the Atlantic coast are predation, competing gulls, pets, human disturbance, loss of nesting habitat, weather, and rising sea levels (https://www.audubon.org/ field -guide). Black Skimmer Black skimmers (Rhynchops niger) are federally protected under the MBTA and as special concern in North Carolina Ir (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide). In other East coast states, the skimmer is listed as endangered (New Jersey), threatened (New York), or special concern (Florida). It is easily identified, with its striking red and black bill and short, red legs. The black skimmer skims the water for fish as itflies, using its thin bill and long, lower mandible. At 18 inches long Photo courtesy Lindsay Addison, Audubon with a 44-inch wingspan, black skimmers are medium to Source: CZR Incorporated 2017 large -sized waterbirds (http://www.allaboutbirds.grg). They have long, pointed wings and a short, white tail (https://www. audubon.org/field-guide). The top of the head, back, and wings are black, and the forehead and underparts are white. Skimmers have thin vertical pupils that reduce glare from the sand and water, a trait that is highly unusual in birds. Males and females are similar in appearance, and immature skimmers have mottled brown caps and backs (http://www.allaboutbirds.grg). Of the three races of the black skimmer, the North American race is mainly coastal, with the exception of some large inland lakes in Florida and California (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 78 Buxton, Dare County (NC) During breeding season, black skimmers occupy areas ranging from Massachusetts to Texas and areas in Central and South America. Guilfoyle and Fischer (2006) estimated that-20 percent of the black skimmer world-wide population breeds in the southeast US where they are found year-round. In the winter months, skimmers are found no further north than North Carolina, and may move inland to the state's Piedmont region during hurricanes (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide, www.ncbirds.carolinabirdciub.org). Black skimmers use open sandy beaches, dredge spoil islands, sparsely vegetated shell or gravel bars, and mats of sea wrack in salt marshes as nesting habitats. In some instances, nests are built on rooftops (http://www.all aboutbirds.org). They nest in groups and share nesting areas with laughing gulls and common, least, and gull -billed tern colonies. In 2011, one-third of observed black skimmer nests built along the North Carolina coast were on dredged material (Schweitzer 2012). In Dare County, black skimmers can be spotted year-round, commonly April through October (breeding season), but rarely seen December through February (http://www.ebird.org). The Seashore is a traditional nesting site for the black skimmer with the number of nests increasing between 2007 and 2012. From 2007 to 2010, low numbers of nests were observed, ranging from 4 in 2008 to 61 in 2009; 99 and 119 nests were observed in 2011 and 2013, respectively. The highest number of nests was 221 in 2012; lower nest numbers in 2013 were likely due to habitat changes caused by Hurricane Sandy (2012) and extreme winds and high tides caused by Tropical Storm Andrea that washed out nesting sites in early June 2013 (NPS 2014). The number of black skimmer nests in 2014 and 2015 were below the Seashore average, with 95 nests and 85 nests, respectively, all on Ocracoke Island (NPS 2015a, 2016a). Despite the below -average number of nests in 2014, that year produced the highest number of chicks (54) than the previous six years. In 2016,169 nests with 26 chicks were observed in colonies on Cape Point and Hatteras, Ocracoke, and Green Islands (NPS 2016a). The numbers climbed significantly, reaching 368 nests with 949 eggs in 2018, of which 116 chicks fledged (NPS 2019). Black skimmers are under the same types of threats as gulls and terns. Loss of habitat due to human development and disturbance of nesting sites due to human recreational use of beaches are major risks to their survival, along with natural predation by ghost crabs, raccoons, foxes and coyotes. American Oystercatcher Federally protected under the MBTA, American oystercatchers (Haematopus palliates) are listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern in almost every state along the Atlantic -� Coast. In North Carolina, they are listed as of special concern (www.nc.audubon.org). This species is included in the Birds of Conservation Concern for the US southeastern coastal plain (USFWS 2008). If conservation actions are not taken, the species could become a candidate for listing under the ESA. American oystercatchers are unlikely to be confused with Photo courtesy Planetofbirds.com. Source: other shorebirds, due to their bold coloring and size. They are CZR Incorporated 2017. distinguished by long, sharp, bright red bills, stout, pale - pinkish legs, black heads, brown backs, and white bellies. At 18 inches in length with a 32-inch wingspan, they are one of the largest shorebird species in North America (https://www.audubon.org/fieid-guide). As JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 79 Buxton, Dare County (NC) their common name indicates, they feed almost entirely on shellfish, including oysters, limpets, clams, mussels, crabs, starfish, sea urchins, and worms (http://www. allaboutbirds.org). Strictly coastal birds, they use large, open, sandy areas, sand dunes, and tidal marshes as habitat. During summer months, the American oystercatcher can be seen along the Atlantic Coast from New England to the Gulf Coast, Mexico, and Central America, parts of South America, and the Caribbean. About 12 percent of the global population of American oystercatchers inhabits the United States, with one-third of that population wintering in South Carolina. Virginia through the Carolinas has the largest concentration of wintering populations along the Atlantic Coast (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide). American oystercatchers are commonly seen in Dare County throughout the year; however, numbers are lower during winter months (http://www.ebird.org). Guilfoyle and Fischer (2006) estimated about 1,875 breeding pairs along both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, with 1,200 pairs estimated from Florida to North Carolina. Recent surveys from the NCWRC have shown an increase in American oystercatcher counts in the state from a total of 701 in 2004 to 822 in 2013. Since the last survey (2010), observed pairs went from 369 to 374 in 2013 and observed singles from 25 to 74. Along the Seashore, 27 total breeding pairs were documented in 2013 (Schweitzer and Abraham 2014). The same number of breeding pairs (27) was also documented in 2014, with 14 of them documented on Hatteras Island (NPS 2014). The Hatteras Island nests (22) had seven of the nine documented fledglings for 2014. During the 2015 breeding season, 25 pairs of American oystercatchers were documented for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore annual natural resources report. There were 43 nests total (some pairs re - nested) with 19 nests that hatched and produced 38 chicks (13 fledged); 2015 had the highest number of nests since before 2010 (NPS 2015a). In 2016, 26 breeding pairs were observed with 41 nests (13 hatched) that produced 24 chicks, which fledged 12 chicks (NPS 2016a). Although nest numbers have been higher in recent years, the fledgling success rate was lower than in 2010 and 2011. Breeding pairs continued to remain stable in 2017 and 2018 (24 and 25, respectively) but only 2 chicks fledged in 2017 (out of 9 nests hatched). There were 40 nests in 2018 hatched and 20 chicks fledged (NPS 2019). Like many other shorebirds, loss of habitat and nesting sites, human disturbance, and predators pose the biggest threat to the American oystercatchers' survival. This species is particularly sensitive to disturbance and is more vulnerable because on average a pair may take up to four years to successfully fledge one young (Guilfoyle and Fischer 2006). One human activity that has been beneficial is the creation of sand islands from dredging spoils. These islands are good nesting sites because they are often high in elevation and fairly isolated from people and predators like raccoons and skunks (http://www.ahabout birds.org). Wilson's Plover Wilson's plover (Chorodrius wilsonio wilsonio) is federally protected underthe MBTA, and is listed as special concern in North Carolina. It is state -listed as rare in Georgia, threatened in South Carolina, and endangered in Virginia. Wilson's Plover is listed as a Bird ofConservotion Concern (USFWS 2008) and High Concern by the US Shorebird Conservation Plan and Southeast Coastal Plain —Caribbean Region. The Audubon Watch List has given it a Moderately High Priority status. After a recent reevaluation of estimated JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 80 Buxton, Dare County (NC) American shorebird populations, the Wilson's plover was designated as in Apparent Decline (Zdravkovic 2013). Three subspecies of Wilson's plover have been identified with only one occurring on the US Atlantic coast, C. wilsonia wilsonia (Zdravkovic 2013). This coastal subspecies breeds from Virginia to Florida, along the Gulf Coast from Florida to Mexico, and in parts of the Caribbean and Central and South America. It spends the winter months along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts from Florida to Texas and south to parts of South America. The Wilson's plover is not considered completely Photo courtesy of Wikimedia commons. Source: CZR Incorporated 2017. migratory because some birds stay on nesting beaches year- long. Birds in the more northern reaches of their breeding range are known to migrate short distances (http://www.a[laboutbirds.org). Wilson's plovers can be found on sparsely vegetated coastal areas, including beaches, sand bars, barrier and dredge spoil islands, lagoons, tidal mudflats, and river mouths where fiddler crabs, their main food source, can be found (http://www.allaboutbirds.org). A recent study in North Carolina found 83 percent of breeding Wilson's plovers on barrier island beaches (Houston and Cameron 2008). They build nests in areas with varying vegetation ground cover from open to dense, but they prefer to build nests on sparsely vegetated sites (Zdravkovic 2013). Wilson's plovers nest in pairs or small groups and often return to the same nesting site (http://www.allaboutbirds.org). In Dare County, the plover is not an abundant species, but can be spotted from March to October. A few sightings have been documented in the first week of November and January (http://www.ebird.org). Guilfoyle and Fischer (2006) estimated about 1,500 breeding pairs are present on the US Southeast coastal plain and peninsular Florida. More recent estimates put the total population of C. wilsonia wilsonia from 13,550 to 14,650 breeding adults — of those adults, about 2,000-2,220 comprise the US Atlantic Coast population (Zdravkovic 2013). In a comprehensive study (Houston and Cameron 2008), the coastal North Carolina population was estimated to range from 245 to 270 breeding pairs. A more recent North Carolina study documented nest success rates of 46 percent for 20 nests in 2008 and 44 percent for 26 nests in 2009. The hatched survival rates in this study were 45 percent in 2008 and 50 percent in 2009 (Zdravkovic 2013). The number of nesting pairs on Hatteras Spit on Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island have decreased, and Oregon Inlet no longer has nesting plovers (Fussell 1994, Zdravkovic 2013). In 2014, three nests occurred in the Seashore, all on islands, and no fledglings were documented (NPS 2015b). The number of nests was the same in 2015 and 2016; all nests were located on Ocracoke Island and no chicks fledged (NPS 2015c, 2016a). There was no activity in the project area in 2018 (NPS 2019). The biggest threat to the survival of Wilson's plover is human disturbance. This includes coastal develop- ment that alters habitat and human disturbances to nesting areas. Guilfoyle and Fischer (2006) noted that sometimes nests and chicks have been run over by four -wheelers driven by sea turtle biologists. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 81 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Bald Eagle The American bald eagle (Holioeetus leucoepholus) has been federally protected for many years, under the MBTA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (amended 1962). Because of its successful comeback from severe population decline, the bald eagle was de -listed from federal protection under the ESA in August 2007. It continues to be closely monitored so that it may be reinstated to ESA protection if needed. In North Carolina, the bald eagle is listed as threatened and is listed in the Birds of Conservation Concern for the US southeastern coastal plain (USFWS 2008). The bald eagle was adopted as the national symbol of the United States of America in 1782. This majestic bird is easily recognized, due to its large size, its distinctive luma a and its sheer h sical resence Its white head and tail F i li Photo courtesy NCWRC. Source: CZR Incorporated 2017. p g, p Y p feathers contrast sharply with its dark brown body and wings and bright yellow beak and taloned feet. Juvenile bald eagles have a dark head and tail feathers and are mottled with white on their underside (http://www. allaboutbirds.org). Female bald eagles can weigh up to 14 pounds and have a wingspan of about 8 ft, while male bald eagles are smaller, weighing up to 10 pounds with a wingspan of about 6 ft (USFWS 2014). Bald eagles permanently reside along the coast from Alaska to northern California, the Rocky Mountains, the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River, and along the Gulf and southeast US coasts (https://www.audubon. org/field-guide). During winter months and breeding migration, they can be seen all over the United States. Breeding hotspots include Canada and the Great Lakes, Florida and the southeastern US coast (http://www.ailaboutbirds.Qrg). Bald eagles occur near water bodies —lakes, rivers, marshes, and coastlines —where they feed on fish, their preferred food, but also birds, reptiles, crabs, and small mammals (http://www.allabout birds.org). In Dare County, bald eagles are common to abundantfrom Novemberthrough April and less common May through September (http://www.ebird.org). Nests are usually built in tall trees in forests near large bodies of water (http://www.allaboutbirds.org). NCWRC bald eagle nest data show six nests in Dare County, none of which are within the project area vicinity. These nests have not been verified by NCWRC since 2011 (David Allen, NCWRC biologist, pers Comm, 18 December 2014). In the south, eagles typically breed from late September through November and lay eggs from November through January (https://www.fws.gov /birds/management/managed-species/bald-and-golden-eagle-information.php). Increasingly common in North Carolina on the coast, bald eagles can be seen perching, fishing, orsoaring in coastal forest land or near maritime forests fringing marsh and creek areas. They are less likely to be seen over the beach itself or over nearshore ocean waters. Much like peregrine falcons, threats to bald eagles include habitat destruction, poisoning, shooting, theft of eggs or young, electrocution by power lines, and collision with moving vehicles (httpJ/ecos.fws.gov). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 82 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Peregrine Falcon The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus onotum) has federal protection under the MBTA and is listed in the Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008) for the southeastern coastal plain of the US. It is also listed as an endangered species bythe State of North Carolina. After being listed as an endangered species under the ESA for 29 years, the peregrine falcon was removed in August 1999. The post-delisting monitoring plan has been in effect since 2003 and ended in 2015. The peregrine falcon is a crow -sized bird with a wingspan of about 3 ft with long, pointed wings and a long tail. Adult peregrine falcons have a dark gray back and hood that extends down their face on either side of their beak. They have a pale chest with dark horizontal bars and spots on their abdomens and legs. Males are smaller than females, but are otherwise identical in appearance (USFWS 2014, http://www.all aboutbirds.org). Photo courtesy Jeff Lewis, Carolina Bird Club. Source: CZR Incorporated 2017. In North America, common areas with year-round falcon residents include the western North American coast from Alaska to Mexico, Utah, Arizona, western Colorado, around the Great Lakes, and the northeastern portion of the US coast. They typically breed in the summer months in Alaska and northern Canada, the Rocky and Appalachian Mountains, and the southern portion of South America. They build nests on cliffs, bluffs, or tall buildings in the city. Rebounding popula- tions are expanding their breeding and nesting areas across North America. One of the migration routes taken by peregrine falcons includes the Atlantic coastal areas (https://www.fws. g_ov, https://www.audubon.org/fieid-guide). In Dare County, peregrine falcons are more common from September through mid -April, with the highest numbers sighted in October. Around May, sightings decrease and are not spotted again until July. Pere- grine falcon numbers remain low until September (http://www.ebird.org). Preferred habitats for peregrine falcons include open areas, along lakes, river and stream banks, mudflats, coastal areas, and even in cities where they can perch on tall structures (https://www.fws.gov). This falcon depends on shorelines, mudflats, and areas near open water to prey on waterfowl and shorebirds. It is common in the proposed project area during its migrations in spring (January -April) and fall (mid -September to early November), with more abundance in October than during earlier months. The major contributing factor to peregrine falcon decline was the pesticide DDT. Since banning the use of DDT (31 December 1972), population recovery programs have helped establish a self-sustaining popula- tion of peregrine falcons in the eastern US. Humans now pose the greatest threat, with habitat destruction being the most detrimental. Poisoning, shooting, theft of eggs or young, electrocution by power lines, and collisions with moving vehicles are also threats to this species (https://www.fws.gov). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 83 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 6.4.1.4 Impacts on Migratory Bird Treaty Act -Protected Species by Alternatives Additional species of birds federally protected under the Migratory Bird Protection Act (MBTA) may occur in the project area/vicinity (eg - colonial waterbirds, other shorebirds, and birds of prey —bald eagle and peregrine falcon). For MBTA-protected species, there is no provision for incidental take related to dredging or filling, or crushing by equipment. "Take" under the MBTA is defined as pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, capture, or collect or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, capture, or collect (per 50 CFR§10.12). Many of these birds also have state -level protection status. Below is an analysis by alternatives of the impacts on MBTA-Protected Species. Impacts of "No -Action Alternative" on Colonial Waterbirds (Caspian Tern, Gull -billed Tern, Common Tern, Least Tern, Black Skimmer). The "No -Action Alternative" would include moderate, long-term impacts to colonial waterbird nesting habitat as the beach would eventually become too narrow to support nesting. This assumes that as erosion continues, the existing foredune would leave chronic escarpments and the dry beach would have negligible width. Existing development, which encompasses nearly 100 percent of the proposed project oceanfront, would likely have emergency protection —such as sand bags, installed and left in place for extended periods, further degrading habitat. Impacts of "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" on Colonial Waterbirds (Caspian Tern, Gull -billed Tern, Common Tern, Least Tern, Black Skimmer). Impacts under "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" would have direct, site - specific, short-term, negligible to minor impacts to foraging or resting birds that may be in the area. All four species included in the colonial waterbirds category would be present in the region, which would increase the likelihood of disturbance by construction activities on the beach. Existing foraging and nesting habitat would also have short-term minor impacts during sand placement. These impacts would be staggered, however, and would progress over a 600-800-foot active impact area of the beach at any given time as the sand is pumped and bulldozed. Approximately 200-300 ft of nourishment would be completed per day, which would become immediately available for use by birds in the area based on their tolerance to disturbance and proximity to human activity. Cumulative Impacts on Colonial Waterbirds (Caspian Tern, Gull -billed Tern, Common Tern, Least Tern, Black Skimmer). Please refer to the Cumulative Impacts on EFH/HAPC (Sections 8 and 10) of this EA for o description of post, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions. Habitat loss or degradation due to human activities associated with recreation or development elsewhere in Dare County would continue. The "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" would provide -5 years of wider beach availability for bird use. Conclusion — Colonial Waterbirds. While the level of potential impact is slightly different between the two alternatives, each has the potential to adversely impact colonial waterbirds. When added to the cumulative effects of the planned 2022 northern Outer Banks nourishment projects, north of Oregon Inlet, periodic Oregon Inlet dredging, and continued development in Dare County —the incremental adverse impact JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 84 Buxton, Dare County (NC) on colonial waterbirds of the "No -Action Alternative" is imperceptible, and impacts are imperceptible to noticeable for "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction." Impacts of "No -Action Alternative" on Wilson's Plover. The "No -Action Alternative" would allow erosion to continue in the proposed project area, which would have adverse, site -specific, long-term impacts to nesting habitat for the Wilson's plover, as the beach would eventually become too narrow to support nesting. However, currently, this plover has not nested in the Buxton project area, rarely nests along the Seashore, and only nested on Ocracoke Island in 2014. The likelihood of isolated dune breaches and washovers would increase underthe "No -Action Alternative,"and such washovers would potentially provide additional foraging habitat adjacent to the breach. The extent and duration of the benefit would be temporary or short-term because it would occur around existing development, and property owners would likely take measures to stabilize the areas around their homes. Impacts of "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" on Wilson's Plover. This bird could be in the area from March to October, so under "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction," not only would foraging and resting area habitats in the proposed project area be adversely impacted during construction (short-term), any birds in the area could also be disrupted from feeding or resting. Beneficial, site -specific, long-term effects would include -40- 125 additional feet of dry beach for nesting and resting post -equilibration. Cumulative Impacts on Wilson's Plover. Please refer to the Cumulative Impacts on EFH/HAPC (Sections 8 and 10) of this EA for a description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions. Habitat loss or degradation due to human activities associated with recreation or development elsewhere in Dare County would continue. Additionally, while the proposed project area would likely revert to the pre - project deficit condition within -5 years under the "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction," sand that migrates from the nourished beach downdrift within the littoral current would feed the existing foraging and roosting habitat along the Seashore, a potential long-term benefit to the species. Conclusion — Wilson's Plover. Under the "No -Action Alternative," continued erosion in the proposed project area would cause moderate and long-term adverse impacts to nesting habitat, but if a washover occurred, it would provide additional short-term foraging habitat. Overall, this alternative would not likely adversely impact Wilson's plover. Under the "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction," impacts to nesting and foraging habitat would occur, and individual birds may be disturbed during construction, but these are considered negligible, temporary, and short-term, and would not likely adversely impact Wilson's plover. The incremental adverse impacts on Wilson's plover of either of the two evaluated alternatives are imperceptible when added to the cumulative adverse effects of the planned 2022 northern Outer Banks nourishment projects, periodic Oregon Inlet dredging, and continued development in Dare County. Impacts of "No -Action Alternative" on American Oystercatcher. The "No -Action Alternative"would allow erosion to continue, which would result in less nesting habitat as the beach would continue to steepen JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 85 Buxton, Dare County (NC) and narrow —an indirect, long-term, site -specific, adverse effect. One beneficial, indirect, site -specific effect of this alternative would be the formation of additional foraging and resting habitat if a washover occurred. The duration of this benefit would depend on whether the washover remained unvegetated or stabilized with vegetation. Impacts of "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" on American Oystercatcher. The "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" would have short-term, minor impacts to American oystercatcher foraging and resting habitat in the proposed project area during sand placement. It would also have short-term, minor, local impacts to potential nesting birds. While the 2018 Buxton nourishment project was under construction in the vicinity of the Buxton development, there were a relatively high number of nests (18) producing 34 chicks of which 20 fledged on Hatteras Island (NPS 2019). Beneficial, site -specific, long-term, moderate effects would include-40-125 additional feet of dry beach for nesting and resting post -equilibration. Cumulative Impacts on American Oystercatcher. Please refer to the Cumulative Impacts on EFH/HAPC (Sections 8 and 10) of this EA for a description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions. While the proposed project area would likely revert to the pre -project deficit condition within -5 years, sand that migrates from the nourished beach downdrift within the littoral current would feed the existing foraging and roosting habitat along the Seashore south of the southern project terminus, a potential long- term benefit to this species. Habitat loss or degradation due to human activities associated with recreation or development elsewhere in Dare County would continue. Conclusion — American Oystercatcher. With a continuing erosional beach, the "No -Action Alternative" has no or little benefit to the American oystercatcher, although some habitat would be provided if a wash - over occurred due to the narrowing beach. The "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" would have short- to long-term beneficial impacts by the addition of, or expansion of, nesting, resting, or foraging habitat. The "Preferred Alternative" would have the short-term potential to adversely impact nesting birds. In 2018, six nests were identified by NPS staff within the project area. However, all but one were lost. Long-term, the "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" may provide beneficial impacts to nesting habitat due to a wider beach. Overall, the American oystercatcher is not likely to be adversely impacted by either of the two evaluated alternatives. The incremental adverse impacts on American oystercatcher of either of the two evaluated alternatives are imperceptible when added to the cumulative effects of the planned 2022 northern Outer Banks nourishment projects, periodic Oregon Inlet dredging, and continued development in Dare County. Impacts of "No -Action Alternative" on Bald Eagle. The "No -Action Alternative"would have no impact on habitats commonly frequented by the bald eagle. Impacts of "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" on Bald Eagle. Under the "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction," bald eagle foraging JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 86 Buxton, Dare County (NC) and resting areas would be subject to short-term and negligible impact during sand placement. Bald eagle nest locations have not been confirmed by NCWRC since 2011, and neither beach nourishment nor dredging is specifically listed in the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007b). These guidelines provide buffer distances for activity categories based on type of activity, visibility of activity from an active eagle nest, or whether similar activity exists within one mile. Extremely loud intermittent noises within 0.5-mile of nests are discouraged, unless greater tolerance to the activity is demonstrated by eagles in the nesting area. Any impacts from noise, should they occur, would be considered site -specific and short-term. Cumulative Impacts on Bald Eagle. Please refer to the Cumulative Impacts on EFH/HAPC (Sections 8 and 10) of this EA fora description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions. These cumulative effects are considered imperceptible to noticeable. Conclusion — Bald Eagle. The bald eagle would experience no impact under the "No -Action Alternative" and would not likely be adversely impacted by the "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction." The incremental adverse impacts to the bald eagle of either of the two evaluated alternatives are imperceptible when added to the cumulative adverse effects of the planned 2022 northern Outer Banks nourishment projects north of Oregon Inlet, periodic Oregon Inlet dredging, and continued development in Dare County. Impacts of "No -Action Alternative" on Peregrine Falcon. As there is no peregrine falcon nesting or breeding habitat in the proposed project area or its vicinity, the "No -Action Alternative" would not affect this falcon. Impacts of "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" on Peregrine Falcon. The peregrine falcon is uncommon from May to August, becoming slightly more common in October. Foraging habitat (near congregations of shorebirds) would have direct, site -specific, short-term, negligible -to -minor impacts from the "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with SummerConstruc- tion" during sand placement activities. However, as stated above, the active zone of disturbance would range from 600 ft to 800 ft long on any given day, and extensive foraging habitat is otherwise available. Both these alternatives may have beneficial, long-term impacts to foraging and resting habitat of the peregrine falcon due to the wider dry beach, which would be likely to attract shorebirds, a preferred coastal falcon prey. Cumulative Impacts on Peregrine Falcon. Please refer to the Cumulative Impacts on EFH/HAPC (Sections 8 and 10) of this EA for a description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions. Habitat loss or degradation due to human activities associated with recreation or development elsewhere in Dare County would continue. Long-term, beneficial impacts of a wider dry beach would be -5 years for the "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction." A wider, dry beach equates to more potential use by shorebirds, which are prey for peregrine falcon. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 87 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Conclusion — Peregrine Falcon. The "No -Action Alternative"would have no impact and the "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" would have direct, site -specific, short-term, and negligible -to -minor impact. The incremental adverse impacts to peregrine falcon of either of the two evaluated alternatives are imperceptible when added to the cumulative effects of the planned 2022 northern Outer Banks nourishment projects north of Oregon Inlet, periodic Oregon Inlet dredging, and continued development in Dare County. 6.4.1.5 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)-Protected Species The US Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (amended 1994) protects all marine mammals as listed in Table 6.2 within the waters of the United States. These include cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), sirenians (manatees, dugongs), sea otters, and polar bears. The MMPA was the first act the US Congress passed to specifically call for an ecosystem approach to natural resource management and conservation. This act prohibits marine mammal take, and enacts a moratorium on the import, export, and sale of any marine mammal, any marine mammal part or product within the United States. The Act defines take as the act of hunting, killing, capture, and/or harassment of any marine mammal; or, the attempt at such. It defines harassment as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to either (a) injure a marine mammal in the wild or (b) disturb a marine mammal by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, which includes, but is not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The MMPA provides for enforcement of its prohibitions, and for the issuance of regulations to implement its legislative goals through authority given to the USFWS and NOAA. The USFWS was given the authority to ensure the protection of sea otters and marine otters, walruses, polar bears, three species of manatees, and dugongs; NOAA was given the responsibility to conserve and manage pinnipeds, including seals, sea lions, and cetaceans such as whales and dolphins. As shown in Table 6.2, 37 species (four earless seals, 17 oceanic dolphins, one porpoise, three sperm whales, five beaked whales, five rorquals, one right whale, and one manatee) have the potential to occur in NC waters. Of these 37 species, six species have additional federal protection under the ESA and are discussed in Appendix E-Biological Assessment. Five of the six ESA species are under the protection of NMFS, and one is under USFWS. The four species in Table 6.2 shown as common or abundant are described below. Please consult Appendix E-Biological Assessment for more details on these species. Of the 37 marine mammals with the potential to occur in the project area, only four are considered com- mon, uncommon/common, or common/abundant. Thirteen of the 37 are considered accidental/causal or accidental/causal to rare, 11 are considered rare, and nine are considered uncommon or rare/uncommon. Six of the 37 have federal protection under the ESA, and five of these were evaluated in Appendix E- Biological Assessment. The sixth species is the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), which was eliminated from analysis in the Biological Assessment due to lack of habitat in the proposed project area. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 88 Buxton, Dare County (NC) TABLE 6.2. Marine mammals which may occur in NC waters. Only bottlenose dolphins are known to be abundant (http://www.dpr.ncparks.gov/mammals/accounts.phhp and range limits per Webster et al 1985). A = abundant C = common U = uncommon R = rare X = accidental/causal 'northern limit of range "southern limit of range PHOCIDAE (Earless seals) Hooded seal Cystophora cristata X Harbor seal Phoco vitulino R/U Harp seal Pogophilus groenlandicus X/R Gray seal Holichoerus grypus R DELPHINIDAE (oceanic dolphins) Killer whale Orcinus orco X/R Rough -toothed dolphin Steno bredonensis R Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba R/U Atlantic spotted dolphin Stenella frontalis C Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris X/R" Clymene dolphin Stenella clymene R Pantropical spotted dolphin Stenella attenuate X/R- Short-beaked common dolphin Delphinusdelphis U/C Common bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus C/A Fraser's dolphin Logenodelphis hosei X Atlantic white -sided dolphin Logenorhynchus ocutus R False killer whale Pseudorca crossidens R Risso's dolphin Grampus griseus U Long -finned pilot whale Globicephala melas R" Short -finned pilot whale Globicephala macorhynchus C. Pygmy killer whale Fereso ottentuato X Melon -headed whale Peponocephala electra X PHOCOENIDAE (porpoises) Harbor porpoise Phocoena U PHYSTERIDAE (sperm whales) Sperm whale Physetermocrocephalus U ZIPHIIDAE (beaked whales) Gervais; beaked whale Mesoplodon europaeus R/U Blainville's beaked whale Mesoplodon densirostris R True's beaked whale Mesoplodon mirus X/R Northern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon ampullatus X/R Cuvier's beaked whale Ziphius covirostris U BALAENOPTERIDAE (rorquals) Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus R Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis X Common minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata X/R Bryde's whale Balaenoptera edeni X Humpback whale Megoptera novoenglioe U BALAENIDAE (bowhead and right whales) North Atlantic right whale Eubaloena glacialis R KOGIIDAE (small sperm whales) Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps R/U Dwarf sperm whale Kogia simus R TRICHECHIDAE (manatees) West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus R JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 89 Buxton, Dare County (NC) In the following text, when the term marine mammal is used, it does not include the marine mammal species with ESA protection addressed in Appendix E-Biological Assessment. Atlantic Spotted Dolphin (Stenella frontalis) Due to uncertainties about population status and trends, the Atlantic spotted dolphin is considered as Data Deficient by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The spotted dolphin occurs throughout the warm temperate, subtropical, and tropical waters of the Atlantic Ocean. This species has a widespread distribution that ranges from the US East Coast (the Gulf of Mexico to Cape Cod, Massachusetts), the Azores and Canary Islands, to Gabon, and Brazil. A common -to -abundant dolphin in its range, and equally com- mon to at times very common off the North Carolina coast, this dolphin is found mainly in warmer waters of the Gulf Stream, less so farther offshore. It is present in North Carolina waters year-round, as it is not seasonally migratory. It is often more frequently seen than the common bottlenose dolphin on boat trips, though the latter is the most abundant cetacean in North Carolina waters. Unlike most dolphins in North Carolina waters, this species prefers shallower inshore waters, mainly over the continental shelf. Its status beyond the continental slope is not well-known, and perhaps the majority of the spotted dolphins at these depths are pantropical spotted dolphins (Stenella attenuate) (http://www.dpr.ncparks.gov/mammals/reference.php). A medium -build dolphin, it is quite agile and frequently is seen leaving the water when it dives (more often than the bottlenose dolphin). They are about 5-7.5 ft long and weigh 220-315 pounds. They have a robust or chunky body with a tall, falcate dorsal fin located midway down their back. The rounded melon is separated from the moderately long beak by a distinct crease. Their shape is often described as intermediate between a bottlenose and pantropical spotted dolphin [Shirihai and Jarrett (2006), referenced at the NMFS website (httpJ/www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ species/mammals/cetaceans/spotteddoiphin atlantic.htm]. The Atlantic spotted dolphin travels in smaller groups than other dolphins, mainly 10-25 individuals. The two spotted dolphin species— PantropicaI and Atlantic —are easily confused, as the amount of spotting is quite variable; some Atlantics can look spotless. Observers on Gulf Stream trips can expect to see at least a few individuals and often a few dozen or more (http://www.dpr.ncparks.gov/mammals/reference.php). For management purposes, Atlantic spotted dolphins inhabiting US waters have been divided into two stocks —the Northern Gulf of Mexico Stock and the Western North Atlantic Stock. The northern Gulf of Mexico stock is estimated at 24,500-38,000 animals, while the western North Atlantic stock is estimated at 36,000-51,000 animals. Insufficient data are available on current population trends. The mammal collections database of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History lists 45 stranding records for North Carolina, spread out across the year (http://collections.mmnh.si.edu/search/ JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 90 Buxton, Dare County (NC) mammals ). As of 1995, 25 strandings had occurred along the North Carolina coast during most months of the year (Webster et al 1985). One stranding was documented for Cape Hatteras National Seashore in the 2015 marine mammal summary (NPS 2015c). No strandings for this species were reported along the Seashore south of the project in 2016. Atlantic spotted dolphins have been incidentally taken as bycatch in fisheries such as gillnets and purse seines. This species has been observed interacting with various fishing vessels, often following and feeding on discarded catch. A few animals have been harpooned for food and bait in the Caribbean, South America, West Africa, and other offshore islands. Short -beaked Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis) Short -beaked common dolphins prefer warm tropical to cool temperate waters (52-880F,10-280C) that are primarily oceanic and offshore, but still along the continental slope in waters to a depth of 650-6,500 ft (200-2,000 m). Short -beaked common dolphins also prefer areas where upwelling occurs. Although this species is found worldwide in temperate and tropical waters, it seems to prefer the more temperate zone in the Atlantic off the East coast of the United States. It is seen more often from Cape Hatteras northward than off the southern half of the North Carolina coast and is seen much less often than common bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins. The southernmost stranding record is for Carteret County, with none at all along the southern 40 percent of the coastline. In the western North Atlantic, they are often associated with the Gulf Stream, although in the waters off North Carolina, it seems to favor deeper, temperate (cooler) water and is not often seen in the warm Gulf Stream waters or close to shore. Short -beaked common dolphins are small dolphins under 9 ft long and weigh about 440 pounds. As adults, males are slightly larger than females. They have a rounded melon, moderately long beak, and a sleek, but robust body with a tall, triangular, falcate dorsal fin located in the middle of the back. This species can be identified by its distinct bright coloration patterns. A dark gray cape extends along the back from the beak and creates a V just below the dorsal fin on either side of the body. A yellow/tan panel appears along the flank, between the dark cape and white ventral patch, forward of the dorsal fin. This bold coloration forms a crisscrossing hourglass pattern. A narrow, dark stripe extends from the lowerjaw to the flipper. A complex color pattern marks the facial area and beak, which includes a dark eye patch. This is a very active and lively species, often coming to boats to bow -ride. Individuals are often seen leaping completely out of the water, so that the hourglass pattern and amber -colored patch on its side can be seen. Short -beaked dolphins are usually found in large social groups, averaging hundreds of individuals, but have occasionally been seen in larger herds consisting of thousands of animals (up to at least 10,000), known as mega -pods. These large schools are thought to consist of sub -groups of 20-30 JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 91 Buxton, Dare County (NC) individuals that are possibly related or separated by age and/or sex. Groups of several dozen dolphins are normal off North Carolina, and winter boat trips seem to offer more opportunities to see them than trips in warmer months. At times,100 or more can be seen on a single boat trip. Short -beaked dolphin is common within its overall range. However, in North Carolina waters, it is fairly common to at times common, occurring mainly north of Cape Hatteras. Forty-seven strandings for North Carolina, all from Carteret County northward, were listed in the 2014 Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History mammal collections (http://collections.mmnh.si.edu/search/mammals/). All of these strandings occurred between November and June with the great majority from February to April. In North Carolina waters, the species is very rare to nearly absent in summer and most of the fall, and present mainly in the latter part of winter into early spring. One stranding was documented in 2015 and 2016 along the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, as noted in marine mammal annual reports (NIPS 2015c, 2016b). Threats include incidental takes in a number of fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean with several types of fishing gear, including longlines, driftnets, gillnets, and trawls. Hunting for their meat and oil also poses a threat in Russia and Japan and by nations bordering the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Common Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Found worldwide in temperate and tropical waters ranging from latitudes of 45°N-45°S, the bottlenose dolphin is one of the most well-known species of marine mammals in North America. It occurs in the Atlantic all along the coastline, far offshore, and enters estuaries and river mouths. Bottlenose dolphin can occur year-round in North Carolina waters and are by far the most widely distributed cetacean from the continental shelf to the coastline. The bottlenose dolphin has a robust body and a short, thick beak. Their coloration ranges from light gray to NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Pictured: black with lighter coloration on the belly. Inshore and female with calf. Source: CZR Incorporated 2017. offshore individuals vary in color and size. Inshore animals are smaller and lighter in color, while offshore animals are larger, darker in coloration, and have smaller flippers. They can sometimes be confused with the rough -toothed dolphins (Steno bredonensis), Risso's dolphins (Grampus griseus), and Atlantic spotted dolphins in regions of overlapping distributions. They range in length from 6.0 ft to 12.5 ft with males slightly larger than females. Adults weigh 300-1,400 pounds. This is a long-lived dolphin species with a lifespan of 40-45 years for males and more than 50 years for females (http://www.nmfs. noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/dolphins/bottlenose-dolphin.html). Bottlenose dolphins are generalists and feed on a variety of prey endemic to their habitat, foraging individually and cooperatively. Like other dolphins, bottlenose dolphins use high -frequency echolocation to locate and capture prey. Coastal animals prey on benthic invertebrates and fish, and offshore animals JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 92 Buxton, Dare County (NC) feed on pelagic squid and fish. Bottlenose dolphins are commonly found in groups of 2-15 individuals in North Carolina waters instead of many dozens to hundreds, like those in other genera. The species is quite active, though theirstocky build makes them less agile than some dolphins. Typically, bottlenose dolphins can be seen on boat trips in offshore North Carolina waters, but numbers can be matched or exceeded by Atlantic spotted dolphins (http://www.dpr.ncparks.gov/mammals/reference.php). This species is often associated with pilot whales and other cetacean species. Numerous stranding records were reported for all 12 months, with more occurring in winter, perhaps owing to pregnant or nursing females or young with females at that time of year. The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History mammal collections (http://collections.mmnh.si.edu/search/mammals/) listed -1,718 stranding records for North Carolina, by far the most for any cetacean species. From July 2013 to July 2015, bottlenose dolphin populations along the east coast from New York to Florida experienced an unusual mortality event (UME). The increase in mortality is believed to be caused by cetacean morbillivirus. There were 1,827 documented strandings during this two-year event, compared to an average of 295 strandings annually prior to the UME. North Carolina had the second -highest number of strandings (349) behind Virginia (473). Bottlenose dolphins of all ages were affected by the morbillivirus, and most of this species found stranded were dead (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/midat[dolphins 2013.html). Of the 57 marine mammal strandings along the Seashore in 2015, 30 were bottlenose dolphins, of which four were found on Bodie Island (NPS 2016b). In 2016, the total number of marine mammal strandings (37) was below the 10-year annual average of strandings (54). Of the 37 strandings, 28 were bottlenose dolphins (NPS 2016b). Threats include incidental injury and mortality from fishing gear, such as gillnet, seine, trawl, and longline commercial and recreational operations, exposure to pollutants and biotoxins, viral outbreaks, and direct harvest in Japan and Taiwan. In 2006, the National Marine Fisheries Service implemented the Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan (BDTRP) to reduce the serious injury and mortality of Western North Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins incidental to nine commercial fisheries in the United States. In addition to multiple non -regulatory provisions for research and education, the BDTRP requires modifications of fishing practices for small, medium, and large -mesh gillnet fisheries from New York to Florida. The BDTRP also established seasonal closures for certain commercial fisheries in state waters. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies bottlenose dolphin as Data Deficient. Short -finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) Short -finned pilot whales are found primarily in deep waters throughout tropical and subtropical areas of the world. Four stocks are recognized in the United States: West Coast, Hawaii, Northern Gulf of Mexico, and Western North Atlantic. They prefer warmer tropical and temperate waters and can be found at varying distances from shore, typically in deeper waters. Their main foraging habitats are areas with a high density of squid, but they also feed on octopus and fish, all from moderately deep water of 1,000 ft or more. When they are swimming and probably looking for food, pilot whales form ranks that can be more than a half -mile long. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 93 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Short -finned pilot whales are larger members of the dolphin group reaching average lengths of 12 ft (females) and 18 ft (males) with a maximum male size of 24 ft. Adult weight is 2,200 to 6,600 pounds. They have a bulbous melon head with no discernible beak. Their dorsal fin is located far forward on the body and has a relatively long base. Body color is black or dark brown with a large gray saddle behind the dorsal fin. They are polygynous (males have more than one mate) and are often found in groups with a ratio of one mature male to about every eight mature females. Afairly small cetacean, it does not emerge far out of the water like some smaller species. It is mostly seen moving slowly, in pods of 20 or more, at and near the water surface. The species is easily Photo of short -finned pilot whale courtesy of confused with the closely related long -finned pilot whale Alice Mackay, Cascadia Research (www.fisheries. (Globicephala melas), which favors cooler waters. Hopp. ov . Source: CZR incorporated 2017 It is common offshore throughout North Carolina waters, though mainly in warmer waters, and thus perhaps scarce in inshore waters north of Cape Hatteras in the colder Labrador Current. The species is one of the more numerous cetaceans off the North Carolina coast. It is exceeded in numbers by the common bottlenose dolphin, but is at least as numerous as the Atlantic spotted dolphin. The species is likely resident all year in North Carolina waters, as it is not known to be strongly migratory (http://www.dpr. ncparks.gov/mammals/reference.php_). The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History 2014 mammal collections lists 68 stranding records of pilot whale for North Carolina (http://collections. mmnh.si.edu/search/mammals/). Webster eta[ (1985) found a statistical difference in seasonal strandings of the species along the North Carolina coast with more in the cooler months. Of the 18 stranded, all but three were between December and May. The strandings (68) documented by the National Museum of Natural History occurred in most months of the year, except in August and September, despite being frequently seen offshore in warmer months. One stranding occurred at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in 2015. Bycatch in fishing gear is the primary threat to pilot whales. Several types of commercial fishing gear, including gillnets, longlines, and trawls, incidentally take short -finned pilot whales. These whales have been documented as entangled, hooked, and captured in these various types of fishing gear. In addition, drive fisheries that specifically target pilot whales exist in Japan and the Lesser Antilles. The IUCN Red List classifies the short -finned pilot whale as Lower Risk -Conservation Dependent (http://www.nmfs. noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetacEAns/pi[otwhaie shortfinned.htm). 6.4.1.6 Impacts on Marine Mammal Protection Act -Protected Species by Alternatives As previously stated, the MMPA of 1972 (as amended) offers federal protection to marine mammals within US waters. The MMPA prohibits marine mammal takes and enacts a moratorium on the import, export, and sale of any marine mammal, along with any marine mammal part or product within the US. The JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 94 Buxton, Dare County (NC) following discusses the impacts on marine mammals as a whole by alternatives. In the text below, when the term marine mammal is used, it does not include the marine mammal species with ESA protection addressed in Appendix E-Biological Assessment. Impacts of "No -Action Alternative" on Marine Mammals. The "No -Action Alternative"would likely have no adverse effect on marine mammals. There is a slight potential for indirect, long-term, minor, local benefit for the West Indian manatee and common bottlenose dolphin should a breach inlet form with the high rate of erosion expected to continue with no action. Although a very rare visitor in inland waters north of Cape Hatteras and also seldom in the NC ocean waters north of Carteret County, the West Indian manatee might be found in the vicinity of the inlet or use it to go from its preferred quieter back barrier habitats with vegetation to more saline ocean waters. The common bottlenose dolphin is the most abundant NC visitor among the 17 oceanic dolphins which may occur in NC waters and often will use inlets and river mouths to access estuaries. Impacts of "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" on Marine Mammals. Of the four species of marine mammal common or abundant in North Carolina waters, three are found year-round (Atlantic spotted dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin, and short -finned pilot whale) and one is found only during the winter or early spring (short -beaked common dolphin). With the exception of the four earless seals, all of which are rare or accidental/causal but also occur in shallower waters like the common bottlenose dolphin, most of the other marine mammals with potential occurrence in North Carolina waters are oceanic and found further offshore in deeperwaters than the Proposed Action Area. As only the common bottlenose dolphin is abundant to common and can be found close to the beach and offshore, it is the only marine mammal likely to be impacted by both the dredge operation and sand placement activities under either alternative; winter construction may be more likely to affect pregnant or nursing females of this species than summer construction. Winter construction would also be more likely to have short-term direct impacts on short -beaked common dolphin during dredge operations compared to summer construction but this species is usually associated with deeper waters. Noise from the dredging under either alternative would be the source of potential adverse impact most likely to affect any marine mammals in the vicinity. Any of these potential adverse impacts would be considered direct, minor, local, and short-term. NOAA guidelines define two levels of harassment for marine mammals: Level A based on a temporary threshold shift (190dB re lµPa for pinnipeds and 180dB re lµPa for cetaceans), and Level B harassment with the potential to disturb a marine mammal in the wild by a disruption to behavioral patterns such as migration, breeding, feeding, and sheltering (160dB re lµPa for impulse noise such as pile driving and 120 dB re lµPa for continuous noise such as vessel thrusters). There is new draft guidance on anthropogenic-sourced noise for temporary threshold shifts (TTS) and permanent threshold shifts (PTS) based on hearing sensitivities within certain marine mammal groups (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/07/31/2015-18790/draft-guidance-for-assessing-the- effects-of-a nth ropogenic-sound-on-marine-mammal-hearing-acoustic). Non -impulsive sources evaluated in the 2015 guidance do include drilling and dB thresholds (peak and cumulative) for non- JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 95 Buxton, Dare County (NC) impulsive activities range from 174 to 230 dB depending on whether the cetacean is considered susceptible to a low, medium, or high -frequency range. However, dredging is not one of the activities evaluated and the new noise thresholds do not address behavioral effects. So in the interim, as discussed in Section 9.5 of the BA (Appendix E), noise associated with hydraulic cutterhead or hopper dredges operating in sandy substrates are unlikely to exceed either the Level A or Level B thresholds. Cumulative Impacts on Marine Mammals. Please refer to the Cumulative Impacts on EFH/HAPC section of this document for a description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (pg 174). As the replacement of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge by NCDOT occurred within the Seashore and not offshore, it was not likely to adversely affect marine mammals that are found only or usually in deeper water habitat. There are no known reports of adverse effects of construction noise associated with the replacement bridge on the marine mammals which may use Oregon Inlet. All of the dredging associated with Hatteras Island future projects, either in Oregon Inlet or offshore, and sand placement during future disposal of Oregon Inlet dredged material, or beach nourishment activities for Dare County beaches, would possibly disturb marine mammals in the vicinity of the dredge and pumping operations (Atlantic spotted dolphin and common bottle nose dolphin primarily; other species are most often found in deeper waters). Sand placement activities would possibly disturb species found closer to shore in shallower water, e.g. the common bottlenose dolphin. Dredging work associated with Oregon Inlet would also possibly disturb West Indian manatee, although it is a very rare visitor to the ocean side of NC inlets. Anthropogenic background sounds in the marine environment have steadily increased and are likely to continue to increase from shipping and other uses of the ocean and inland waters. Shipping is the dominant source of underwater noise below 300 Hz (Ross 1987, 1993 as referenced in USACE 2015). While this level is below 1 kHz, the potential exists that this sound can mask biologically important significant sounds from groups of marine mammals that produce and receive sounds in this band (eg- pinnipeds and baleen whales such as finback and humpback). Numerous actions around fisheries activities (eg - legal and illegal bottom -disturbing fishing gear) within state waterswould continue and potential future actions (offshore wind projects, offshore oil, and gas seismic testing and drilling), all have the potential to adversely affect marine mammals. Conclusion — Marine Mammals. Alternative 1-No-Action would have no adverse impact on marine mammals and may have a slight short-term beneficial effect for two marine mammal species (West Indian manatee and common bottlenose dolphin). Marine mammals in the offshore area during either Alternative 2-Winter Construction or Alternative 3-Summer Construction dredging activities may avoid the associated noise and turbidity which, depending on prey availability, might disrupt foraging behaviors or temporarily mask communication. However, with the exception of the common bottlenose dolphin, most of the JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 96 Buxton, Dare County (NC) marine mammals with the potential to occur are usually associated with waters deeper than the -25 feet to -50 feet found in the vicinity of the borrow area. Common bottlenose dolphin in the shallow waters closer to the beach during sand placement under either winter or summer construction may also experience direct, short-term adverse impacts during pumping operations or disturbance from other project -associated vessels, but being mobile they would be able to easily find nearby suitable habitat for foraging or other behaviors. Overall, because both Alternative 2-Winter Construction or Alternative 3-Summer Construction have the potential to temporarily affect certain behaviors of some species, both alternatives may adversely impact marine mammals. The incremental adverse impacts to marine mammals of any of the three evaluated alternatives are imperceptible when added to the cumulative adverse effects of the planned 2022 northern Outer Banks nourishment projects north of Oregon Inlet, periodic Oregon Inlet dredging, and noise from ocean-going vessels. As of October2020, there was a moratorium on offshore drilling in federal waters off the coast of North Carolina, and there were no known plans for seismic surveys that may adversely impact marine mammals. It is possible that there could be future initiatives to conduct offshore investigations for oil and gas. 6.4.1.7 State -Protected Species The two species discussed here represent the species with the potential to occur in the proposed project area which have only state -level protection. Within North Carolina, endangered, threatened and special concern species have legal protection status. Other state -protected species, which also have federal protection (although sometimes with a different status), were previously discussed in the section Federally Protected Species. Diamondback Terrapin i n - oil- r. Photo courtesy ncpedia.org. Source: CZR Incorporated 2017. The diamondback terrapin (Moloclemys terrapin) is protected by the State of North Carolina with special concern status. Although it lacks federal protection, it does have federal status as a species of concern, which indicates not enough is known to determine whether or not it should be considered as a candidate for federal listing. Native to coastal states from Cape Cod (MA) to Corpus Christi (TX), it is the only turtle species in the temperate zone adapted to life in the salt marsh. It is found in brackish coastal waters in habitats including coastal swamps, mangrove swamps, salt marshes, lagoons, and estuarine tidal creeks. The females of this medium-sized hard shell turtle grow to a much larger size than males. Females reach a maximum of 25 cm (9.8 inches), while males reach only 14 cm (5.5 inches). Coloration is highly variable, although adult terrapin carapaces (top shells) are generally a shade of grey with lighter colored concentric rings (circles inside of circles). Heads and limbs are also a shade of grey with variable spots or blotches. Orange rings with a grey or greenish background may appear on shells, but the species can JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 97 Buxton, Dare County (NC) display a wide variety of patterns and colors, sometimes even within single populations. Feet are webbed for strong swimming. Cape Hatteras marks the interbreeding fulcrum between the ranges of two of the seven subspecies of this reptile; the two subspecies compose the entire east coast population. The more northern subspecies M. terrapin terrapin intergrades with the more southern subspecies M. terrapin centrata in the Cape Hatteras region. Although these seven subspecies are recognized, these designations do not correspond well with genetic data (CITES 2013). A long-lived species (-40 years), the turtle is also known for its high site fidelity, meaning it stays in the same area its entire life. In North Carolina, it was once so abundant, it was considered a nuisance. Threats to the species include habitat degradation and loss from urbanization since the 1700s, raccoon predation of unprotected nests, international pet trade, sea -level rise, beach development, incidental drowning in blue crab pots, and collision with vehicles particularly adult females crossing to and from nest areas in dunes to the back barrier sound marshes (CITES 2013). Seabeach Knotweed The state of North Carolina considers the seabeach knot- Y _ r: Photo courtesy of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Fish & Wildlife Division. Source: CZR Incorporated 2017 weed (Polygonum glaucum) endangered, but it is not listed forfederal protection. It is found in maritime coastal habitats from Florida to Massachusetts, which are often subject to both natural and anthropogenic disruptions and disturbances. An annual prostrate member of the buckwheat family, the small narrow foliage of seabeach knotweed is bluish -green with a waxy coating (glaucous) on sprawling fleshy stems growing from a central taproot. The leaves have inrolled margins. On beaches, it is found seaward of dunes, above the wrack line or high spring tide zone, and often forms interwoven mats when growing conditions allow. It is also often found on the margins of salt ponds in the back barrier environment and interdune swales. Flowers form from May to October and fruits from June to September. Often subject to overwash, which may aid in seed dispersal, the seabeach knotweed is considered a pioneer colonizer species in these dynamic conditions, although little is known about the biology of this plant. This species was known in North Carolina from nearby Chicamacomico (-20 miles north of Buxton) prior to the initiation of dune stabilization projects in that area, but has not been seen in recent years. This species has also been documented south of the former location of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse (Allison Weakley, Conservation Planner, NC Natural Heritage Program, pers Comm, 8 October 2014). Known threats to the species are from vehicle traffic and dune stabilization projects. 6.4.1.8 Impacts on Species with State Protection by Action Alternative The diamond -back terrapin and the seabeach knotweed are the only species with state protection that may occur in or near the project area and that may be affected by the alternatives addressed in this EA. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 98 Buxton, Dare County (NC) These species are discussed in more detail in the previous section (Section 6.4.1.7). Potential impacts by each alternative are discussed below. Impacts of "No -Action Alternative" on Diamond Terrapin. The diamondback terrapin has been documented by NIPS biologists west of the Proposed Action Area on the west side of NC 12. Therefore, Alternative 1-No-Action may permanently affect some existing back -barrier habitats preferred by the diamondback terrapin, as erosion would continue under this alternative and increase the likelihood of overwash events or a breach in the future. While both overwash and a breach would be unpredictable in time and duration, a breach would remove back -barrier dune and marsh areas the terrapin may currently use for foraging, nesting, and hibernation. Overwash events would have the potential to bury either active or dormant individuals or preclude the use of existing foraging or habitat. The duration of those effects would depend on whether or not the breach closed naturally or remained open and was temporarily bridged. Disturbance and disruptions from erosion and overwash would continue to affect the terrapin and its habitats. After some overwash events, some short periods of decreased traffic may occur before NCDOT could clear NC 12, or decreased traffic may occur over longer periods if NCDOT needs to conduct more extensive repairs to NC 12, or in the event of a breach. Post -storm maintenance activities conducted by NCDOT (road scraping and dune building) may have an adverse impact to a terrapin if it attempted to cross the road during these activities. These impacts would be considered short-term and minor to moderate. Impacts of Alternative 2-Winter Construction on Diamondback Terrapin. Under Alternative 2-Winter Construction, the diamondback terrapin would not likely be affected, as no suitable habitat exists for itwithin the Proposed Action Area. However, there is a chance that a project -associated supportvehicle could encounter a terrapin as it crossed NC 12, but it would not likely be found on the ocean side of beach dunes where much of the project activities would occur, regardless of season. In addition, the species would be less active during the winter, which would also reduce the likelihood of an encounter with project vehicles on NC 12 during construction. Impacts of Alternative 3-Summer Construction on Diamondback Terrapin. While this terrapin is not found on the ocean side of dunes in the summer, a project -associated vehicle en route from one beach access point to another could encounter a female diamondback terrapin crossing NC 12 on herway to or from the back barrierto a back -dune nest area. Although existing traffic is heaviest in the summer, which raises the potential for an encounter with any vehicle, the odds are somewhat remote that it would be a project -associated vehicle. Should an encounter occur, this type of impact would be considered short- term and moderate. Existing habitats for this terrapin west of the dune crest to the edge of Pamlico Sound would have no adverse impacts during summer construction and would have long-term beneficial impacts from a wider beach in front of the dunes. There were no known incidents of interactions with the Diamondback Terrapin during construction of the 2018 Buxton nourishment project. Cumulative Impacts on Diamondback Terrapin. Please refer to the Cumulative Impacts on EFH/HAPC section of this document for a description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (pg 174). Traffic is not expected to increase as a direct result of any of the three alternatives; however, JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 99 Buxton, Dare County (NC) traffic on NC 12, in general, may increase as it has historically and would likely continue with or without the project. An increase in traffic raises the likelihood that a diamondback terrapin would be killed as it crossed NC 12 between habitats. Alternative 2-Winter Construction would provide -3 years of storm - surge protection to the preferred habitats of the diamondback terrapin. Alternative 3-Summer Construction would provide -5 years of storm -surge protection. Habitat loss or degradation due to human activities associated with recreation or development elsewhere in Dare County would continue. Conclusion - Diamondback Terrapin. Any of the three alternatives would not adversely impact the diamondback terrapin. However, Alternative 2-Winter Construction and Alternative 3-Summer Construction would have the potential beneficial impact of a wider beach better protected from storm surge and overwash. The incremental adverse impacts to diamond terrapin of any of the three evaluated alternatives are imperceptible when added to the cumulative effects of the 2022 proposed northern Outer Banks nourishment projects, periodic Oregon Inlet dredging, and continued development in Dare County. Impacts of Alternative 1-No-Action on Seabeach Knotweed. Alternative 1-No-Action would allow erosion to continue which could increase habitat for the seabeach knotweed, as more frequent overwash events may disperse dormant seeds into new suitable habitats formed by the overwash deposits. The type of impact would be beneficial, indirect, site -specific, and short-term to long-term. However, should the species colonize such a deposit, continued erosion, and other overwash events may bury or eliminate the pioneering plants which would be a short-term, adverse, moderate impact. Impacts of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 on Seabeach Knotweed. Under either Alternative 2-Winter Construction or Alternative 3-Summer Construction, no adverse effects are likely to occur as there is currently no known occurrence of the seabeach knotweed, and it has not historically been found in the Proposed Action Area. Occurrences of the seabeach knotweed has been documented south of the former location of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse; however, not within the Proposed Action Area. The species was last documented during monthly visits between 1989 and October 1995 at the beach south of Buxton light (pre-1995 location) with no other details as to the density of occurrence or more specific distances (NCNHP, Allison Weakley, Conservation Planner, pers. comm. 10 August 2015). Since Park Service biologists conduct surveys for this plant each year along the Seashore, they would notify the Applicant and/or the nourishment contractor if any plants are found. Alternative 2-Winter Construction and Alternative 3-Summer Construction may have beneficial effects on the seabeach knotweed because the project is designed to widen the beach. As the nourished beach equilibrates over time to the additional sediment in the system, Aeolian processes may also enhance the species' preferred habitat between the wrack line and dune face. Therefore, the project under either alternative has the potential to provide more habitats for this pioneering species and is not likely to threaten its continued existence. Cumulative Impacts on Seabeach Knotweed. Please refer to the Cumulative Impacts on EFH/HAPC section of this document for a description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 100 Buxton, Dare County (NC) (pg 174). Habitat loss or degradation due to human activities associated with recreation or development elsewhere in Dare County would continue. 6.4.1.9 Impacts on State -Designated Natural Habitats No state -designated natural areas or natural communities exist within the Action Area. While the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database shows two so -designated areas nearby, Turtle Pond Registered Heritage Area (RHA) and Buxton Woods, neither would experience effects from the project activities of any of the three alternatives evaluated in this EA (see Fig 6.1). 6.4.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Threatened and endangered species with the potential to occur in or near the project area are listed in Table 6.1 and described in detail in Appendix E—Biological Assessment. This section summarizes the applicable impacts by species based on detailed review in Appendix E. Cumulative effects of the proposed project on ESA species are discussed under each species in this section and summarized collectively in Chapter 8 of this EA. A determination for each ESA species is also incorporated into the discussion in this section, then summarized in Chapter 10. The study area for the cumulative effects analysis is the Buxton project area and the region. The study area for assessment of the alternatives is the proposed project area (offshore and beach). 6.4.2.1 Species Considered and Evaluated A list of all species considered as endangered, threatened, candidate, or proposed by federal agencies was generated. Those agencies included USFWS and NMFS. With these lists, it was determined which species had a potential to occur within the project area under analysis (as shown in Table 6.1). Species not known to occur or with no potential to occur in the analysis area were also documented with rationale in Table 6.1 and will not be discussed further in this document. Excluded species have been dropped from further analysis under one or more of the following conditions: • Does not occur and is not expected in the proposed project area during the time period activi- ties would occur • Occurs in habitats that are not present • Is outside of the geographical or elevational range of the species In addition, Table 6.1 also provided a very brief summary of the species, designated critical habitat, species habitat requirements, and known occurrence information of species that are known or may occur in the analysis area. Species listed as threatened or endangered by USFWS or NMFS are afforded federal protection under the ESA of 1973 as amended. The Biological Assessment (Appendix E) prepared for this project evaluated 19 species that had the potential to occur in the project area or vicinity and were protected under the ESA. These 19 species included three birds, three fish, five sea turtles, five whales, one manatee, and two plants. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 101 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Table 6.1 indicates whether the species from the USFWS official species list and the NMFS southeast region list (1) are known or expected to occur within the proposed project area and/or within one mile, (2) have suitable habitat present, or (3) if not, why they are excluded from further analysis. Additionally, for the marine mammals, North Carolina stranding data collected from 1997 to 2008 were consulted to help determine whether or not to evaluate a species in more detail (Byrd et al 2014). As indicated in Table 6.1, of the 55 protected species listed for Dare County by the USFWS, NMFS, or NCNHP, 29 species were determined to have the potential to occur within the project analysis area/vicinity (YES in the table), the other 26 were eliminated for detailed evaluation based on habitat, seasonality, or range (NO in the table); one of the 29 with YES was also eliminated due to habitat, seasonality, or range (sperm whale). The evaluation included 19 species with both federal and state protection (11 birds, two fishes, one mammal, four reptiles, and one plant), seven species with only federal protection under the ESA (one bird, one fish, three mammals, one sea turtle, and one reptile; one of these seven is currently proposed for listing by the state), and two species with only state protection (one reptile and one plant). One of the 19 species was evaluated despite the fact that habitat and season provided exclusion (blue whale). The blue whale was included since it has been recently documented within 28 miles of Cape Hatteras (Lesage et al 2017) and two confirmed sightings were also documented off the Virginia coast in 2018 and 2019 although further offshore than the one in North Carolina (Engelhaupt et al 2020). The Virginia photographs represent the southernmost extent of sightings of the blue whale in the western Atlantic US EEZ. Only those 19 species were addressed in this assessment (evaluated species). A No Effect determination was assumed for the 26 species not evaluated in detail. 6.4.2.2 Critical Habitat Considered and Evaluated For all federally listed species in Table 6.1, there is no critical habitat (or proposed CH) within the immediate proposed project area. Critical habitats for piping plover and the loggerhead sea turtle are nearby. For the piping plover, the USFWS designated critical wintering habitat at four locations on the Outer Banks, the closest of which is Unit NC-1 Oregon Inlet. The southern boundary of Unit NC-1 is -35 miles north of the northernmost end of the proposed project area within the National Seashore. For the loggerhead sea turtle, the NMFS designated the Constricted Migratory Corridor as Critical Habitat for the northwest Atlantic Ocean loggerhead turtle Designated Population Segment (DPS) in July 2014. This habitat is designated primarily because of its high use and constricted narrow width (land to west and Gulf Stream to east). The corridor is used by juvenile and adult loggerheads migrating between nesting, breeding, and foraging areas (Fig 6.2). Because of the corridor's high use and narrow passageway, the loggerhead sea turtle is more subject to perturbation. No other critical habitat for any species is found within the proposed project area or vicinity. For a full discussion of Critical Habitat, see Appendix E-Biological Assessment and Appendix F-Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 102 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 6.4.3 General Methodology of Effects Determinations The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 1531 et. Seq.) mandates that all federal agencies consider the potential impacts of action on federal lands on the species listed as threatened or endangered. If the USACE determines that an action may adversely impact a federally listed species, consultation with the USFWS is required under Section 7 of the ESA to ensure that the action would notjeopardize the continued existence of the species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The applicant obtained a list of rare, threatened, and endangered species and designated critical habitat in close proximity to the Buxton project area summarized in Appendix E-Biological Assessment. The evaluated alternatives could cause potential adverse impacts within the project area, including possible continued reduction of habitat due to erosion and emergency repairs, protection of existing structures from potential direct impacts, and disruption of nesting species during construction. The principal impacts are related to turtle nesting and colonial waterfowl nesting. 6.4.3.1 Evaluated Species With the exception of nesting sea turtles, surveys for other protected resources which may occur within the 2.9-mile-long Buxton beach renourishment footprint are sporadic. As the northern two-thirds of the renourishment footprint is within the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, protected species data collected by park biologists during annual surveys have been included here for context. Information from other surveys, as available, has also been included. Following are recent survey notes or documentation of listed species provided by biologists (drawn from field reconnaissance) from the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) (T) — The species nests within the Seashore on a yearly basis, primarily on Cape Point which has the premier habitat, and also on Bodie spit at Oregon Inlet. No nests have ever been found within the defined project area as of 2020 according to NPS biologists. An average of 4.2 breeding pairs was observed at Cape Point between 2015 and 2019. Red -cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (E) — Habitat does not exist for this species within the defined project area; no documentation of the species. Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii) (E) — The species may be observed along the National Seashore while migrating along the East Coast. The majority of nesting habitat is located within the Northeast/New England states. As of 2020, no nests of the species had been documented as occurring along the Seashore within the past -10 years. The bird was observed May through July 2020 at Cape Point with as many as 16 birds photographed on 15 June. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 103 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 95'W 9TW 95'W 11crw n,w Loggerhead Critical Habitat: - L Q ovawry i+aatar V s arm �l Q Sargab bum lidD�a1 A.Y -J� :ram`,. _ Oremm[ennp I-iahRat- [ _ Hearsnare Reproductue HattAat r _ � -- ti ti.. J- rr i i a wo ..ox Loggerhead Critical Habitat: LOGG-1W-01 (Migratory, Winter) and LOGG-N-02 (Winter) 771" 71-r MIXW 16-V1Y 75. 30W 1YVw 14-311w K` Nc ------------ 35'0'N r. :W3" - , x•x r• Xf a.,cY 5 �� aa•o++ i r r M3 N , ? Mph 777CM ^;R 17'30W 77'OW T6 Dw 7 -1711 it"JOW id'G'W 11-" Nearsharc Reproductive HaC:tat VaNt—VAdmiMstnni%W units - ® Breeding HebMM 200m of hynaetric Contours a•{.�.gx Q Miyatory Habitat - ® Winter Habitat Gr1aTatro s FIGURE 6.2. [UPPER] Map of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States showing critical migratory habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle. A narrow corridor (in light yellow) occurs between the North Carolina Outer Banks and the Gulf Stream. [LOWER] Map showing critical migratory habitat designated units for the loggerhead sea turtle off the capes of North Carolina. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 104 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Rufa Red Knot (Calidris conutus rufo) (T) — The species is primarily observed foraging on mudflats near points and spits. Park biologists indicate that the Action Area has historically provided limited foraging area (narrow dry beach for resting and steep narrow slope of intertidal area for foraging) and is not preferred or rarely used by rufa red knots in the area. Erosional processes which contribute to the lower quality of these habitats would continue unabated. Birds in the vicinity would likely continue to prefer adjacent beaches. In 2020, only two individual birds were observed on one survey within the Proposed Action Area. Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) (E) — There are no documented instances of this species within the project area; however, recent telemetry indicates their presence off the northern Outer Banks predominantly in the winter. The species is typically observed within low -salinity habitat character- istic of bays and inlets; the closest inlet (Hatteras Inlet) is located -12 miles southwest of the proposed project area's southern terminus. Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) (E) — There are no documented instances of this species within the proposed project area. The species is typically observed within low -salinity habitat characteris- tic of bays and inlets; the closest inlet (Hatteras Inlet) is located -12 miles southwest of the proposed project area's southern terminus. Seabeach Amaranth (Amoronthus pumilus) (T) — Although habitat for this particular species is sufficient, yearly surveys through 2019 have yielded zero documentation of the plant within the Seashore since 2005 (USFWS 2007c). There are no historic records of this plant from within the proposed project area. Red Wolf (Canis rufus) (Exp) — Habitat does not exist for this species within the defined project area; no documentation of species. West Indian Manatee (Trichechus monotus) (T) — Habitat does not exist for this species within the defined project area, which is highly energetic and has little to no vegetation. Few occurrences of manatees have been documented south of the proposed project area near inlets where manatees are likely to traverse into brackish water to drink and to consume vegetation. Green Sea Turtle (Chelonio mydos) (T)— This species nests on Seashore beaches on a yearly basis, but makes up a fraction of the overall nesting turtle numbers. For the northern Outer Banks, green sea turtle was the second most common sea turtle to nest. Over the past five years, four nests have been documented within the Proposed Action Area. Of the five species of sea turtles that occur along the Outer Banks, green sea turtles had the highest number of strandings from 2012 to 2019. Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricoto) (E) —The majority of distribution forth is species is limited to the equatorial tropics and well out of range of the proposed nourishment area. In 2015, two nests were identified using DNA analysis of an egg from each nest on Hatteras Island near Cape Point (NPS 2015d). This was the first occurrence of a hawksbill nest along the Seashore. No hawksbill turtles have been sighted, but strandings have occurred prior to 2014. There have been no strandings since then. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 105 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) (E) — Primarily nesting in the Gulf of Mexico, this species is a very rare nester at the Seashore. Only two nests have been documented over the past eight years on Hatteras Island but not within the Proposed Action Area. Over the past seven years, 291 have stranded on Hatteras Island. Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys corioceo) — Regularly observed off the coast of the Outer Banks during peak summer months, this species nests very seldom north of Cape Hatteras (majority of nesting occurs in tropics). Only one nest, located on Ocracoke Island, has been documented within the Seashore in the past five years, and one nest was documented in 2009 in the northern Outer Banks. Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Coretto coretto) (T) — The loggerhead is the most commonly observed nester on Seashore beaches and the beaches of the northern Outer Banks. Over the past five years, a total of 113 nests have been documented within the proposed sand placement footprint. In the past seven years, a total of 259 loggerhead turtles have stranded on Hatteras Island. For full species description and tables, see Appendix E-Biological Assessment. 6.4.3.2 Effects Determination of Evaluated Species Birds — Piping Plover Direct and Indirect Effects The closest, documented piping plover nest was -1.4 miles away from the project Action Area at Cape Point (Walters et al 2020). No nests have been observed within the Action Area in the past five years. While it is reasonable to expect the piping plover to use the area mainly during migration, bar graphs show observations of this bird in all months of the year, although most occur from May to August (http://www.ebird.org). NPS surveys have document 126 breeding pairs at Cape Point between 1987-2019 (Table 6.3). Over the past five years, there have been an average of4.2 breeding pairs observed each year. No direct effects to these birds are expected as a result of the offshore dredging activity, but foraging and roosting individuals could be temporarily affected by sand placement operations. Additionally, this species is not as likely as other species to occur in the area of sand placement and is very unlikely to nest in the proposed project area. However, should the piping plover be present, direct effects for foraging, roosting, or nesting adults would include disruptions and disturbance from the pipeline application of slurry sands, movements of support vehicles, and shaping the new beach. Even so, for non - nesting adults, the effects in a given area would be temporary as the project is predicted to cover -800- 1,000 ft per day within the larger context of many miles of shoreline available for foraging and roosting. Mobile adults can easily move to more favorable habitat. However, should there be any chicks in the project area, which is unlikely, direct effects would include disturbance and interruptions in foraging activities, since the chicks are unable to fly elsewhere to forage. Infaunal prey species in the surf zone would suffer direct effects as existing organisms would be buried in the slurry deposit and the beach shaping would reduce available food in the vicinity of the active impact. Therefore, direct effects which may occur are considered short-term and temporary. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 106 Buxton, Dare County (NC) TABLE 6.3. Number of piping plover breeding pairs by site at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (1987-2019). 'After Hurricane Irene, erosion of this spit had removed all suitable breeding habitat. bTotal numbers of pairs was 202 through 2011, but locations were not available in 1989, so percentages from the specific sites are based on the 187 nests recorded at one of the six specific nesting areas. (Source: NPS data; Walters et al 2020) Bodie Cape South Hatteras North South Total Year Island Spit Point Beach Inlet Spita Ocracoke Point Pairs Spit 1987 0 4 0 4 1 1 10 1 1989 1 _ - 1990 0 ,.... - 8 - , 0 - 4_ 1 - 2 1 - I 0 1 15 r 14 1991 0 I 5 I 0 3 5 I 0 13 1992 0 I 4 I 0 4 4 I 0 12 1993 0 5 1 I 3 I 3 1 0 r 12 1994 0 5 1 3 I 2 0 11 1995 0 6 1 1 4 I 2 1 14 1996 1 5 1 I 5 I 1 11 14 1997 i 1 4 1 I 3 0 I 2 11 1998 0 I 4 1 3 I 0 11 r 9 1999 0 I 3 11 1 0 11 6 2000 I_ 0 L 2 I 0_ I 2 I_ 0 I 0_ r 4_ 2001 I 1 I 1 l 0 I 1 I 0 I 0 3 2002 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 0 I 0 2 2003 0 0 0 I 1 I 0 11 2 2004 I 1 0 0 1 I 0 11 3 2005 0 0 1 1 I 0 11 3 2006 1 I 2 I 1 1 0 I 1 i 6 2007 1 I 4 I 0 0 0 11 6 2008 1 I 5 11 I 0 I 0 I 4 11 2009 0 5 I 0 0 0 4 9 I 2010 0 6 11 0 1 4 12 2011b 2 5 2 0 1 5 15 2012 1 I 8 1 0 1 I 4 r 15 2013 0 I 7 I 0 0 0 I 2 9 2014 I 0 I 7 0 I 0 I 1 4 12 2015 1 I 4 1 0 1 5 12 2016 2 I 6 0 0 1 2 11 2017 1 1 5 0 0 1 5 12 2018 2019 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 5 Tot al 15 126 15 45 27 53 296 Percent of total p a i rsb 5.1 42.6 5.1 15.2 9.1 17.9 JULY 2021 USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 107 Environmental Assessment Buxton, Dare County (NC) Potential indirect effects could stem from the wider post -project beach. Wider beaches lead to more rapid dune growth (Bagnold 1941) as demonstrated by the 2017-2018 Buxton nourishment project (CSE 2020). Along accreting beaches or where sustained nourishment is implemented, the dune field can become stabilized to the detriment of species that prefer unvegetated washover deposits. Indirect effects are considered insignificant with the abundance of preferred habitats, particularly Cape Point, nearby. While burial of many benthic, surf -zone prey of the piping plover will occur during the sand placement, an indirect effect on the prey population could include potential reduction on subsequent visits the following season oryear. This could affect the ability of the piping plover to refuel with enough reserves to complete its annual life -cycle in optimum condition, or at least in the condition they might have been without the proposed project. This effect would also be difficult to meaningfully quantify or evaluate in regard to the proposed project. However, as shore -protection project studies in different locations and settings have demonstrated, compatible sediments placed on the target beach in a configuration appropriate to the geomorphology result in a short-term impact to the infauna of the surf zone. Viable communities are known to be present within the first year. Studies have shown that depending on species, recolonization of beach benthos can begin as soon as 2-6.5 months if borrow sediments are similar in grain size to the target beach as would be the case for the proposed Buxton renourishment project (USACE 2001; CZR-CSE 2013, 2014). The benthic organisms which thrive in the harsh dynamics of the surf zone arewell-adapted to perturbation and wide fluctuations of wave energy, suspended sediments, transported sediments, and other disruptions from coastal storms which can sometimes last over several days —conditions not dissimilar to sand placement activities of the proposed project (Deaton et al 2010). Infauna in these disturbed environments are well -adapted by being small - bodied and short-lived with a maximum rate of fecundity, efficient dispersal mechanisms, dense settlement, and rapid growth rates. However, it is recognized that tube dwellers and permanent burrow dwellers are most susceptible to these types of disturbances compared to more mobile organisms. One positive direct effect for this species would include a wider beach with the potential for increased habitat suitable for roosting and for foraging after a recovery period for the benthic organisms. Cumulative Effects Climate change would likely bring temperature and precipitation changes, which can significantly affect habitats in both the short-term and the long-term, especially if the seasonality of precipitation deviates from the norm. These types of changes are difficult to predict with accuracy and, therefore, it is hard to state how such changes might affect piping plover habitat. However, most scientists think that climate change is likely to bring more intense storms and potentially more frequent storms, but in a somewhat unpredictable manner (www.IPCC.ch.2017). Storms and other weather events during the piping plover breeding season (March -August) can result in temporary displacement and disturbance to nesting birds or even wash away nests, eggs, chicks, and breeding adults, depending on the timing and severity of the event. More powerful storms can surge and overwash large areas of piping plover habitat even up to the toe of the foredune and beyond. Conversely, JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 108 Buxton, Dare County (NC) storms outside of breeding season may provide benefit to piping plover with new overwash areas and new nesting and foraging habitats, but may also adversely affect existing suitable habitat by associated erosion. Hurricanes can also affect the piping plover because of their impact on human resources, according to the staff of the NCWRC, NCNHP, and the Seashore who monitor this species. Storm recovery that pulls staff from resource management duties (including species monitoring or law enforcement) during piping plover breeding season would have adverse impacts. A hurricane after August would have no direct effect on piping plover and for the reasons stated above could benefit or enhance habitat. Coastal development is likely to continue throughout Dare County on both state and private lands, which will bring added pressures of more vehicles on NC Highway 12 and more people to the Buxton renourished beach as residents ortourists. Even without more development, recreation on the proposed project beach and throughout Dare County is expected to continue to increase with a concomitant rise of tourists and vehicles visiting the beach, especially in the summer. The summerseason coincides with high productivity life cycles for piping plover (mating, nesting, incubating, and fledging). There will also likely be increased use of the beach by surf fishers —not only in summer, but also in fall and spring. However, such use is not likely to adversely affect piping plover prey in the surf or intertidal area. Commercial fishing will continue in nearshore and offshore waters, which may affect the abundance of the prey which both the fish (target and bycatch) and piping plover prefer. The planned 2022 summer northern Outer Banks nourishment projects north of Oregon Inlet will likely produce the same disruptions to roosting and foraging birds and habitats; therefore, cumulative effects to the vigor of affected migrating birds in the vicinity could be detrimental. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions — No interrelated and interdependent actions are associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to the piping plover from such actions. Determination — The Proposed Action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the piping plover. Birds — Roseate Tern Direct and Indirect Effects Due to rarity of appearance in the proposed project area, no direct or indirect effects to this species are expected. Although it is a rare visitorto North Carolina, the roseate tern could be present during construc- tion. Project -related activity will not affect their ability to feed, because preferred locations for foraging (shallow bays, tidal inlets and channels, sandbars) are widespread, thereby providing the rare visitor with other options for foraging activities. Potential visitor(s) could attempt to rest in the project area and would be temporarily disturbed by sand placement activities, although preferred habitat for resting (sheltered estuaries, inshore waters, and creeks) is not found within the sand placement area. No nests have been documented in North Carolina. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 109 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Cumulative Effects Please refer to the Cumulative Effects section for piping plover. The roseate tern is a rare visitor to North Carolina and does not nest in the state, so the activities discussed above would have even less likelihood to adversely affect the roseate tern than the piping plover. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions — No interrelated and interdependent actions are associated with the proposed project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to the roseate tern from such actions. Determination — Effects to the roseate tern are considered insignificant or discountable; therefore, the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the roseate tern. Birds — Rufa Red Knot Direct and Indirect Effects When compared with seven other US East Coast locations, the Outer Banks ranked last in regional impor- tance for red knots (Dinsmore et al 1998). In addition, North Carolina observations of red knot are generally more numerous along the southern half of the coast and outside the proposed project area (Carolina Bird Club 2014). No direct effects are expected to the rufa red knot species as a result of the offshore dredging activity, but individuals could be temporarily affected by sand placement activities. Because the rufa red knot forages in the surf zone and roosts on the beach, activities on the target beach associated with sand placement, particularly from April through June, would temporarily disrupt migrat- ing adults from foraging or roosting in the area. These disrupted activities would therefore cause expendi- ture of energy to seek quieter locations and would temporarily reduce surf -zone prey preferred by the species (coquina clams, mole crabs, marine worms, and horseshoe crab eggs). Stress and the bioenergetics impact on shorebirds from such project disturbance are very difficult to mea- sure, although this species already suffers from asynchronies in migration timing and food supply. These direct effects may negatively affect their ability to gain enough weight to arrive at the next stopover in an optimal condition, which may affect their ability to successfully nest, breed, and rear young, or to complete their migration. However, these effects are difficult to measure, meaningfully quantify, or evaluate. Higher quality, more abundant roosting and foraging habitats are available north and south of the pro- posed project area. In addition, compared to species that nest on North Carolina beaches, individual migrating birds do not remain very long in the vicinity and will either move to adjacent areas undisturbed by nourishment activities or continue their migration. One beneficial, direct long-term effect for this species would include a wider beach with the potential for increased habitat suitable for roosting and for foraging after a recovery period for the benthic organisms. While burial of many benthic surf zone prey of the rufa red knot will occur during the sand placement, an indirect effect on the prey population could include potential reduction on subsequent visits the following season or year. This could affect the ability of red knots to refuel with enough reserves to complete their JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 110 Buxton, Dare County (NC) annual life -cycle in optimum condition or at least in the condition they might have been without the pro- posed project. This effect would also be difficult to meaningfully quantify or evaluate in regard to the proposed project. However, as shore -protection project studies in different locations and settings have demonstrated, compatible sediments placed on the target beach in a configuration appropriate to the geomorphology result in a short-term impact to the infauna of the surf zone. Viable communities are present within the first year; recolonization begins to occur rapidly, depending on species. Cumulative Effects Please refer to the Cumulative Effects section for piping plover as the some activities have the potential to affect resting or foraging rufa red knots that may be migrating through the project area and beyond during the spring and early fall. Most of the precipitous decline of the rufa red knot is tied to (1) climate change, which is likely to continue to affect asynchrony with food supplies as the birds migrate south too soon from the Arctic, and (2) the commercial horseshoe crab harvest in Delaware Bay, which has severely depleted a preferred food source during their migration. While horseshoe crab harvests have been managed since 2012 with conservation of the rufa red knot in mind, the horseshoe crab populations in Delaware Bay have not yet rebounded. Cumulative impacts from persistent stress can be inferred when a population declines. More specifically, when combined with other stressors (such as repeated flushing while foraging or from sheltered areas during inclement weather), such impacts can have a cumulative negative impact on fecundity and overwinter survival (Byrne et al 2009). Interrelated and Interdependent Actions — No interrelated and interdependent actions are associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to the rufa red knot from such actions. Determination — The Proposed Action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the red knot. Fish — Atlantic Sturgeon Direct and Indirect Effects Atlantic sturgeon have been documented in the nearshore marine waters in the vicinity of the proposed project area. The potential exists for Atlantic sturgeon to be foraging or migrating in the waters during the dredge and pipeline activity or during the placement of sediments on the target beach. Their presence is possible throughout the year, so a summer dredge window does not necessarily increase the potential for effect. In fact, results from a recent acoustic study conducted by the Atlantic Cooperative Telemetry Network from February 2012 to May 2014 off the coast of Cape Hatteras indicated numbers are highest in November and March (USACE 2015). Recent data from two receivers at Oregon Inlet, over 30 miles north of the proposed project area, show the highest number of sturgeon in the spring and fall during their migration in and out of the inlet to the Roanoke River for spawning. It is possible that the documented sturgeon swam close to the proposed project area on their way to the inlet as nearshore is used heavily by sub -adults and adults during their coastal migration. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 111 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Direct effects could include noise, turbidity, temporary interruption of access to food sources, accidental collision with hopper dredge or support vessels, and potential loss of foraging habitat due to potential changes in prey species habitat as a result of dredge activity. However, the average incidental take of Atlantic sturgeon during all USACE-authorized dredging projects on the southeast Atlantic Coast since 1995 is 0.7 peryear, and most of those incidental takes associated with dredging occur in inlets or harbors, not offshore (David Bauman, Regional Environmental Specialist, USACE Southeast Division HQ, pers Comm, 4 September 2015). In US Gulf and Atlantic sandy borrow areas studied within Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)jurisdiction, generalfaunal recovery (total abundance and biomass) has been shown to vary from 3 months to 2.5 years. However, the paucity of long-term studies suggests that diver- sity and dominants composition may take 3.5 years (Michel et al 2013). During the 2011 Nags Head nourishment project, the lack of infilling fines in the borrow areas and accurate placement of properly sized sediment on Nags Head beach favorably restored prey species. Within one season, this allowed a full suite of species similar to the native beach and offshore zone to recolonize the impact areas. By the second year, taxa richness and abundances were similar to controls (CZR-CSE 2014). Indirect effects to the Atlantic sturgeon as a result of the project may include changes in the marine nearshore bottom habitats as a result of changes in bathymetry in the offshore borrow areas used for the project. If those changes in bathymetry occur, the suite of potential prey species might also be altered. However, these effects are not likely, due to construction procedures designed to minimize such changes. Cumulative Effects Like other species, climate change has the potential to affect the Atlantic sturgeon with changes in temperature of the rivers and oceans or seasonality of these changes. The variations in conditions may affect prey species or the timing of sturgeon movements from the ocean into freshwaters. Dams in place in spawning rivers will continue to block the migration of Atlantic sturgeon into their native rivers. Efforts are underway to remove some dams or improve the migration pathway by the construction of rock ramps at some dams. These rock ramps are considered beneficial. Cumulative effects would also include continued commercial fisheries that use bottom -disturbing fishing gear in particular and accidental by - catch of all types of commercial fisheries. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions — No interrelated and interdependent actions are associated with this project; therefore, no adverse effects to the Atlantic sturgeon are anticipated from such actions. Determination — Research has shown that the Atlantic sturgeon may be in the proposed project area in higher concentrations during November and March and primarily in proximity to inlets. Although the nearest inlet, Hatteras Inlet, is -12 miles from the southern boundary of the proposed project, the dredge activities may result in an incidental take, since there is much uncertainty about the habits of this species. Therefore, the proposed project is likely to adversely affect the Atlantic sturgeon. The USACE would initiate formal Section 7 consultation with NMFS for the Atlantic sturgeon. The 2020 South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion (SARBO) has no seasonal window restrictions for sturgeon and includes a Likely to Adversely Affect determination for the Atlantic Sturgeon. The pertinent 2020 SARBO PDCs will be followed during all proposed activities to minimize potential effects. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 112 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Fish — Shortnose Sturgeon Direct and Indirect Effects As this species is rarely documented within the aquatic marine habitats of the proposed project area no direct effects are expected. Shortnose sturgeon are sometimes documented in nearshore marine areas close to inlets, but the closest inlet is -5 miles away. There is a remote chance that a shortnose sturgeon on its way between inlets and its estuarine and riverine habitats would be in the area and potentially disturbed by dredging activities, but this effect is unlikely. An indirect effect would include a short-term decline in the amount and quality of benthic foraging habitat in the borrow area, but this effect is considered insignificant in light of the scale of the availability of similar foraging habitat nearby. Cumulative Effects Refer to cumulative effects for Atlantic sturgeon, which would also be considered similar for shortnose sturgeon. However, climate change effects may affect the shortnose indifferent ways, since more of its life is spent in the shallower waters of rivers, river mouths, and estuaries. These bodies of water may respond to changes in precipitation or temperature more quickly or with more frequent variation than the ocean with uncertain effects to the species that use those habitats, including the shortnose sturgeon. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions — No interrelated and interdependent actions are associated with this project; therefore, no adverse effects to shortnose sturgeon are anticipated from such actions. Determination — The 2020 SARBO includes a Likely to Adversely Affect determination for the shortnose sturgeon largely due to riverine and inlet dredging activities of many USACE projects. The proposed Buxton maintenance project is not located either in proximity to a river or a nearby inlet and the species is rare in the project area. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon. Fish — Giant Manta Ray Direct and Indirect Effects First proposed for listing in 2015 by Defenders of Wildlife, NOAA Fisheries followed with publication of their 90-day review in February of 2016; NMFS issued its Final Rule 22 January 2018 which listed the giant manta ray as threatened throughout its range. To date, no critical habitat has been designated for the species (NOAA 2019). A slow moving migratory circumglobal planktivorous filter feeder, the giant manta ray is the world's largest ray with a wingspan up to 29 feet. Diamond shaped with wing -like pectoral fins and a wide terminal mouth, manta rays can be one of two colors: chevron (black back white belly) or almost completely black on both sides. Constant and distinctive patterns of belly spots can be used to identify individuals. Found in all tropical, subtropical, and temperate oceans it can also be found seasonally near productive coastlines with regular upwelling where it follows zooplankton, the predominant food source. It also has JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 113 Buxton, Dare County (NC) been known to frequent estuarine waters near coastal inlets; it is suspected that its depth preferences and foraging habits are more complex than currently understood (Miller and Klimovich 2017). Considered predominantly an oceanic species of the continental shelf or other areas where productive upwelling occurs, it can be sometimes found in shallower waters. While documented as far north as Long Island, they generally are not found further north than Cape Hatteras and are considered rare in the mid - Atlantic and northeast. An Instagram video of a giant manta ray taken from the Avon Fishing Pier in July of 2019 documented "chasing" behavior which was speculated to be associated with courtship (NOAA 2019). Historic documentation of the giant manta ray in North Carolina include 11 individuals near Cape Lookout one of which was a pregnant female (Coles 1916), one in the Cape Fear estuary in 1977, one in Lockwood Folly River in 1978, one in Beaufort Inlet in 1981, and one in Bogue Sound in 1999 (Schwartz 2000). The low and widely sporadic documentation of the species in North Carolina estuaries are considered accidental incursions of errant individuals (Medeiros et at 2015). Never documented within the nearshore marine aquatic habitats of the Proposed Action Area or project area and almost never documented in North Carolina north of Cape Hatteras, there is the remote possibility that giant manta ray could be in the vicinity of the dredge operation. However, direct and indirect effects are not likely. Cumulative Effects All of its habits and behaviors are not completely understood so additional threats may exist from activities not yet described. It is likely that many of the existing threats from overutilization and bycatch, vessel strikes, entanglement, and habitat degradation will continue despite its protected status. Its low fecundity and apparent habitat fidelity make it particularly vulnerable to climate change factors which could be disruptive to past patterns of prey which are driven by variations in currents and temperatures. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions — There are no interrelated and interdependent actions associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to giant manta ray from such actions. Determination — The NMFS determined a Likely to Adversely Affect while the USACE determined a Likely to Adversely Affect for hopper dredging and relocation trawling in the 2020 SARBO, but a Not Likely to Adversely Affect for other activities covered by the SARBO. The 2020 SARBO covers a vast geography that includes known congregation areas of the giant manta ray and offshore dredge locations beyond state waters and in tropical inlets and estuaries the giant manta ray may frequent. However, the likelihood of this species in the Proposed Action Area is very remote as it is considered generally rare north of Cape Hatteras. A large portion of existing data are observational and incidental (usually tied to other types of surveys), often lumped as "manta ray", aerial data may overlap which leads to potential double counts, and rays are notoriously prone to misidentification, especially north of Cape Hatteras and without photographs to corroborate (NMFS 2019 CFR 84 No. 234). Therefore, the proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect giant manta ray. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 114 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Flowering Plants — Seabeach Amaranth Direct and Indirect Effects As this species has not been documented within the proposed project area and NPS personnel perform annual surveys in the nearest last -known location, no direct effects are expected to any existing popula- tions of seabeach amaranth. The deteriorated condition of the beach and absence of backshore area free of vegetation with a stable dry beach to sustain the species continues to make the project area less suitable for the species. On some regional beaches, including Bogue Banks (NC), experience indicates seabeach amaranth is more likelyto propagate with a beach nourishment projectthan without a project (CSE 2004, USACE 2006). This is due to the extra width of dry beach that may be created by the proposed beach nourishment and the additional unvegetated habitat acreage where seabeach amaranth may propagate. Amaranth surveys were performed at Bogue Banks (NC) before and after nourishment. Over an -16-mile length of shoreline, the number of plants observed in August 2001 prior to nourishment was under 35. After nourishment, seabeach amaranth increased to over 5,000 plants as mapped in August 2002, August 2003, and August 2004 (CSE 2004). Therefore, the project may increase suitable habitat, while at the same time, earthmoving equipment associated with the project might disturb dormant seeds and bury them or move them to a less suitable location for potential sprouting. Cumulative Effects Increased storm intensity or frequency could have both adverse and beneficial effects on seabeach ama- ranth. Often colonizing species on somewhat ephemeral habitats like overwash fans, the seabeach amaranth could benefit from increased events of this type, provided seed was available from a nearby population or dormant seeds exposed by the erosion/deposit. Conversely, larger, more frequent storms could wash away or bury established populations. Coastal development and encroachment on habitat by increased human recreational use of the dry beach will continue to have adverse effects on seabeach amaranth. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions — No interrelated and interdependent actions are associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to seabeach amaranth from such actions. Determination — Effects of the proposed project are considered discountable; therefore, the Proposed Action will have no effect on seabeach amaranth. Mammals — Whales Direct and Indirect Effects Five whale species as listed in Table 6.1 have the potential to occur in North Carolina waters: blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and the sperm whale. A sixth species, sei whale, is not likely to be close to the project area. The blue whale generally occurs further offshore than the other whales, and is rarely observed close to shore. There was a recent sighting 27 miles off Cape Hatteras as listed in Table 6.1, likely associated with the Gulf Stream. The fin whale also prefers deep offshore waters JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 115 Buxton, Dare County (NC) but maybe in NC waters during winter migration. There have been three reported strandings in NC between 1997 and 2020 with one in May (proposed construction window). The humpback whale is popular for whale watching in other states, but generally is found too far offshore and a less frequent visitor to NC waters. There have been 50 NC strandings reported 1997-2020 with strandings from May to October during the proposed construction window. Similarly, the sei whale prefers deeper waters of the continental edge and slope, far from the coastline. Only two strandings have been recorded in NC between 1997 and 2020, and none in the proposed construction window. The North Atlantic right whale is the species most likely to be observed in NC inshore waters, particularly during the spring migration to spawning grounds off the Georgia coast. There were six strandings in NC between 1997-2020 with two occurring duringthe proposed construction window (August and September). Noise generated as part of the dredge and pipeline operations would be one direct effect experienced among any whale in the vicinity of the operation within range of its hearing. Short impulsive sounds and nearby, high -frequency sounds have been documented to be disruptive to many species of marine life including whales, other aquatic mammals, and fishes. However, aside from the occasional normal activity, which may create a punctuation noise event at higher or louder frequency (such as transit maneuvers or cavitation), most of the noise generated during the dredge and pipeline activity would be continuous and low range. A trailing, suction -hopper dredge operation is purported to emit sound levels at frequencies below 500 Hz, a level generally parallel to that of a cargo ship traveling at moderate speed [Robinson et al (2011) in CEDA Position Paper 7 November 2011, Reine et al 20141. As stated by Reine et al (2014), using the current NMFS threshold, peak source levels did not exceed Level "A" Criterion (180dB re 1µPa rms) for injury/mortality to marine mammals during any aspect of the dredging operations in the study. However, in this Reine et al study, noise levels exceeded 120dB (Level B Criterion for harassment) and were measured at this level out to 1.3 miles from the source. Some factors to consider are that smaller support vessels and the pipeline emit higher frequency noise than the dredge itself. Also higher frequency sound attenuates faster than low frequency and pipeline noise increases with the size of the aggregate in the pipe. Sand size in the borrow area for the proposed project will not be large. For the dredges in the Reine et al (2014) study, attenuation distances for noise levels associated with eight different dredge operations among three different dredges ranged from <0.7 mile to 1.7 miles. Section 10 of Presidential Executive Order 13795 (America First Offshore Energy Strategy, 28 April 2017) called for a review of the 2016 technical guidance to assess the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals (NOAA 2016). To assist the Secretary of Commerce in the review, NMFS requested public comment on the 2016 memorandum for a 45-day period on 31 May 2016. As a result of this review, noise level thresholds for marine mammals may undergo change. While research has increased in the last decade on the biological effects of marine noise, not enough is known to be able to confidently state a degree of injury with a particular degree of noise for a particular JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 116 Buxton, Dare County (NC) species, especially not on an individual basis. Therefore, an individual whale in close proximity to the dredge operation could experience a temporary hearing loss if exposed for long enough, but this is not thought likely because the whale could move away from the noise source. The need for noise avoidance could be considered harassment if the noise level exceeded 120 dB. Noise avoidance could affect foraging behavior, which could lead to reduced productivity if there were prey in the vicinity of the noise that did not also avoid the noise source. Noises could interfere with communication between whales in the vicinity. An increased risk of collision with a project -associated vessel would be possible. Nourishment and renour- ishment projects targeted for segments of the North Carolina coast that include offshore dredging may pose potential for indirect effects. Onboard marine mammal observers are expected to be a permit requirement, which will greatly reduce the potential for collision or other direct interaction with any whales in the area. In addition, if any whale is disturbed by the noise associated with the dredge operation, it is likely to avoid the project vicinity. Differences in Direct and Indirect Effects As the whale most often recorded in ship strikes and collisions, the finback whale is most susceptible to activities that result in an increase in ocean vessel traffic, addition of a new commercially targeted fishery, or changes in methods or popularity of an existing fishery. None of these effects are expected as a result of the proposed project. As the whale most likely to utilize the shallower waters within the project area, especially during spring migration, the North Atlantic right whale is the species with the highest likelihood of being in the vicinity of the dredge activity. One of the rarest and most critically endangered whales, the right whale is a somewhat regular fall and winter visitor to North Carolina waters and a less common visitor in the summer when the project is proposed to occur. In the past 15 years, there has been one sighting of a right whale during the construction window (May -October) near the proposed project area. The whale was observed in July 2002, three miles north of the proposed project area and <2 miles offshore (www.nefsc.noaa.gov/psb/surveys/ index.html). Cumulative Effects In response to a rise in sea -surface temperatures from climate change, recent research has shown that over a 27-year period, finback whales have adapted their arrival to feeding grounds in the Gulf of St. Lawrence by one day later each year. During the period of the study, researchers were surprised to find that, despite following separate migration routes, the finback and right whales synchronized their arrival times each year to avoid competing with each other for food (Ramp et al 2015). As whales have adapted to many other changes in climate in the historic record, this study gives hope that these animals will continue to adaptto the current challenges of climate change, but their response would be affected by the rate of change and how adaptable their food source is to the same challenges. Climate change effects on the North Atlantic right whale are tied to a tiny crustacean (Calanus finmarchi- cus), a key food source. Without dense patches of this zooplankton, female whales are unable to bulk up JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 117 Buxton, Dare County (NC) to prepare for calving, carry a pregnancy to term, or produce enough milk. When the concentration of zooplankton is too low, right whales do not feed; such highly concentrated patches often occur where currents converge or at the boundary of water of different densities. Changes of seawater temperature, winds, and water currents can affect patch formation of zooplankton (New England Aquarium website www.neaq.org). Cumulative effects to the finback and North Atlantic right whales would include the continuation of current threats, such as ensnarement in commercial fishing gear, overfishing of prey species for human or animal food sources, and habitat degradation. In 2014, noise generated by a month -long airgun study of the earth's crust off North Carolina conducted by the LaMont-Doherty Earth Observatory may have been disruptive to whales moving through the area. When added to the noise generated by proposed larger - scale seismic testing/surveys in ocean waters from Delaware to Florida as part of oil/gas exploration activities and by pile -driving associated with the construction of offshore wind turbine clusters on the western Atlantic continental shelf, noise may be cumulatively detrimental even if it does not cause measurable injury. Once constructed, offshore oil/gas platforms and wind turbines will require vessels to supply operation and/or maintenance personnel and equipment, which will increase noise from vessel traffic, facility operations, and will increase the potential for ship collisions. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions — No interrelated and interdependent actions are associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to whales from such actions. Determination — Effects are considered to be insignificant or discountable; therefore, the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, any protected whale species with the potential to occur in the project vicinity. Mammals — West Indian Manatee Direct and Indirect Effects Although a very rare summer visitor in inland waters north of Cape Hatteras and also seldom in the NC ocean waters north of Carteret County, the West Indian manatee might be found in the vicinity of, or between, Hatteras or Oregon inlet in the summer to access its preferred shallow vegetated back barrier habitats away from more saline ocean waters. Noise effects on manatee may be similar to those experienced by whales (see above text) although perhaps a manatee would not perceive the noise from as far away as a whale may or levels may differ slightly as the manatee is not a pinniped. In quieter waters of canals and rivers manatees are known to avoid boats when they can escape to nearby deeper water; boat collisions are a primary source of injury and death to manatees. Along with their own results, Gaspard et al (2015) cite other research that confirms manatees have relatively high frequency hearing and the ability to localize sound sources from boats (fast or slow moving) as long as the background noise did not exceed their broad hearing range. Hopper dredge noise from propeller cavitation, draghead vacuuming, and submerged slurry pipeline noise, was shown to interfere with manatees' ability to detect boat noise in a river (Gerstein et at 2006) while McQueen et at (2019) indicated a modeled masking zone distance from dredging noise of 1,680 to 13,438 feet for manatee. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 118 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Cumulative Effects Summer dredge work associated with Oregon Inlet could also possibly disturb West Indian manatee, although it is a very rare visitor to the ocean side of NC inlets. Increased development of the Outer Banks increases the likelihood of more boats in the sounds which may collide with the rare manatee summer visitor, while an increase in temperatures of summer waters in North Carolina due to climate change could attract more manatee visitors in the future and increase the opportunity for and likelihood of human interactions. However, as winter populations may be negatively affected by the future closure of coal plants and the warm water outfall congregations of manatees and climate change may foster more frequent winter temperature anomalies, there may be less pressure for the males (typically) to wander further north in the summer. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions — There are no interrelated and interdependent actions associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to West Indian manatee from such actions. Determination — Although its appearance in North Carolina near Cape Hatteras is rare and there is little to no summer preferred habitat in the project area, a summer visitor could be in vicinity of the dredge operations; effects are considered insignificant and discountable so the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the West Indian manatee. Reptiles — Sea Turtles For sea turtles occurring in the Atlantic Ocean, the applicant anticipates operating under the 2020 SARBO (NMFS 2020) and associated incidental take allocation for the potential risk of a lethal take of green, loggerhead, hawksbill, and/or Kemp's ridleysea turtles during dredge operations forthe proposed project. [The 1997 SARBO (NMFS 1997) indicates that while leatherback sea turtles may be in the area of hopper dredge operations in inlets or along the coast, the species is not likely to be adversely affected by those operations.] Consultation for in -water impacts to these marine species will occur between the lead federal agency (USACE) and NMFS upon publication of the permit application and supporting documents. The applicant acknowledges the need for compliance with all current recommendations and conditions of the 2020 SARBO, as well as future revisions to the SARBO should they occur during the timeframe of the proposed project. Direct and Indirect Effects Non -breeding sea turtles of all five species with potential to be affected can be found in the nearshore waters in the proposed project area during much of the year and may be disturbed by increased turbidity or disrupted while swimming during dredging activities (NPS 2013b). During sand placement activities, the primary direct effects on sea turtles that may nest on the beach include disturbance during nesting and the potential for escarpments and compaction of beach sand. Large escarpments can impede access to nesting areas, increase the number of false crawls, or cause a turtle to lay eggs in a location subject to overwash (Byrd 2004). Sand compaction can affect digging behavior and result in false crawls, can affect JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 119 Buxton, Dare County (NC) incubation temperature, which in turn affects sex ratios, and can affect gas exchange parameters within incubating nests (Mrosovsky and Provancha 1992). Other effects from construction activities would be noise, construction lighting, and the potential for a nest to be crushed if missed by the state biologists or volunteer turtle watch patrols. Noise criteria for sea turtles, as well as other species, have been somewhat formalized between NMFS and the US Navy. To replace regulatory uncertainty with scientific facts, NOAA convened a panel in 2004 to develop noise exposure criteria for fishes and sea turtles. When NOAA's support ended in 2006, a Working Group was established to determine broadly applicable sound exposure guidelines for fishes and sea turtles under the support of ANSI -Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC 1, Animal Bioacoustics, which is supported by the Acoustical Society of America. Although Level A (205 dB re 1NPa2.sec) and Level B (182 dB re 1NPa2-sec) criteria for sea turtle harassment have been considered by NMFS and the US Navy for explosions associated with certain ordnance disposal training operations, interim criteria have been developed by NMFS for pile driving, mainly on the West Coast. However, little data are available on the hearing abilities of sea turtles, their uses of sounds, or their vulnerabilities (Popper et al 2014). While some researchers have suggested that marine mammals should be used as the analog for sea -turtle responses to noise, the view of the Working Group is that fishes are more appropriate due to dissimilar functions of the marine mammal cochlea and the basilar papilla in the ear of sea turtles (Popper eta[ 2014). Broadband sound with many frequencies is generated from dredge activities. While loggerheads are the sea turtle most likely to be encountered during project operations (dredge or beach) and may possibly suffer mortality due to the encounter, for context and scale it is important to understand other ongoing and contemporaneous practices to which significant loggerhead mortality is attributed. Bolten et al (2011) estimated that two fisheries practices, in particular, each contributes 10,000-100,000 annual deaths to mostly juvenile loggerheads: pelagic longlines (oceanic juvenile mortality) and bottom trawls (neriticjuvenile mortality). Bolten et al (2011) also estimated that annual shrimp trawl mortality to neritic loggerhead juveniles in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic ranged from 6,680 to 162,419 prior to the larger TED openings imple- mented in 2003; since 2003, the range is estimated to be 1,221-8,498 annually. However, they also suggest that non-compliance, suboptimal TED designs (eg - soft TEDs), and trynets likely contribute to mortality beyond the 8,498 upper value (Bolten eta[ 2011). When non -shrimp bottom trawls are included (eg - blue crab, whelk, scallop), Bolten et al (2011) estimated annual mortality of juvenile and adult loggerheads combined to exceed 10,000. For turtle activities onshore, much research links decreased sea -turtle nesting in areas with human activity, disruptions to hatchling ability to orient, and increased hatchling predation caused by high light levels compared to natural beaches (Witherington 1992, Kikukawa et al 1999, Witherington and Martin 2000). Although nest relocations in the proposed project area already occur somewhat regularly due to the narrow eroding beach, relocations as a result of the proposed project construction would be another direct effect. Dredging itself, the noise associated with dredging and piping, and the concomitant JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 120 Buxton, Dare County (NC) increased turbidity in the borrow area waters could also present adverse effects to sea turtles. While monitoring requirements and procedures prior to and during dredging make it unlikely, potential entrainment of a turtle by the dredge operation could also be a direct effect. As part of the standard, beach -nourishment harm reduction/mitigation practices, authorized personnel conduct daily patrols and remain vigilant for evidence of sea turtle crawls, nests, or turtles on the beach and for turtles in the vicinity of the dredge operations during the entire project activity. All sea -turtle nests found ahead of construction would be relocated to safer and more appropriate locations, and beach or dredge operations would cease until the turtle nest (or turtle in the water) is out of harm's way. Any relocations would follow all USFWS/NCWRC guidelines and protocols. During the 2011 Nags Head project, four turtle nests were relocated with a success rate of over 85 percent (CSE 2012). If the recent trend of increased number of sea turtle nests in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore continues into 2022, it is likely that more nests may need relocation than during previous nourishment projects (Figure 6.3). As described elsewhere, lack of safe harbors in the proposed project area results in preference for a sum- mer dredging window. Therefore, the proposed project poses a higher threat to sea turtles because the sand placement would occur during nesting season, which runs from May through September. Daily turtle patrols during construction would limit and minimize adverse effects to these species. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 121 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Number of loggerhead sea turtle nests by year at Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2000-2020 500 — 400 — 300 — 200 100 0 o m � ,rn Ic r co o, o cq m `t 'n �o r- w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-—-—-- ca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c� . . ca . ca . ca . ca ca ca ca . ca . . . ca . cl Green sea turtle nests at Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2000-2020 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 ill lid 1", o� 00 04i eo �R, e� 1� ti� � 10,11 �o �O �o �o �o �o �o �o �o �o Kemp's ridley sea turtle nests in North Carolina 2010-2020 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 FIGURE 6.3. Number and trend of loggerhead and green sea turtle nests by year (2000-2020) at the Seashore, and the low numbers of Kemp's ridley turtle nests statewide. (Sources: www.seaturtle.org on 8 November 2020 and NWRC). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 122 Buxton, Dare County (NC) The proposed project also may have indirect effects on sea -turtle nesting habitat, which could include changes in beach morphology or sediment characteristics. Changes in beach morphology could result in less preferred nest sites, and changes in sand characteristics (higher mineral content or color change) can cause a temperature change in the nest known to affect the sex ratios of hatchlings. Suitable sand size and color and measures to avoid disturbance of sea turtles during dredging and sand placement will help minimize effects. One beneficial direct effect for this species would include the potential for increased habitat suitable for nesting due to the wider beach. Although known turtle nests are protected with staked perimeter and signage, and incubating nests and hatchlings are monitored and protected, a wider beach may also promote increased use of the beach by pedestrians and pets. Under this scenario, the potential that a turtle is disrupted from nesting or that a nest or hatchling is disturbed also increases. The proposed project construction may temporarily adversely affect turtles during the short-term, although it is likely to have a longer -term, beneficial effect post -construction as potential turtle nesting habitat is likely to expand from a wider beach. The addition of appropriate sand from Borrow Area 3A and 4 similar in color and grain size is expected. The addition of sand in the nearshore environment replaces sand lost as a result of natural processes of the eroding beach. This would reduce this beach's susceptibility to a breach in the near future, enhance its resilience, and help sustain its biological integrity. While construction of a wider beach in more developed coastal regions of North Carolina may cause an increase in summer rentals with a concomitant increase in night lighting, the majority of the proposed project would occur in the already highly developed portion of Dare County. Following renourishment, the restored beach profile and width would provide improved habitat for sea -turtle nest laying. The southern end of the project area will also be wider; a wider beachfront may spur an increase in house rentals which would increase the presence of nighttime lights and nighttime beach walkers. Encounters with live turtles on the beach or relocated turtles captured in the protection trawl ahead of dredge operations could be construed as both detrimental and beneficial. It would be detrimental in that the individual turtle is disturbed or may be injured during the relocation (a non -lethal take). It would be beneficial in that those turtles will be tagged for scientific study. Tagged turtles can be monitored by sea turtle biologists to expand the understanding of sea turtle behavior and help to improve recovery and management efforts. Differences in Direct and Indirect Effects The difference between the potential effects on these five sea turtle species is based on the extentto which the species is likely to be present during the proposed activity. Species presence and potential effects are closely related to nesting with the leatherback, Kemp's ridley, and green sea turtles being infrequent nesters, while the hawksbill has never been known to nest in North Carolina until two nests were documented in 2015 (NPS 2015d). Of the five sea turtles, the loggerhead is the species most likely to be affected by the proposed project. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 123 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle — Of the sea turtles that commonly or occasionally nest in North Carolina, the Kemp's ridley is the rarest and is unlikely to nest on eroding or steep beaches, characteristics of the southern end of the proposed renourishment area. Kemp's ridley is primarily a tropical to subtropical nesting species, although seven nests have been documented in North Carolina since 2010, and the Seashore documented its first Kemp's ridley nest in 2011 (RandySwilling, Natural Resource Program Man- ager, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, pers Comm, 10 April 2015). Two nests were reported within the Buxton sand placement footprint in 2018 (Source NPS-See Appendix E). Though found rarely, the use of North Carolina beaches by this species seems to be on the increase, so the potential exists for it to come ashore in the proposed project area or to be in the waters in the vicinity of the dredge and pipeline. Leatherback Sea Turtle —The leatherback is also a rare nester in North Carolina and especially rare in the northern part of North Carolina. Although loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles are commonly found in beach strandings along the Seashore and elsewhere, leatherbacks strand more rarely. Nine nests have been documented in North Carolina since 2010, one of which was in the Seashore in 2012, but no nests have been documented in North Carolina in the past four years. One leatherback nest was docu- mented in the 53-mile-long N.E.S.T, corridor in 2009 and none since. This species is less likely to be impacted by either dredge or sand placement activities than loggerheads or green sea turtles. Per project - specific USFWS/NCWRC guidance, nest surveys for leatherback maybe required to begin 15 April since this species may nest earlier than May. Green Sea Turtle — The green sea turtle is essentially a tropical species and does not generally breed in temperate zones, but it does occasionally nest on NC beaches and occurs in NC waters during the warmer months where it feeds on seagrass in the sounds. Green sea turtles have nested in the Seashore every year since 2006, but represent only -4 percent of the total sea turtle nests. Highest nest numbers occurred in 2019 (32) and 2013 (23). While nesting appears to be on the increase, green sea turtles account for nearly 70 percent of the strandings found for all species in the Seashore (Table 6.4). Over the past ten years (2011- 2020) there have been 118 nests recorded in the Seashore (Figure 6.3). Individual green sea turtles may be impacted in the water during dredging or on the beach during sand -placement activity. Loggerhead Sea Turtle — The loggerhead sea turtle is well adapted to the highly dynamic environment of the Outer Banks and since 1998 has been the most common sea turtle to strand in the northern Outer Banks. The most common marine turtle nesting in North Carolina, the average number of nests per year is around 750 (Godfrey 2013). From 2010 through 2016, 4,694 loggerhead nests were documented in North Carolina, with 1,449 of them alongthe Seashore in that period and 148 of them in the northern Outer Banks N.E.S.T. corridor (www.seaturtle.org). While tagging data has been used most extensively to predict popu- lation numbers for marine sea turtles, satellite telemetry of a southwest Florida loggerhead rookery im- proved measurements of site fidelity (philopatry) and revealed a need to recalculate fecundity estimates (Tucker 2010). If clutch frequency numbers are representative of the Western Atlantic population of this species, then confidence bounds on the estimated breeding stock could be underestimated by as much as 32 percent (Tucker 2010). As Figure 6.3 shows, the number of loggerhead nests in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore has increased significantly since 2000, with a record of almost 450 nests in 2019. Nests JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 124 Buxton, Dare County (NC) have been laid along virtually the entire length of the project area in recent years according to NPS observers. The proposed project is most likely to impact the loggerhead sea turtle, the most common nester in North Carolina, with either dredge or sand -placement activity. Hawksbill Sea Turtle — Although four hawksbill sea turtle strandings were documented along the Seashore between 1996 and 2006 (NPS 2007), no strandings of this species were documented from 2009 to 2016 in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore (NPS 2015d, 2016a). Two nests were documented along the Seashore in 2015 for the first time; both were located close to the Proposed Action Area and involved the same turtle based on genetic analysis (NPS 2015d). According to www.seaturt[e.org, there have been no further nests or strandings of hawksbill sea turtles since 2015 on Hatteras Island. While it is possible for a hawksbill sea turtle to occur in North Carolina waters, the proposed project is expected to have no effect on nesting females, due to its rarity of regular occurrence in the state. Among sea -turtle species with the potential to occur, hawksbill individuals are the least likely to be encountered. TABLE 6.4. Sea turtle strandings annual total by species at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (2014-2019 reports and pers comm. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Paul Doshkov, Supervisory Biological Technician, 11 November 2020) and Hatteras Island from 2014-18 November 2020 from www.seaturtle.org. Year Stranding Total Loggerhead Kemp's Ridley Green Leatherback Hawksbill Unk. Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2014 219 50 61 104 1 0 3 2015 286 44 39 198 3 0 2 2016 637 45 49 541 1 0 1 2017 280 56 53 168 1 0 2 2018 156 42 41 69 1 0 3 2019 137 31 14 91 1 0 0 1715 268 257 1,171 8 0 11 Hatteras Island total (includes CAHA numbers through 2019 and most of 2020) 2014 258 31 76 148 1 0 2 2015 254 37 40 174 3 0 0 2016 1057 57 45 954 1 0 0 2017 365 52 62 247 2 0 2 2018 126 37 28 59 1 0 1 2019 230 29 21 176 0 0 4 2020* 229 17 20 192 0 0 0 2,519 260 292 1,950 8 0 9 * not complete data for year JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 125 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Cumulative Effects Climate change directly affects the reproduction of sea turtles in numerous ways: (1) sea -level rise may affect significant nesting beach areas on low-level sand beaches and affect back barrier foraging habitat; (2) higher temperatures increase the chance that sand temperature will exceed the upper limit for egg incubation of 34°C; (3) higher water temperatures drive prey into new areas which may increase human encounters (inshore and offshore); and 14) higher nest temperatures bias the sex ratio toward females because incubation temperature determines the sex of the egg. Owing to high temperatures, loggerhead turtle nests in Florida are already producing 90 percent females, and if warming raises temperatures by an additional 1°C or more, no males will be produced there. Adult feeding patterns are also affected by climate change. Seagrass beds are in decline, water tempera- ture is higher on intertidal sea grass flats, and coral reefs (typically feeding grounds for green turtles) are affected by bleaching. Sea turtles have existed for more than 100 million years and have survived ice ages, sea -level fluctuations of >100 meters (330 ft), and major changes to the continents and the seas. As a result, they may be able to respond to unfavorable nesting temperatures or inundation of beaches by seek- ing out new nesting sites or modifying the seasonality of nesting. It may however take decades or centuries for sea turtles to re-establish and stabilize their habitats. Steadily encroaching human development of coastal areas makes the availability of new habitat for them very limited. Coastal development will continue to expand, increasing the number of buildings and roads that are lighted at night, which may adversely affect nesting and hatching sea turtles. With more development more residents and tourists arrive, which increases recreational use of the beach in the proposed project area and beyond. Increased use of the beach by both beachgoers and their pets may contribute to the increased disturbance of nesting sea turtles and turtle hatchlings in the area. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions — No interrelated and interdependent actions are associated with the proposed project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to sea turtles from such actions. Determination — Minimization measures followed by the National Park Service (all nests will be relocated prior to construction) and adherence by the dredge contractor to the required 2020 SARBO PDCs during the project would minimize the likelihood of lethal take on the beach and in the nearshore waters; however, there is a likelihood that an incidental take could occur (especially for the loggerhead). The 2020 SARBO final NM FS determination for four of the five sea turtles addressed in this document was Likely to Adversely Affect while a Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination was included for the hawksbill. The USACE would initiate formal Section 7 consultation with USFWS for nesting sea turtles and the 2020 SARBO from NMFS is expected to be utilized for any sea turtle take which may occur in nearshore waters. The National Park Service would issue a Special Use Permit subject to issuance of the USACE permit for the project. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 126 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 6.4.3.3 Evaluated Critical Habitat and Effects Determination (Sea Turtles & Atlantic Sturgeon) Designated critical habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle, the "Constricted Migratory Corridor Critical Habitat", potentially traverses through the proposed offshore project area. Recent telemetric tracking of juvenile loggerheads indicates that the life history of sea turtles is likely more complex than previously understood (Mansfield et al 2009, McClellan and Read 2007). Largely as a result of such tracking, "Constricted Migratory Corridor Critical Habitat" for the northwest Atlantic Ocean loggerhead turtle DPS was designated by final rule in July 2014. This habitat is designated primarily because of its high use and constricted narrow width ([and to west and Gulf Stream to east). The corridor is used byjuvenile and adult loggerheads migrating between nesting, breeding, and foraging areas. Because of such high use and narrowness, the species is more subject to perturbation. Dredging and sand placement activities could present obstructions to loggerhead turtles in transit through either the surf zone or the offshore borrow area. But as stated in the final rule (CFR # 15725 on 7.10.2014, Comments on Constricted Migratory Corridors, response to Comment 73), "...many of the possible impacts associated with dredging and or disposal activities are not expected to occur, or to occur at a level that would affect or modify the essential features of the critical habitat." Additional conservation measures to avoid impacts to this designated corridor are not likely beyond those measures that are typical for projects of this type and which would be in place to protect the species itself. There are 17 proposed critical habitat units for the Atlantic sturgeon in southeast US rivers, five of which occur in North Carolina (Cl-Roanoke River, C2-Tar Pamlico River, C3-Neuse River, C4-Cape Fear River and Northeast Cape Fear River, and CU1-Cape Fear River). None of these designated critical habitats are within the project area, and none of these habitats will be affected by the project activities. However, Atlantic sturgeon on their way to or from any of these North Carolina rivers could be in the project area during the offshore dredging activities. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions — No interrelated and interdependent actions are associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to critical habitat from such actions. Determination — Effects are considered insignificant; therefore, no critical habitat for any species will be adversely affected by the proposed project. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 127 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 6.4.4 EFH Species or Complexes Considered The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) defines EFH as "all waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" and may include habitat for individual species or an assemblage of species so designated by regional fishery management councils. The MSFCMA also requires these regional councils to develop a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for each resource or species and to identify any Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) within an EFH; the FMPs are periodically amended. The stated intent of the EFH provisions in the MSFCMA is that EFH reflect only the important habitats and not the entire range of a species or assemblage (NMFS 2017). Not only must any HAPC be within an EFH, the HAPC must meet one of four criteria based on either ecological function, habitat sensitivity to human degradation, human development activities stresses, or rarity. The FMP amendments of SAFMC and MAFMC identify numerous types of EFH and locations of HAPC, which are listed in Table 6.5. Table 6.6 shows life stages for those fish species managed by SAFMC/MAFMC and their association with the categories of Table 6.5 EFH and HAPC that occur in the project vicinity. On a state level, as mandated by a 1997 state law, the North Carolina Marine Fisheries, Environmental Management, and Coastal Resources commissions adopted the North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) in December 2004 and published the document in January 2005 (Street et al 2005). The purpose of the CHPP was long-term enhancement of coastal fisheries associated with coastal habitats. It provided a framework to protect and restore habitats deemed critical to North Carolina coastal fisheries updated on a five-year basis. The most current CHPP was published in August 2016 (NCDEQ 2016). The CHPP identifies six types of these habitats: shell bottom, sea grasses, wetlands, hard bottoms, soft bottoms, and the water column; these six habitats also occur within, or overlap, some EFH habitats. While all the EFH types occur in waters of the southeastern United States, and many occur in North Carolina waters, only a few occur in the immediate project vicinity (within 2 miles) or the project area itself (maximum footprint of sand placement area =-142 acres; maximum footprint of Borrow Area and pipeline distribution area = -200 acres; combined footprint of project area = -342 acres). The entire -342-acre project area includes the dry beach, intertidal and subtidal surf zone, inshore area, and the entire marine water column over the borrow area and the fill placement area along the intertidal beach. Table 6.5 shows the categories of EFH and EFH/HAPC for managed species that were identified in the applicable FMP orAmendments. In general, EFH/HAPC include high value intertidal and estuarine habitats, offshore areas of high habitat value or vertical relief, and habitats used for migration, spawning, and rearing of fish and shellfish. Due to characteristics of the proposed maintenance project location/vicinity where only estuarine and marine environments occur, palustrine and freshwater EFH are not included in other tables or in additional analyses. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 128 Buxton, Dare County (NC) TABLE 6.5. Types of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by water regime and EFHHAPC defined in the south Atlantic region and in North Carolina. EFH TYPES BY REGIME I I GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINED EFH-HAPC Palustrine Areas Unconsolidated bottom/aquatic beds Tidal forest Tidal freshwater Estuarine Areas Subtidal/intertidal non -vegetated flats Emergent wetlands Estuarine scrub / shrub (mangroves) Watercolumn State -designated PNAs and SNAs Unconsolidated bottom Oyster reefs and shell banks Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) Coastal inlets High salinity bays, estuaries, and seagrass habitat Marine Areas Unconsolidated bottom/aquatic beds Artificial / manmade reefs Coral reefs Live/hard bottom Sorgassum Water column Emergent wetlands Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) Continental shelf currents/Gulf Stream Ocean high salinity surf zones Sandy shoals of capes and offshore bars Coastal inlets Offshore habitats used for spawning & growth to maturity Area - Wide Sorgassum habitat (pelagic and benthic) Hard bottoms Hoyt Hills State -designated areas of importance All coastal inlets Hermatypic coral habitat and reefs Council -designated Artificial Reef Special Management Zones (SMZ) North Carolina Bogue Sound Pamlico Sound at Hatteras/Ocracoke islands New River The Ten Fathom Ledge Big Rock Sandy shoals at capes (Hatteras, Lookout, Fear) The Point Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas Cape Lookout South Spawning SMZ Table 6.5 Notes: EFH identified in FMP Amendments for SAFMC and MAFMC. Geographically defined HAPC are identified in FMP Amendments affecting the south Atlantic area. The EFH for species managed under NMFS Billfish and Highly Migratory Species generally falls within the marine and estuarine water column habitats designated by the Councils. Information in this table was derived from Appendices 4 and 5 of NMFS 2010 and SAFMC EFH and HAPC designations from https://safmc.net/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/EFH2OTable.pdf and https://safmc.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/EFH-HAPC20Table.pdf JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 129 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Table 6.6 lists the federally managed fish species for which Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) have been developed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) and/or the Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and which may occur in the project area waters orvicinity. In addition, the table shows EFH by fish life stage category for those species that have designated EFH. Fish species which utilize habitats shown in Table 6.5 and occur in the water bodies of NC shown in Table 6.6 require special consideration to promote theirviability and sustainability. The habitats and HAPC for species managed by the Atlantic States Fishery Management Council (ASFMC) and EFH and HAPC for SAFMC-managed species are shown in Table 6.7 along with the species for which a FMP has been developed and the species with ASFMC strategies and management goals. The management history for Highly Migratory Species is shown in Table 6.8. The potential effects of the proposed project on species and habitats are summarized in Table 6.9; forthe purposes of this analysis, project vicinity is within 2 miles and the project footprint includes the dredged borrow area, the pipeline footprint, staging area footprint on the beach, and the sediment placement area. Figure 6.4 shows the hard bottom, possible hard bottom, shipwrecks, and artificial reefs in state and federal waters of the North Carolina coast in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras as depicted in NCDEQ (2016), the most recent version of North Carolina's Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. The small black square south of Buxton indicated as "hard bottom - point" from the Moser Taylor 1995 data represents the existing groins installed in the 1970s under the direction of the US Navy to protect a facility adjacent to Cape Hatteras Lighthouse and to hold sand along the beach around the lighthouse. No sand will be placed directly on the existing groins. Geotechnical studies of the proposed borrow area including-10 borings 10 ft long and a dozen additional in and around the area to -7 ft, and geophysical surveys for the project by TAR confirm there is no hard bottom in the borrow area. Previous surveys conducted or reviewed as part of the NOAA Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) indicate that the nearest offshore hardbottom habitat is -10 miles east of the proposed project area. Prior to any placement of sand on the targeted beach at Buxton, remote sensing (ie - shallow seismic, magnetometer and side scan surveys) will be used to delineate any potential cultural resources such as wrecks and their associated habitat. All interim and final survey data will be coordinated and provided to representatives of the NMFS and North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). Current NC Coastal Resource Commission (CRC) rules discourage dredging activities within a 1,640-foot buffer of significant biological communities, such as high relief hard bottom areas J15A NCAC 07H .0208(b)(12)(A)(iv)]. Under this rule, "high relief" is defined as greater than or equal to -1.7-feet per -16 feet of horizontal distance. Because reef fishes derive a significant portion of their nutritional requirements within a 500 m "halo" of exposed hard bottom Lindquist et at (1994), this sand dredging buffer was recommended by the NCDCM-appointed Ocean Policy Steering Committee around hard bottom areas, including those periodically buried with thin, ephemeral sand layers (NCDCM 2009). If any hardbottom features, or cultural resources are identified within the project area, they will be mapped, these areas will be avoided, and appropriate buffers will be incorporated. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 130 Buxton, Dare County (NC) TABLE 6.6. Life stage categories for managed species by geographic region within the Project Area or near vicinity (as shown on NOAA/NMFS EFH mapper, depicted in figures of Final Amendment 10 to 2006 consolidated HMS, or described in various management amendments). For some species, paucity of information results in all life stages combined into the ALL category. Note: — = life stage category not shown on EFH mapper; N = species not shown on EFH mapper for this life stage category; Y = species shown on EFH mapper for this life stage category. Some species with no life stage categories shown as EFH in the project area are included in table due to EFH in proximity and footnoted at the bottom of the table. Life stage category Managed species and geographic region Spawning, Neonate/ Eggs Larvae eggs & Neonate Juvenile Adult ALL YOY larvae Common name Latin name Greater Atlantic region Mid -Atlantic species *Atlantic butterfish Peprilus triacanthus N N Y Y *Atlantic mackerel a Scomberscrombus N N N N *Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix N N — Y Y *Longfin inshore squid b Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii N — N N *Scup Stenotomus chrysops N N Y Y *Spinydogfish Squalusacanthias — — — — N Y *Summerfiounder Paralichthysdentatus N Y — Y Y South Atlantic region (SAFMC) Spiny lobster Panulirus argus Y Snapper Grouper — — — — Y **Coastal migratorypelagics — — Y Highly migratory species (NMFS) Albacore tuna Thunnus alalunga — Y N Bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus — — Y — — Y Y Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares — — N — — Y Y Billfish (NMFS) Atlantic sailfish Isdophorus platypterus — — N — — Y Y Large coastal sharks (NMFS) Blacktip shark Carcharhinuslimbatus — — — N — Y Y **Sandbar shark Carcharhinus plumbeus — — — Y Y Y Y Scalloped hammerhead shark Sphyma leWni — — — N N Y Y Spinner shark Carcharhinus brevipinna Y Y Y Tigershark Galeocerdocuvier — — — Y Y Y Y Pelagic sharks (NMFS) Common thresher shark Alopias vulpinus — — — — — — — Y Prohibited sharks (NMFS) Atlantic angel shark Squatina dumerii — — — — — — — Y Duskyshark ` Carcharhinus obscurus Y Y Y Sand tiger shark Carcharias taurus — — — Y Y Y Y Smoothhound shark complex(NMFS) Smooth dogfish Mustelus canis — — — — — — — Y Small coastal sharks (NMFS) Atlantic sharpnose shark Rhizoprionodon terraenovae — — — Y Y Y Y Blacknose shark Carcharhinus acronotus — — — — — Y Y a EFH forjuveniles to Cape Hatteras; mostly north of38' according to MAFMC Amendment 11 * indicates species managed byMAFMC b EFH for adults includes Hatteras Inlet ** indicates EFH/HAPC within project area EFH Amendment 10 appears to not include Cape Hatteras when zoomed JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 131 Buxton, Dare County (NC) TABLE 6.7. EFH type and EFH/ HAPC within the project vicinity or project footprint for which potential impacts may occur. Includes AAFMC-managed species and SAFMC EFH or EFH/HAPC (as shown in Table 6.5) and the protected resource designated to that habitat under a fishery management plan (FMP) developed for each protected resource. Updated from SAFMC (2020) http://safmc.net/download/SAFMCEFHUsersGuideFina[Nov20.pdf (" indicates ASMFC habitat, ASMFC EFH-HAPC, or SAFMC EFH; "" indicates SAFMC EFH-HAPC). HABITAT TYPE FMP ASMFC Red drum, snapper grouper, Red drum, horseshoe crab, scup, Unconsolidated bottom* lobster' spiny dogfish, summer flounder spiny Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon, Offshore marine habitats used for bluefish, alewife, American shad, spawning and growth to maturity" Shrimp, snapper grouper blueback herring, hickory shad, Spanish mackerel, spiny dogfish, spot, spotted seatrout, weakfish, Atlantic coastal sharks Red drum, coastal migratory Red drum, Atlantic striped bass, Ocean high salinity surf zones" pelagics bluefish, spotted seatrout, Atlantic coastal sharks Spawning area in the water column above the adult habitat and the Snapper grouper, coastal American eel additional pelagic environment, migratory pelagics including Sargassum; Sargasso Sea" Barrier island ocean side waters from the surf to shelf break zone but Coastal migratory pelagics Horseshoe crab shoreward of the Gulf Stream" Shallow subtidal bottom* Spiny lobster' Horseshoe crab, scup Pelagic sargassum habitat" (windrows For dolphin under coastal American eel, cobia in nearshore project vicinity) migratory pelagics Sandy shoals of Cape Hatteras from shore to the ends, but shoreward of the Coastal migratory pelagics Red drum, horseshoe crab, scup, Gulf Stream'" bluefish, summer flounder ' not usually found north of southern North Carolina coast https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/application/efhmapper/index.htmi JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 132 Buxton, Dare County (NC) TABLE 6.8. Management history of designated EFH for highly migratory species (HMS). (Table 3.1 from NOAA 2017; updated). FMP orAmendment EFH and Species 1999 FMP for Atlantic tuna, EFH first identified and described for Atlantic tunas, swordfish and swordfish, and sharks sharks; HAPCS designated for sandbar sharks 1999 Amendment 1 to the 1988 EFH first identified and described for Atlantic billfishes Billfish FMP 2003 Amendment 1 to the FMP for EFH updated for five shark species (blacktip, sandbar, finetooth, dusky, Atlantic tunas, swordfish and sharks and nurse sharks) Comprehensive review of EFH for all HMS. EFH for all Atlantic HMS 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP consolidated into one FMP; no changes to EFH descriptions or boundaries 2009 Amendment 1 to the 2006 EFH updated for all federally managed Atlantic HMS. HAPC for bluefin Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP tuna spawning area designated in Gulf of Mexico 2010 Amendment 3 to the 2006 EFH first defined for smoothhound sharks (smooth dogfish, Florida Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP smoothhound, and Gulf smoothhound) 2010 White Marlin/Roundscale EFH first defined for roundscale spearfish (same as white marlin EFH Spearfish Interpretive Rule and Final designation in Amendment 1 to 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP) Action 2015 Atlantic HMS EFH 5-Year Review Comprehensive review of EFH for all HMS. Determined that changes to some EFH descriptions and boundaries were warranted. Presents alternatives that would update EFH for all federally managed 2016 DraftAmendment 10tothe2006 Atlantic HMS. Existing HAPCsfor sandbar shark and bluefintuna would Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP be adjusted, and new HAPCs forsand tigershark and lemon sharkwould be created to reflect recommendations in the 5-year review Public comment period ended 22 December 2016. Final amendment 2017 FinalAmendment 10to the 2006 approved 30 August 2017 and published in Federal Register on 7 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP September 2017 2019 FinalAmendment 11 to the 2006 Public comment period ended 1 October 2018 and Final became Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP effective 3 March 2019. Included management measures to address overfishing and rebuild stock of North Atlantic shortfin mako shark Announced 23 June 2020 integrates provisions of recently revised 2020DraftAmendment12tothe2006 National Standard guidelines, a standardized bycatch reporting Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP methodology rulemaking, and NOAA Fisheries policy directives. Public comment closed 26 October 2020. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 133 Buxton, Dare County (NC) TABLE 6.9. EFH categories and geographically defined HAPCs within project vicinity or area and potential impacts of proposed project by activity (Y= yes; N = no; W =within acceptable limits). Referto Appendix F-Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for details. PROXIMITY IMPACT ACTIVITY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT Project Vicinity Project Impact Area Dredge Operation Sand Placement Estuarine Emergent wetlands y N N N Estuarine scrub/shrub mangroves N N N N Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) Y N N N Oyster reefs and shell banks Y N N N Intertidal flats Y N N N Aquatic beds N N N N Estuarine water column Y N N N Seagrass Y N N N Creeks N N N N Mud bottom N N N N Marine Emergent wetlands Y N N N Unconsolidated/shallow subtidal bottom Y Y Y Y Live/hard bottoms N N N N Coral and coral reefs N N N N Artificial/man-made reefs N N N N argassum Y Y W N Water column & high salinity surf zones' Y Y W W GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINED HAPC Area -Wide Council -designated artificial reef Special management zones N N N N Hermatypic (reef -forming) coral habitat and reefs N N N N Hard bottoms N N N N Hoyt Hills N N N N argassum habitat Y Y W N State -designated areas of importance for managed species (PNAs) N N N N Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) Y N N N North Carolina Big Rock N N N N Bogue Sound N N N N Pamlico Sound at Hatteras/Ocracoke Islands N N N N Cape Fear sandy shoals N N N N Cape Hatteras sandy shoals Y Y W N Cape Lookout sandy shoals N N N N New River N N N N he Ten Fathom Ledge N N N N he Point N N N N ' effect is likely to be negligible (eg- project turbidity in surf zone water column would be very temporary and similar conditions commonly occur naturally and often for longerduration) JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 134 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Coastal Habitat Protection Plan uQ ' urrituck ■ andAGRAN ' ■ A �il�� • — NCDENR Map information collected from various federal, state. and private q organizations. Every effort has been made to ensure the quality and accuracy of this information. Albemarle Sound - 2` Cre an ■ Son 4 � / A • ." Pamlico Sound '1"1'E S . • ■• A Y. � e kf rr y ■ Hard Bottom Habitat (SEAMAP, 2001) Hard Bottom Habitat (MARMAIR & SEFIS, 2013) J Hard Bottom - Hard Bottom -1 Potential Hard Bottom Hard Bottom — Potential Hard Bottom Artificial Reefs (DMF, 2015) 0 5 10 20 Shipwrecks (NOAA, 2014) 0 Hard Bottom Habitat (Moser & Taylor, 1995) Mlles G Hard Bottom Points 0 10 20 40 Hard Bottom Lines CKilometers Hard Bottom Polygons NAD83 NC Sui(e Plane May 20t) FIGURE 6.4. Location of hard bottom, possible hard bottom, shipwrecks, and artificial reefs in state and federal waters off North Carolina- northern coast (from NCDEQ 2017, Map 7.1.a). Red arrow points to the old groins south of Buxton Village indicated as "Hard Bottom - point." JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 135 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Areas shown in Fig. 6.5 include EFH-HAPC as follows: The Point (largest green unidentified rectangle) for Coastal Migratory Pelagics, Coral, Coral Reef, Live/Hard Bottom, Tilefish, Snapper/Grouper, and Dolphin/Wahoo is located approximately 25 miles offshore from Buxton/Cape Point/Cape Hatteras and the proposed project area; the sand colored narrow polygon south and north of The Point for tilefish; coastal inlets (blue circles) for Shrimp and Snapper/Grouper, and; the grey, blue, or green colored polygons along the shores of Pamlico Sound for Primary and Secondary and Permanent Secondary Nursery Areas for Shrimp and/or Snapper/Grouper. Note: the marsh on the sound side of Hatteras Island in vicinity the proposed project area contains no EFH-HAPC designated Nursery Areas. SAFIVIC Essential Fish Habitat • 13 Ba®o® North Carolina or t �q% ` � e� � y, Patreiico s Sound � t �P n cal pe Cd kout ShoFls � zom FIGURE 6.5. A screen shot of SAFMC designated EFH-HAPC near proposed project (SAFMC EFH Viewer webpage accessed 15 October 2020) https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. See text for description of habitats in the various polygons of this figure. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 136 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 6.4.5 Potential EFH or HAPC and Fish Species with Potential Effects This section expands upon the currently designated EFH or EFH-HAPC with the potential to occur within the projectvicinity (within 2 miles of project area footprint) or project area (actual project footprint) shown in Table 6.9. Fish utilization is described in more detail for only those EFH or EFH-HAPC found within the project area. For a full description of other EFH occurring within the vicinity, see Appendix F - Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. Potential EFH and HAPC in the vicinity not evaluated further (see Appendix E for more details). • Estuarine Emergent Wetlands - Although this habitat occurs close by on the west side of Hatteras Island, there is no direct connection with the Proposed Action Area. The closest inlets are -12 and 35 miles away. • Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) and Seagrass - The nearest SAV is located in the vicinity in Pamlico Sound, but not in the project area because of its separation by Hatteras Island. Figure 6.6 shows the distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation west of the Proposed Action Area. • Oyster Reef and Shell Banks - This habitat may occur in the vicinity in Pamlico Sound west of Hatteras Island, but is not present in the project area because of the land barrier separating the habitat from the Proposed Action Area. Estuarine Intertidal Flats - This habitat occurs west of Hatteras Island in Pamlico Sound in the vicinity of the project, but not within the Proposed Action Area. • Estuarine Water Column - This important habitat which supports numerous managed species is in the vicinity of the proposed project, but separated by the land mass, Hatteras Island. The closest inlet is -12 miles away and therefore it is not evaluated further. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 137 Buxton, Dare County (NC) FIGURE 6.6. Submerged aquatic vegetation within the project vicinity. See Appendix F - EFH for details on this habitat in the vicinity of the Proposed Action Area, but physically separated from the project. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 138 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Potential EFH and HAPC that may be Impacted by the Project Sargassum and Sargassum Pelagic Habitat - Sargassum fifipendula is a benthic brown macroalgae found along the Atlantic coast of the Americas in shallow subtidal zones attached to rocks or shells, but is also found in deeper waters of 80 to 100 ft. In North Carolina, this alga occurs predominantly south of Cape Hatteras often growing on jetties near stabilized inlets. As it has larger floats than other species of Sargassum and weaker holdfasts, rough weather will often dislocate the holdfasts and it is often carried out to the open ocean where it joins other species of seaweed and Sargassum in the Sargasso Sea. Positively buoyant, the larger floats of S. filipendula keep it on top of the large floating mats of seaweed common to the Sargasso Sea. Of the 150 species worldwide, two other free-floating species of Sargassum are found in the Atlantic, S nutans and S fluitans with S. nutans the most common. Sargassum can occur in large floating mats in the waters of the continental shelf, in the Sargasso Sea, and in the Gulf Stream and can appear as concentrations of small patches (Fig 6.7), large mats, or often miles - long weed lines, or windrows, along current convergence boundaries in the open or coastal ocean (Deaton et al 2010, NCDEQ 2016). It circulates primarily between 20' and 40' N latitudes and 30' W longitude and the western edge of the Florida Current/Gulf Stream. Masses of Sargassum provide a mobile structural home for over 100 species of fish (mostly larval and juveniles; left photo Fig 6.7), fungi, and micro- and macro -epiphytes, at least 145 species of invertebrates, four species of sea turtles, and numerous marine birds. Roughly 2M square miles in area, the Sargasso Sea is bordered by a ring of four currents; on the north by the North Atlantic Current, on the east by the Canary Current, on the south by the North Atlantic Equatorial Current, and on the west by the Gulf Stream. These currents rotate a large eddy in a clockwise circulation (the North Atlantic Central Gyre) and also trap floating debris and trash/plastics such that the area is known as the North Atlantic Garbage Patch. The Sargasso Sea receives little wind or rain. The rotation keeps the masses of Sargassum and other seaweed in the Sargasso Sea from dispersing into other parts of the ocean; although some smaller rafts or windrows do separate from the larger masses under certain wind and current conditions and drift in the open ocean (middle photo, Figure 6.7) or can be driven all the way to shore (right photo, Figure 6.7). Under certain wind conditions, relatively small masses of Sargassum may wash ashore from the Gulf Stream or outer continental shelf waters and it can also be found occasionally in nearshore waters. Since 2011, beaches of the Caribbean have experienced massive influxes of two species of Sargassum along with the western equatorial coast of Africa. The source of this new and unpleasant (for tourism) and fatal (smothered sea turtle nests, fish kills) Caribbean phenomena at first was thought to be the Sargasso Sea or the Gulf of Mexico but satellite images revealed it to originate from the coast of Brazil transported by equatorial currents. This recent spate of Sargassum blooms is suspected to be driven by increased nutrients from the Amazon River (and potentially the Congo River) in addition to potential changes in water temperature due to climate change, iron rich African dust plumes, or changes in the complex dynamics of the North Equatorial Recirculation Region (NERR) (Oxenford et al 2015; Louime et al 2017; University of South Florida 2019; Langin 2018; McBride 2019). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 139 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Pelagic Sargassum species could drift through the Proposed Action Area offshore, ordepend ing on wind and currents, could drift into the nearshore or surf zone. Because it occurs in the upper few feet of the water column, it is not subject to direct effects from dredging, although sediment placement activities associated with the proposed project could introduce temporary turbidity in the shallow water column during sand placement. However, this turbidity is short-lived and will likely duplicate storm conditions; thus, no impacts are expected to this EFH or its associated managed fish species from turbidity. Juvenile fish or other organisms associated with Sargassum may serve as food for managed fish when any mats have floated into the nearshore or surf zone; species already in the nearshore/surf zone water column may also use the mat as refugia. If floating mats are encountered during dredging or are washed ashore during sand placement and are buried, these mats would represent a very small portion of the total EFH or EFH-HAPC available. Since Sargassum occurs in the upper few feet of the water column and is not commonly found in the project area, the project is not expected to have any impact on this EFH or HAPC or the life stages of managed species which utilize them; any impacts that may occur are expected to be minor and within acceptable limits. Water Column - the water column is the medium which connects all aquatic habitats, provides a basic ecological role for all organisms within it, and performs an essential corridor function for species which depend on more than one habitat for various life stages (Deaton et al 2010; NCDEQ 2016). Either or both the estuarine and marine water column are EFH for all managed species as shown in Table 6.6. Life stages of many of the species are found in the nearby estuarine waters of the North Carolina back -barrier sounds (Roanoke, Pamlico, and Croatan sounds) and/or nearest inlets (Oregon Inlet is -30 miles to the north and Hatteras Inlet is -12 miles to the southwest). Some other managed species can be found in the nearshore marine waters of the proposed borrow area or in the surf zone in the vicinity of proposed sand placement. A project conducted from March 2015 to October 2019 by NOAA's National Center for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) developed a calendar of environmental windows which shows the monthly distribution of sensitive early life stages for important fishery species in the Carolinas and which aquatic regime/type these stages are found (Figure 6.8). The purpose of the project was to provide a guide for coastal resource managers to reduce and minimize development -related impacts to fisheries. Of direct relevance to the proposed action, marine water column is the specific habitat that could be potentially affected (addressed in the following section). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 140 Buxton, Dare County (NC) g _90°W 40°N ! 800W e '°•ram Cam-- <— p�p _ ' I 30°N { a cfi17C 1I Mar 20°N o � May Y - `Jul Sep Nov �• Feb i■■■■i Mar 2008 10°N May 20 8 FIGURE 6.7. Floating mat of Sargassum with associated small fish (courtesy of NOAA Ocean Explorer Gallery), weedline/windrow of Sargassum (SAFMC website) and drifts on Caribbean island of Tobago in 2015 (Credit: rjsinenomine (CC BY 2.0)] and monthly Sargassum distribution derived from MERIS satellite imagery from 2002-2008 (as shown in Oxenford, Franks, and Johnson 2015). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 141 Buxton, Dare County (NC) ��MEM OE National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Critical Early Life Stages for Important Fishery Species in the Carolinas Brown Shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus)' Gag Grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis)' White Shrimp Pink Shrimp Blue Crab (Litopenaeus setiferus)' (Forfantepenaeus duorarum)l (Callinectes sapidus)2 4"w Summer Flounder Southern Flounder Red Drum (Paralichthys dentatus)' (Paralichthys 1ethostigma)2 (Sciaenops ocellatus)4 <` y fe Y Atlantic Sturgeon Shortnose Sturgeon American Shad River Herring (Acipenser oxyrinchus)' (Acipenser brevirostrum)' (Alosa sapidissima)' (Alosa oestivolisI Alosa pseudoharengus)' Table. Summary of the most sensitive life stages (eggs, larvae, and early juveniles) for each fisheries species assessed, and their distribution throughout the year. Boxes represent abundant eggs and/or larvae present in a given area. Light blue = River habitat; Gray = Inlet habitat; Dark blue = Estuarine habitat; Black = Ocean River Inlet Estuary Brown Shrimp Atlantic Blue Crab Gag Grouper Summer Flounder Southern Flounder Atlantic Sturgeon Brown Shrimp Gag Grouper Summer Flounder Southern Flounder NOAA'. SC Den. of Natural Resources IDNRY. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission' and MD DNR.' FIGURE 6.8. Distribution of sensitive life stages of important fishery species in the Carolinas across the months of the year by aquatic type/location. (https://coastatscience.noaa.gov/project/fisheries-assessment-to-inform-time-of-year- restrictions-for-nc-and-sc/) JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 142 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Marine Water Column -this broad EFH also includes ocean high salinity surf zones EFH for red drum and coastal migratory pelagics, barrier island ocean -side waters from surf to shelf break zone and from Gulf Stream shoreward EFH for coastal migratory pelagics, and spawning area above adult habitat and additional pelagic environment EFH for snapper, grouper, and shrimp under various FMPs. Additionally, the marine water column is utilized by various life stages of ASMFC species including Atlantic menhaden, shad, spotted seatrout, spiny dogfish, and Atlantic coastal sharks among others. The coastal and nearshore Atlantic Ocean waters of North Carolina occupy a unique location in that the colder southerly Labrador Current (a portion of the North Atlantic gyre) intersects with the warmer northerly Gulf Stream in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras, which also is a biogeographic boundary and is the closest point of land to the Gulf Stream along the mid -Atlantic coast (see Appendix F for further discussion). This collision of currents generally reduces the marine water column temperatures north of Cape Hatteras and increases temperatures south of Cape Hatteras. The collision generates offshore frontal mixing zones which, combined with the varied winds and shifting bottom topography characteristic of Cape Hatteras shoals, causes nutrient -rich upwelling. See Figure 6.9 for a general depiction of marine water column masses around the Proposed Action Area. Appendix F (Essential Fish Habitat Assessment) discusses the species that utilize the marine water column around Cape Hatteras. FIGURE 6.9. Depiction of Cape Hatteras marine water column dynamics. (https://www.coasta[studiesinstitute.org/research/coastal-engineering research- proiect-processes-d rivi ng-excha n ge-ca pe-hatteras). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 143 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Dredging and sand placement activities conducted during project construction will occur in the marine water column in the immediate vicinity of the borrow area and the target beach which have the potential to impact nearshore and intertidal surf zone resources of larval, juvenile, and/or adult life stages. These impacts may include minor and short-term sediment plumes (and related turbidity) as well as the release of trace constituents from the sediment into the water column. Marine sediments can be sinks/reservoirs for various pollutants most typically sourced to atmospheric or riverine deposition. Trace constituents found in the sediments which may be released into the water column during dredging or sand placement activities in connection with beach nourishment projects are usually associated with source sediment having proximity to either an active or old port, wastewater treatment facilities, effluents from industries, or undocumented spill of pollutants. Additionally, important nutrients can accumulate in various soft bottom sediments and be reintroduced into the water column when disturbed. Although it could possibly contain constituents from an unknown spill, the proposed Borrow Area is a naturally formed, sandy high energy shoal located at considerable distance from a port, inlet, or known effluent source so it is unlikely to release harmful contaminants or nutrients during dredging or placement activities. The borrow area is regularly exposed to waves greater than 10 ft and generally exhibits only trace amounts of fine-grained clays to which contaminants can adsorb. Other effects from turbidity in the water column would include changes in light penetration and visibility which may be either beneficial or problematic (whether predator or prey) and can interfere with nutrient availability for filter -feeders. Because the proposed borrow area consists of >99 percent sandy or shelly material, settling of sediments placed into suspension during dredging operations is expected to be rapid and measured in minutes, returning the borrow area to ambient conditions soon after cessation of operations. The fishes of the ocean high salinity surf zone are adapted to frequent and naturally turbid habitat conditions; higher turbidities which occur during sand placement operations of the proposed project will be of shorter duration than many common weather events and be concentrated close to a single discharge point at any given time during construction. Turbidity in the water column from beach placement of sand may create localized stressful habitat conditions and may result in the temporary displacement of fish and other biota. Given the high-energy offshore environment and the coarse sediment composition, the turbidity plume created is expected to be short-lived. Coarse sediments have much higher settling velocities than finer material (Table 6.10). Fine- grained sediments (such as silts and clays) produce greater and longer lasting turbidity plumes, which can impact large areas of the sea floor more than coarser, sand -sized material (USACE 2002a). Suspended sediments settle at predicted rates dependent on grain size as shown in Table 6.10 below. The time necessary for sediments in the turbidity plume to settle whether in suspension from dredge activity, in the slurry itself, or resuspended during manipulation is also affected by current and wave climate in the borrow area during dredge activity and in the intertidal zone during placement and manipulation. While turbidity plumes associated with dredging are often short-lived and may affect relatively small areas, subsequent resuspension and redispersal of dredged sediments can propagate beyond the dredged area for extended periods in certain wave climates (CSA International et al 2010). However, these effects are minimal in sandier offshore areas such as the high energy shoal of the proposed borrow area. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 144 Buxton, Dare County (NC) TABLE 6.10. Sediment settling velocities. [ds- sieve diameter. dv- volume sphere diameter. [df- sedimentation diameter. *Wentworth Classification.]. ds (mm) dv (mm) df (mm) @ 10°C (m/sec) @ 20°C (m/sec) *Sand Classification 0.089 0.10 0.1 0.005 0.007 of 0.126 1 0.14 0.14 0.010 0.013 of-f 0.147 0.17 0.16 0.013 0.016 f 0.208 0.22 0.22 0.023 0.028 f 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.028 0.033 f-m 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.033 0.039 m 0.42 0.46 0.40 0.05 0.058 m 0.59 0.64 0.55 0.077 0.084 c 0.76 0.80 0.70 0.100 0.110 c 1.25 1.40 1.00 0.15 0.160 vc 1.8 1.90 1.20 0.17 0.170 vc The impacts associated with the proposed project from turbidity are likely to be similar, on a smaller scale, to the effects of storms. Storm effects also generally include increased turbidity and suspended sediment load in the water column and, in some cases, changes in fish community structure (Hackney et al 1996). Severe storms have been associated with fish kills, but such situations are not associated with beach disposal of dredged sand. Turbidity will be most noticeable in proximity to the slurry discharged from the pipe head which operates ahead of the beach building activities. The section of beach affected per day will vary from 800 to 1,000 ft in length with 300 ft per day as the estimated completion rate. Elevated turbidity levels were detected within up to -500 ft down -current of the discharge point along Nags Head during the 2011 project (CSE 2012). The discharge plume was generally not detectable at greater distances. Van Dolah et at (1994) assessed turbidity conditions associated with a beach nourishment project at Folly Beach (SC), where native mean grain size is -0.2 mm, and drew the following conclusion: Although dredge effluent does increase turbidity levels in the immediate vicinity of the outfall, there are many other factors such as local weather and wave energy that will also produce this effect. The turbidity levels at Folly Beach during nourishment and the dispersal of the sediment plume were not considered unusual or severe relative to normal fluctuations and background levels. As mentioned in USACE (2014) in their Environmental Report on the Use of Federal Offshore Sand Resources for Beach and Coastal Restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware and Virginia (MMS 1999), the U.S. Department of Interior BOEM (previously MMS) provided the following assessment: JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 145 Buxton, Dare County (NC) In order to assess if turbidity causes an impact to the ecosystem, it is essential that the predicted turbidity levels be evaluated in light of conditions such as during storms. Storms on the Mid -Atlantic shelf may generate suspended matter concentrations ofseveral hundred mg/L (e.g., Styles and Glenn 1999). Concentrations in plumes decrease rapidly during dispersion. Neff (1981, 1985) reported that solids concentrations of 1000 ppm two minutes afterdischarge decreased to 10 ppm within one hour. Poopetch (1982) showed that the initial concentration in the hopper overflow of 3,500 mg/L decreased rapidly to 500 mg/L within 50 m. For this reason, the impact of the settling particles from the turbidity plume is expected to be minimal beyond the immediate zone of dredging. BuHas et al. (USACE 2001) found that certain fish species (e,g., kingfish) were attracted to higher turbidity waters, whereas other species (e.g., bluefish) avoided high turbidity water around the discharge pipe during a major nourishment project along the central New Jersey coast. This study indicates that fish may seek as well as avoid locally turbid water associated with beach nourishment and that the presence of elevated turbidity can repel, or even attract, certain species dependent upon their particular adaptive behavior. In addition to USACE 2001, other studies have also found insignificant impact or even a temporary increase in surf zone fish populations associated with nourishment projects as possibly attributed to: 1) release of nutrients and infauna during dredging, 2) wide -foraging nature of surf zone fish, or 3) short term stay of migratory fish in the project area (Deaton et al 2010; NCDEQ 2016). So while highly migratory managed species such as bigeye, bluefin, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna all have been documented as juvenile and adults in Hatteras Inlet and presumed to be in the waters near Buxton, it is unlikely these species will be affected by the associated turbidity of the proposed project. Fish larvae in the ocean waters near Oregon Inlet generally travel westward until they encounter the shoreline then migrate along the shoreline until they encounter the inlet (USACE 2002b). As stated in the EFH assessment prepared forthe Rodanthe project (USACE 2014) larval ingress and egress studies suggest that larval transport from offshore shelves to estuarine nursery habitats occurs in three stages: offshore spawning grounds to nearshore, nearshore to the locality of an inlet or estuary mouth, and from the mouth into the estuary (Boehlert and Mundy 1988). Results from the Hettler and Hare 1998 study suggest two bottlenecks for offshore -spawning fishes with estuarine juveniles: the transport of larvae into the nearshore zone and the transport of larvae into the estuary from the nearshore zone. While the methods fish larvae use to cover large distances over the open ocean and find the inlets to their estuarine nurseries is uncertain, both passive and active methods of movement are suspected alongwith use of environmental cues such as salinity, depth, temperature, swells, etc. Various studies have hypothesized passive wind and depth -varying current dispersal and active horizontal swimming transport. However, data are limited regarding larval distribution in the nearshore area. As indicated in USACE (2014), population level JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 146 Buxton, Dare County (NC) calculations of larval entrainment from hydraulic dredging activities were insignificant within a representative high concentration inlet bottleneck at Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina. Therefore, the risk of larval entrainment from dredging activities in the proposed borrow area associated with this project would likely be even less. However, some larvae in the marine water column adjacent to the beach could be buried or injured during sand placement activities but not in numbers that would have a long-term effect at the species level. Diamond Shoals lies between the Buxton project area and Hatteras Inlet (the nearest inlet). Currents and waves associated with these shoals act as a barrier to longshore transport which naturally converges toward Diamond Shoals (Deaton et al 2010; NCDEQ 2016) and therefore likely divert seaward a component of larvae drifting in the littoral current in the Buxton vicinity. For the reasons described above, marine water column EFH including the surf zone EFH will experience temporary turbidity from both the dredge operation and the sand placement activity along with the potential for some fish or benthos larval death and/or injury from turbidity; however, mobile juvenile and adult fish species have the ability to locate away from the most disruptive activities. Noise levels may result in avoidance behaviors in some mobile fish species but levels are not expected to cause hearing damage. Temporary interruptions to feeding activities of fish that predate on the benthic invertebrates may occur but these interruptions would be minor since large expanses of similar habitat are nearby. These effects are not expected to be long lasting or cause significant impact to the marine water column or ocean high -salinity surf zone EFH or the life stages of managed species found within these habitats. Hard Bottom - while more than 90 percent of the hard bottom EFH of North Carolina occurs south of Cape Lookout, numerous occurrences of hard bottom or potential hard bottom exist north of Cape Hatteras. However, north of Cape Lookout the nearshore hard bottom EFH including shipwrecks often have low relief which makes them ephemeral (a storm may bury or uncover the habitat). The EFH can include both natural (rock outcrops) and unnatural components (shipwrecks). Pleistocene algal communities account for the natural hard bottom features (slight ridges, ledges and small terraces) found on the continental margin hard bottoms of both North and South Carolina; hard bottom can also be other natural outcroppings of limestone or unnatural man-made debris/structure. All hard bottom vertical structure attracts and supports a diverse assemblage of invertebrate colonizers (eg - sponges, seaweed) which in turn attract and support a diverse assemblage of vertebrate organisms. All nearshore hardbottom is designated EFH for snapper, grouper, gag grouper, mackerel, and spadefish. The NCDMF website states that hard bottom provides nursery habitat for grouper, spadefish, and black sea bass while king mackerel, gag grouper, and grouper forage above or on hard bottom itself (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/habitat/hard-bottom). The NCDMF website also states this EFH provides spawning area for black sea bass, grouper, and damselfish and refuge for gag grouper and black sea bass. The submerged remnants of the three groins which are south of Buxton and south of the tapered end of the sand placement footprint provide similar functions for surf zone fish as that provided by hard bottom EFH of deeper water (e.g., diversity of surfaces for colonization, complexity of refugia, alternative food/prey sources). As mentioned elsewhere turbidity of the surf zone is often high due to natural conditions, but as pumping nears the tapered southern end of the project, turbidity may temporarily JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 147 Buxton, Dare County (NC) increase downcoast into waters near the groins. Visually oriented capture of prey may be temporarily disrupted for some fish, but turbidity also provides increased cover for others. Any turbidity that does occur is likely to be of shorter duration than that associated with some weather events but nonetheless could affect some of the filter -feeder colonizers which provide refuge or are prey to managed fish of the surf zone. Considering that there is no known hard bottom habitat near the proposed borrow area, and the only hard structures in the beach fill area are remains of three groins at the downcoast end of the project in the active surf zone, adverse effects are not expected to be long-lasting or cause significant impact to hard bottom EFH or the life stages of managed species which may be in the vicinity. Unconsolidated/shallow Subtidal Bottom - this EFH consists of soft estuarine or marine sediments inhabited by a diverse assemblage of invertebrates that serve as prey to demersal fishes. Some managed species that require this essential habitat include, bluefish, red drum, snapper grouper, spiny lobster, summer flounder, smooth dogfish, and numerous shark species. Typically, very mobile in response to wave and current conditions, these sediments lack stable surfaces for extensive vegetation or animal attachment. Changes in type or amount of sediment supply, energy of wave and currents, and changes in water quality chemistry drive the biodiversity within this EFH. In the project vicinity, this EFH is found beneath both estuarine and marine waters, but for the same reasons given for other estuarine EFHs above, only the marine sediments of this EFH will be evaluated further. The offshore component of this EFH is typically more taxa rich than the surf zone and nearshore components because of differences in sediment transport forces and the dynamics of breaking waves in the surf zone. Subtidal soft bottom may contain up to 600 benthic species, and the intertidal zone of the lower beach is diverse with meiofauna, but the beach benthic community is primarily composed of 20 to 50 species of macrofauna (Deaton et al. 2010 and NCDEQ 2016). Marine EFH of this type is found both within the projectvicinity (within 2 miles of project area) and within the project area itself (offshore borrow area and Buxton beach intertidal beach/surf zone). Dredging of sediments in the borrow area will disturb and dislodge benthic organisms and either cause mortality from burial or entrainment, or disrupt their normal behaviors during the disturbance window. Benthic dependent fish in the area, and/ortheir predators, along with various life stages of other managed species may also experience entrainment mortality (eggs and larvae are particularly likely to suffer lethal effects due to dredge processes) or avoidance behavior effects due to noise or turbidity, or physiological effects such as clogged gills and visual impairment. In ASMFC's Habitat Management Series #14, beach nourishment and dredging were rated as medium threats for benthos-dependent species such as red drum (due to changes in prey community, preferred substrate changes and burial of individuals) while climate change and coastal development were rated as high threats (Odell et al 2017). Beach disposal of the dredged sediments can affect fishery resources through burial of intertidal and surf zone resources that managed fish may utilize. However, some demersal fish species are sometimes attracted to this type of disturbance (northern kingfish) and feed on the numerous fauna that may be suspended in the water column from the dredging or disposal activity. Other more sensitive demersal species can opt to move away to adjacent feeding areas (bluefish) (USACE 2001). While Deaton et al (2010, JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 148 Buxton, Dare County (NC) page 364) acknowledge "the relative quick recovery on intertidal and shallow subtidal benthic communities" associated with soft stabilization projects on oceanfront shorelines such as bulldozing, without adequate best management practices known to enhance biological recovery, recovery rates in mined areas are usually longer. Periodic storms affect benthic communities along the Atlantic coast to a depth of about 115 ft (35 m); therefore, the soft bottom marine benthic community tends to be dominated by opportunistic taxa that are adapted to recover relatively quickly from disturbance (Posey and Alphin 2001; Posey and Alphin 2002 in Deaton et al 2010; and NCDEQ 2016). Managed species are attracted to this EFH largely due to its use by their preferred food, a process driven by the dynamics of a typical food web which is built from the bottom to the top and largely dependent on the benthic community in the unconsolidated sediments. Spatial and temporal variation in the benthic community prey species can therefore affect growth, survival, population levels of predators and all higher trophic level species (Normandeau Associates 2014). The annual and seasonal variability in the benthic community of this EFH is well documented and when subject to storms (hurricanes or nor'easters common to the Outer Banks) project effects can be difficult to distinguish from natural processes (Deaton et al 2010, NCDEQ 2016). However, known factors which maximize benthic biological recovery rates in the offshore portion of this EFH include use of hopper dredges, shallow excavation, use of topographic highs, and rate of sand movement. In US Gulf and Atlantic sandy borrow areas studied within BOEM jurisdiction, general faunal recovery (total abundance and biomass) has been shown to vary from 3 months to 2.5 years; however, paucity of long term studies suggest that diversity and dominants composition may take 3.5 years (Michel et al 2013). Those factors which maximize recovery in the beach intertidal zone include the following: • grain size (similarity between native beach and borrow source is considered the most important factor; this compatibility is the main component of the sediment criteria requirements in North Carolina in place since 2007), • season of nourishment (winter placement avoids peak recruitment periods), • frequency of nourishment (allow for growth to maturity across years), • location of sediment placement (maintain stable geomorphology across the normal beach seasonal profile to ensure sand remains in the system as long as possible), and • rate of longshore transport (upstream recruitment opportunity). No infilling fines in the borrow area and accurate placement of properly sized sediment at Nags Head Beach in 2011 allowed a full suite of species similar to the native beach and offshore zone to recolonize the impact areas within one season and by the second year taxa richness and abundances were similar to controls (CZR-CSE 2014). In high energy beach and shoal borrow area environments frequently disturbed by natural events, infauna are well adapted to natural perturbations by being small bodied, short lived, with a maximum rate of fecundity, efficient dispersal mechanisms, dense settlement, and rapid growth rates. Burial or temporary JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 149 Buxton, Dare County (NC) exposure from dredging could also be beneficial or problematic depending on species and niche (a more mobile fauna may be able to digvertically to the new surface and avoid burial and less mobile prey species temporarily exposed may provide more available food source for predator species). Dredging in the borrow area and sand placement on the beach may temporarily disrupt food webs, change predator -prey relationships, reduce community stability, and change age structure of populations by selective mortality. However, it is recognized that tube dwellers and permanent burrow dwellers are most susceptible to these types of disturbances compared to more mobile organisms. A study of 50 dredge and disposal projects concluded that benthic recovery measured in months was associated with shallow, naturally disturbed habitats, unconsolidated fine grain sediments, and univariate analytical approaches while longer recovery (years) was associated with deep stable habitats, sand and gravel sediments, and multivariate or functional group analytical techniques (Wilber and Clarke 2007). This same study also noted that absence of both deposit feeders and of mid -depth burrowers may indicate an area is in a state of recovery. Polychaete worms and crustaceans recover most quickly (several months) while deep burrowing mollusks are slower and may take several years (Rutecki et al 2014 and Brooks et al 2006, respectively). Studies have also shown that avoidance of the peak larval recruitment period (early spring in the eastern US) can have a beneficial effect on the recovery rate (Wilber et al 2009). The Buxton beach maintenance is proposed to occur in the summer. Finally, the scale of the Action Area will be a small fraction of the available unconsolidated marine shallow subtidal bottom and natural recruitment of benthic species is expected to be rapid from surrounding undisturbed areas. While some disturbance, mortality, and burial will occur with dredging and sand placement activities, these effects are not expected to be long-lasting or cause significant impact to this EFH or the life stages of managed species which are found within this habitat. Cape Hatteras Shoals - these shoals are part of the sandy shoals of capes and offshore bars EFH for Coastal Migratory pelagics, Highly Migratory Species, and summer flounder, a habitat of concern for red drum, and HAPC for sandbar shark. Such shoals include the marine soft bottom community identified and discussed in the CHPP (Deaton et al 2010 and NCDEQ 2016). Diamond Shoals at Cape Hatteras are a major sink in the coastal sediment transport system and are formed by convergent waves and longshore currents associated with cuspate forelands (Moslow and Heron 1994). The shoals are fed by sand moving south along the north segment of Hatteras Island under predominant northeast winds and waves, and sand moving east along the southern arm of Hatteras Island under prevailing southwest winds and waves; as such the individual features (ridges and troughs) shift in response. Diamond Shoals encompass over 15,000 acres of shoal habitat (an area approximately 7 by 2.5 nautical miles extending southeast from Cape Point beginning-12,000 ft south of the project area. A continuous supply of sand from adjacent beaches feeds Diamond Shoals and maintains them as an underwater extension of the coastline (Armstrong et al 2013). Diamond Shoals contains roughly 100 times the volume of sediment in the proposed borrow area within the upper - 8 ft of substrate. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 150 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Cape Hatteras also marks a convergence zone where the southerly flow of the Labrador Current meets the northerly flow of the Florida Current/Gulf Stream and where the Florida Current separates from the continental shelf and the flow becomes the singular Gulf Stream, and where the current begins its passage over the deep ocean. This dynamic zone of mixed oceanic waters marks a distinct transition between warmer Gulf Stream waters and cooler Labrador waters with associated upwelling of nutrient laden waters and changes in dominant species. Cape Hatteras shoals represent the northern and the southern terminus of the range of numerous species and results in a diverse biological assemblage. These two currents deliver both warmer species from the south and cooler species from the north to the shoals in the area and adjacent habitats. The Cape Hatteras shoals support seasonal congregations of baitfish and shrimp preyed upon by numerous managed species (eg - red drum and Spanish mackerel) and serve as staging areas for other coastal migratory species. The named shoals further north of Cape Hatteras (eg - Wimble) serve as spawning habitat for summer flounder aggregations (MAFMC 1998, Deaton et al 2010, NCDEQ 2016). Nearshore ocean waters and subtidal bottom habitat also serve as important pupping areas for several species of small coastal sharks (eg - Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, blacknose shark); larger coastal sharks pup in these areas to a lesser extent. Acoustical arrays deployed south of Cape Hatteras (2008-2011 and 2012-2014) demonstrated how the shoals act to constrict both shelf habitat and the migratory corridors of several highly migratory and/or managed species whose acoustic tags were tracked (eg - spiny dogfish, Atlantic sturgeon, and sandbar shark) into this narrow convergence zone (Rulifson et al 2020). Some tagged Atlantic sturgeon remained in the area all year and other Atlantic sturgeon and some shark species remained in the area only during the winter (November to April was shown as most critical period for these wintering species) (Rulifson et al 2014). While not considered to be within the nearby Diamond Shoals found south of the project area, the smaller shoal targeted within the proposed borrow area likely formed under similar dynamics and performs similar functions. The water depth in the shallowest portion of the propose borrow area ranges from about 30 to 35 ft (9 to 11 meters) at the top of the ridge to about 40 to 45 ft (12 to 14 meters) in the flatter topography on either side of the gentle slopes of the ridge. As described in the EFH assessment for the 2014 nearby Rodanthe beach nourishment project, modeling performed for that project showed that for shoals in water depths like the Buxton borrow area, waves more likely influence their formation rather than currents (USACE 2013). However, the borrow area depths are at the shallower end of the 10 to 30 m range of the model range. Another model suggests that post -dredge infill of borrow areas is largely dependent on whether or not the ridge is active, whether or not there is sand available for refilling, and the actual dredging location within the ridge (CSA International et al 2010). This model suggests that the best location for dredging on a shoal or ridge, at least from a physical standpoint, is the leading, down -drift edge as the borrow scour area can then be fed by ongoing physical (wave) processes which if active, are presumed to quickly refill the borrowed area. The ridge crest would be the second best, followed by the trailing edge. If the ridge is not active, only larger scale processes, e.g., major storms will rebuild the ridge. The Dibajnia and Nairn JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 151 Buxton, Dare County (NC) (2011) model referred to in the Rodanthe EFH assessment also tested various dredging methodologies and subsequent reformation scenarios in order to suggest ways to dredge offshore that would protect and maintain the morphologic integrity of ridge and shoal features; thereby also affording protection of or reestablishment of benthos and fish habitat. In the present case, only a small part of the isolated shoal will be dredged, leaving shoal topography in the vicinity of the Action Area. Only coarse grain sediment (>_90 percent sand) will be placed on the ocean beach strand in Buxton and any turbidity with this placement is not expected to extend to the Cape Hatteras sandy shoals. However, turbidity associated with the removal of sediment from the offshore borrow area (in an unnamed shoal adjacent to the larger shoal) will have short term impacts on the water column in the immediate vicinity and potentially allow some settlement of fines to the bottom. However, the associated turbidity effects from dredging in the borrow area and from sand placement on the Buxton beach will not adversely impact the Cape Hatteras Sandy Shoals with altered longshore currents or altered tidal climate. For additional information on this EFH, see Appendix F. Use of the topographic high within the proposed borrow area, the overall shallow excavation depth of the hopper dredge, and the borrow site's location in an area of high sand movement are important factors that will maximize biological recovery rates (Deaton et al 2010; NCDEQ 2016). Further, the area of the proposed borrow excavations represents less than 1 percent of the extant similar habitat available nearby in Diamond Shoals and Wimble Shoals. Therefore, the project is not expected to pose a threat to Cape Hatteras Shoals EFH or the life stages of managed species which are found within this habitat; any impacts that may occur are within reasonable limits. 6.5 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E) Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites Special Aquatic Sites N/A No Effect Negligible Effect Minor Effect (Short -Term) Minor Effect (Long -Term) Sanctuaries and Refuges X Wetlands X Mud flats X Vegetated Shallows X Coral reefs X Riffle Pool Complexes X No discussion is needed. All not applicable (N/A) based on USACE definition of special aquatic sites. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 152 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 6.6 Potential Impacts on Human -Use Characteristics (Subpart F) Potential Impacts on Human -Use Characteristics Human Use Characteristics N/A No Effect Negligible Effect Minor Effect (Short -Term) Minor Effect (Long -Term) Major Effect Municipal and Private Water Supplies X Recreational and Commercial Fisheries X X Water -Related Recreation X Aesthetics X Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Seashores, Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves X Recreational and Commercial Fisheries are rated a negligible or short-term minor effect because the "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" will disturb a portion of the ocean bottom at the borrow areas and displace in situ organisms on which certain recreational and commercial fisheries feed during nourishment operations. Impacts to the benthic communities are expected to be neutral and short-term based on detailed monitoring results after another nourishment project at Nags Head in Dare County (CSE-CZR 2014). Some impacts will be positive in connection with sediment excavation and releases of organisms into the water column where they will be more readily available to fish (cf - USACE 2001). Impacts near active dredging and fill placement will be negative, but short-lived, for fish that tend to avoid turbid water. The population of benthic organisms will be impacted, but not likely permanently impacted with the recovery of populations over time periods related to the growth cycles of individual organisms. Water -Related Recreation is rated a major positive effect because the "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" will widen the recreational beach and provide more area to accommodate visitors on whom the applicant depends for the economic well-being of the community. The "No -Action Alternotive" would have a negative effect on water -related recreation because beach area would decline overtime as erosion continues. Aesthetics is rated a major positive effect because the "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" adds sand to the beach system, provides a protective buffer between the ocean and the foredunes, and reduces the need for emergency shore protective devices such as sand bags. The project design seeks to construct a profile closely resembling the natural beach using sediments that have similar texture. The project will be left to adjust naturally to tides, waves, and winds so that overtime the renourished beach takes on characteristics of a natural beach/dune system. The "No -Action Alternative" would degrade aesthetics because continued erosion would encroach on the foredune and developed property, leading to the installation of emergency protection such as sand bags. Buildings along portions of the project area would become exposed on the active beach, thus detracting from the aesthetic quality of the oceanfront. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 153 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Seashores, Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves are rated a major positive effect because the renourishment project at Buxton will add sand directly to approximately 2 miles of National Seashore undeveloped beach, and benefit the beach to the south along Cape Point. This was demonstrated after the initial nourishment project at Buxton. Sand will move from the proposed project area to the undeveloped National Seashore beach under both alternatives. However, the "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" adds a significantly larger new sand supply to Outer Banks beaches than would be possible with winter construction. This sand would be available to augment the existing sand supply, thereby lessening the effect of cannibalization of the existing beach during erosion events. 6.7 Pre -Testing Evaluation (Subpart G) The following information has been considered in evaluating the biological availability of possible contami- nants in dredged or fill material. There is no known contamination in the proposed borrow area sediments, which consist of -99 percent sand or granular sized material [mostly quartz and calcium carbonates (shell)]. Because the borrow site is open ocean bottom substrate away from any freshwater river discharges, the likelihood of contaminated sediments is negligible. Possible Contaminants in Dredged/Fill Material Physical characteristics NONE Hydrography in relation to known or anticipated sources of contaminants NONE Results from previous testing of the material or similar material in the vicinity of the project NONE Known, significant sources of persistent pesticides from land runoff or percolation NONE Spill records for petroleum products or designated (Section 331 of CWA) hazardous substances NONE Other public records or significant introduction of contaminants from industries, municipalities, or other sources NONE Known existence of substantial material deposits of substances that could be released in harmful quantities to the aquatic environment by man -induced discharge activities NONE 6.8 Evaluation and Testing (Subpart G) Not applicable. 6.9 Actions to Minimize Adverse Impacts Actions to Ensure Adverse Effects are Minimized Yes No Actions concerning the location of the discharge X Actions concerning the material to be discharged X Actions controlling the material after discharge X Actions affecting the method of dispersion X Actions affecting plant and animal populations X Actions affecting human use X JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 154 Buxton, Dare County (NC) The "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" incorporates controls on the areas where sediments will bed redged and on the configuration of material as discharged along the active beach. The location of the discharge will be along the wet -sand beach, working parallel to shore with training dikes (if necessary) to retain material close to the shoreline and minimize turbidity. If poor quality material (eg - high concentrations of fine-grained material) are encountered, the dredge will be moved to other parts of the permitted borrow area until suitable sediments are found. The applicant and dredging contractor have a mutual self-interest in placing beach -quality material rather than fine-grained silts and clays that tend to wash offshore and not expand the beach or count as pay volume. After discharge, the nourished beach will be graded to slopes and elevations closely matching the native beach. It will be measured to ensure the fill densities at each section closely match the design volumes prescribed for the area. The discharge point will include spreaders at the end of the pipe to disperse sediment across the profile and not leave depressions or points where significant fine material can accumulate. The fill will be placed seaward of all existing vegetation on the foredune or beach system. Fill will progress gradually along shore, providing time for some species to move seaward away from the nourishment. As soon as a section is completed each day, it will attract pioneering species which will eventually fill any vacant biological niches. These species (eg - polychaete worms and amphipods) will then attract higher order species to the nourished beach until similar assemblages of species inhabit the area. The project will disrupt human use of the beach in the immediate vicinity of the discharge point(s). As the project progresses, newly nourished area will be open to the public within 24-48 hours after the section is complete. Thus, the time of impact to any given area of the project site will be limited to several days. Similar to other nourishment projects, the applicant expects short-term, temporary, small-scale impacts to human use in each section of the project. 6.10 Factual Determinations (Subpart B) Factual Determinations of Potential Impacts Site N/A No Effect Negligible Effect Minor Effect (Short- Term) Minor Effect (Long -Term) Major Effect Physical substrate X Water Circulation, Fluctuation, and Salinity X Suspended particulates/turbidity X Contaminants X Aquatic Ecosystem and Organisms X Proposed Disposal Site X Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem X Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem X JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 155 Buxton, Dare County (NC) The "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" will seek, by design, to leave similar substrates at the borrow site by excavating relatively shallow cuts that leave similar types and textures of sandy material on the bed. Undisturbed nearby sediments of similar quality are expected to slough or to be transported into dredged depressions, leaving similar quality material on the bottom for recolonization by a similar suite of organisms. The proposed borrow areas contain sediments that closely match the existing subaerial beach. The impacts to physical substrate are therefore expected to be minor and short-term. Nourishment sediments will mix with existing beach sediments over time, producing indistinguishable differences. Suspended particulates and turbidity are expected to produce minor, short-term impacts, but return to ambient conditions upon cessation of pumping. As discussed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, the borrow sediments are relatively coarse -grained and will have settling velocities measured in seconds to minutes. Impacts to benthic organisms are expected to be minor and short-term as discussed in Section 6.4. Benthic populations are expected to fluctuate seasonally at similar rates as unnourished areas based on results of biological monitoring following another nourishment project at Nags Head in Dare County (CZR- CSE 2014). 6.11 Findings of Compliance/Non-Compliance Compliance with Restrictions on Discharge Site Yes No • Is there a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would be less damaging to the environment (any alternative with less aquatic resource effects, or an alternative with more aquatic resource effects that avoids other significant adverse environmental consequences?) N • Will the discharge cause or contribute to violations of any applicable water quality standards? N • Will the discharge violate any toxic effluent standards (under Section 307 of the Act)? N • Will the discharge jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat? N • Will the discharge violate standards set by the Department of Commerce to protect marine sanctuaries? N • Will the discharge cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the U.S.? N • Have all appropriate and practicable steps (Subpart H, 40 CFR230.70) been taken to minimize the potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem? Y The proposed Buxton renourishment project will be constructed in the most efficient and practical way possible under present technology. There are no other practical alternatives for a project of the proposed scale (-1.2 million cubic yards) to be accomplished in several months. The construction method offers proven technology that has been widely applied throughout the world. The method is principally hydraulic and does not require chemicals, harmful additives, or special techniques to facilitate construc- tion. Post -project maintenance relies heavily on natural wave processes to shape the fill to the slopes and morphology typical of a natural beach. The proposed project construction would draw sediment from pre- tested borrow sites and would cause some turbidity and some disturbance of bottom substrate, which is unavoidable and will be performed in a way that minimizes long-term adverse impacts. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 156 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 7.0 GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW (33 CFR 320.4 and RGL 84-09) 7.1 Public Interest Factors Numerous public interest factors were considered in connection with the proposed renourishment project. Table 7.1 provides a synopsis of fourteen (14) factors. Additional factors are discussed in more detail after Table 7.1. TABLE 7.1 Summary of Public Interest Factors and Likely Effects of Proposed Project Effects ao a, V w E E y a a0 V 4! O L 4/ aL. 41 41 W 4/ Q O z c z z m z 1. Conservation: Neutral and Beneficial Effects (LT) X X Conservation of native species will benefit from the proposed project as the widened beach and rebuilt dunes will improve or add habitat. Buxton beach and its environs is a permanent and temporary home to a variety of terrestrial and aquatic life, including threatened, endangered, and other protected species. These species depend on the special habitats resulting from the transition between the northern and southern habitat zones and the dynamic nature of the barrier islands. The project includes two miles of undeveloped Cape Hatteras National Seashore beach, designated a Globally Important Bird Area (GIBA), which serves as major resting and feeding grounds for migratory birds throughout the year. Shorebirds are most abundant from late spring through the summer months. Mitigation procedures would be implemented for the piping plover (T), rufa red knot (T), roseate tern (E), and loggerhead sea turtles as described elsewhere in this EA. 2. Economics: Beneficial Effects X The maintenance and restoration of Buxton beach is essential to the economy of Dare County and protection of NC 12, the only access road servicing communities on Hatteras Island. A breach of the road at Buxton effectively shuts down much of the Hatteras Island economy until repairs can be made. Tourism is the largest industry in Dare County, which contributes to a significant portion of County assets and revenues. The NCDOC estimated that tourism in Dare County produced an annual economic impact of $1.02 billion in 2014. The economy generates economic activity through home rentals, hotel visitation, food and beverage services, recreational fishing and water -sports charters, commercial fishing, fishing tournaments, and associated support services. Dare County collects a 5 percent Occupancy Tax on gross receipts derived from accommodations rentals, along with tax collected on restaurant food/beverages. In addition, real-estate taxes generate considerable revenue forthe County, which is used toward emergency services, fire, and police protection. 3. Aesthetics: Beneficial Effects X The aesthetics (how well a beach looks) are not only essential to attracting tourists and homebuyers, but to indicating how well a beach and its environs can support wildlife. The 2018 Buxton nourishment project added beach along —3 miles of vulnerable dunes protecting Highway NC 12. This reduced the threat of a breach and closure of the highway and helped prevent damages to oceanfront properties in Buxton. The wider dry sand beach enhanced critical habitat for sea turtles, piping plover, red knots, and other threatened species. Retention of some nourishment sand along the Seashore beach reduced the seasonal escarpments in the foredune and left more nesting areas removed from the normal high tide line. Nourishment restores and helps maintain a soft edge of dunes and vegetation between structures and the ocean —a view that is typically associated with a healthy natural beach system. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 157 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 4. General Environmental Concerns: Beneficial Effects X It is widely recognized that the beaches of Dare County are a valuable ecological resource. Of nearly 89 miles of barrier island shoreline located in Dare County, only half is developed. The remainder, made up of south Bodie Island and the majority of Hatteras Island to Hatteras Inlet, will remain undeveloped in perpetuity as part of Cape Hatteras National Seashore. This makes Buxton, Avon, and other Hatteras Island beach communities even more important in providing public beach access. Highway NC 12 is the critical link for Hatteras Island communities as well as National Seashore facilities. The damage associated with severe storms results in road closures, loss of oceanfront dunes, damage to maritime forests, and loss of habitat and wildlife use. Whether addressing normal or severe impacts, measures to maintain a healthy beach environment are essential to maintenance of access, a positive experience for the beach visitor, and for resource conservation. 5. Fish and Wildlife Values: Neutral (Mitigated) and Beneficial Effects X X Buxton beach and its environs is a permanent and temporary home to a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic life, including threatened, endangered, and other protected species. Therefore, fish and wildlife values are very high and are a main reason the area is frequently visited. Appendix E—Biological Assessment evaluated 29 species that had the potential to occur in or nearthe project area and were listed bythe USFWS or NMFS to receive protection under the 1973 ESA (as amended). These 29 species included two plants, twelve birds, five fish, six reptiles, and four mammals. In addition, animal species designated by the NCDEQ Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the NCDEQ Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) as threatened, endangered, or species of concern receive legal protection by the ESA (Article 25, Chapter 113, NC General Statutes 1987). Plant species determined by the Plant Conservation Program (NC Department of Agriculture) and the NC Natural Heritage Program as threatened, endangered, or special concern are protected by the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Regarding fish species, the applicant has notified NOAA's Southeast Regional Office (SERO) of the proposed project. It will continue to coordinate with the several agencies assigned to protect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) to receive the required concurrence on the effects of analysis of EFH and the conservation/mitigation recommendations included in Appendix F—Essential Fish HobitotAssessment. 6. Flood Hazards: Beneficial Effects X A healthy beach profile with rebuilt dunes accomplished by the proposed project will reduce risks from storm runup over the dunes underneath beach home properties. Hurricane flooding often occurs with a sand -impoverished beach and low dunes. A 2011 nourishment project in Nags Head was tested during and immediately after its construction by hurricanes Irene and Sandy. A flat, wide beach remained after the storm with the majority of nourishment sand retained in the littoral zone. When beaches are augmented by new sand from an external source and maintained through a regular nourishment program, storm impacts of under -house and street flooding are significantly reduced or avoided. 7. Floodplain Values: Beneficial Effects X All federal agencies are required by Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) to evaluate the likely impacts of their actions in floodplains. The objectives of the EO 11988 are to avoid as much as possible, the short- and long-term adverse impacts associated with occupancy, modification, or destruction of floodplains and to avoid indirect support of development and new construction in such areas where there is a practicable alternative. The barrier -island floodplains help to reduce the impact of hurricanes and other storms on the shorelines that they shelter. These floodplains provide storm -water holding capacity, reducing runoff that could otherwise flood developed areas. Storm events such as hurricanes and nor'easters (winter storms along the mid -Atlantic coast) and associated wave action and high precipitation are the main sources of flooding. North Carolina's barrier islands have historically been and continue to be affected by coastal forces and flooding events. The barrier islands of the Outer Banks are predominantly flat and narrow and lie adjacent to the shallow and wide Pamlico Sound. The proposed project area itself lies completely within the 100- year floodplain (https://fris.nc.gov/fris/index.aspx?FIPS=055&ST=NC&user=Genera[Public, accessed May 2015). Generally, lands along the ocean beaches and adjacent to the sound (at wide points) are in flood zone VE, which is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to 100-year coastal floodplains that have JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 158 Buxton, Dare County (NC) additional hazards associated with storm waves, high water tables, and periodic flooding. Zone VE is also referred to as the Coastal High Hazard Area. Only zone VE is found within the proposed project area. None of the alternatives presented by the applicant would elevate the project area above the floodplain or reduce the capacity and function of the affected floodplain. The proposed project can only occur within the floodplain, but it would not reduce the amount of floodplain. It would likely widen the recreational beach and potentially increase the capacity and function of the shoreface floodplain. The proposed project would not pose a risk to humans, a risk to investment, or impact floodplain processes and values. The proposed project in fact would create the opposite effect: reduce risk to humans and investment, and decrease the effects of floodplain processes on property adjoining the shoreline. Therefore, the project is deemed exempt from the need to prepare a floodplain statement of findings, and the impact of floodplains is dismissed from further analysis. 8. Land Use: Beneficial Effects X By improving the beach, the proposed project would add value to land use in the immediate and general area. No conflicts are identified between the proposed project and land use plans, policies, or controls for the project area. The design of the built environment would remain constant within the project area with the oceanfront bordered by the present beach community. Existing coastal zone management (CZM) rules prohibit any new development on restored beaches. In accordance with North Carolina CZM rules (deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/coastal-management/coastal-management-rules, accessed May 2021), a mean high water survey would be performed along the proposed project area to record its location prior to placement of any sand. Rodanthe, Avon, Buxton, and other villages on Hatteras Island support a thriving tourism business and road system, providing outstanding access to National Seashore beaches and remote areas of the Outer Banks. Millions of visitors travel to Outer Banks beaches each year, and a majority use NC 12 to access the National Seashore and Hatteras Island communities. Tourism in coastal counties like Dare County maintains infrastructure, housing, and beaches to support the demand for access to the shore. 9. Navigation: Negligible Effects X The proposed project would be constructed on the beach and would not be conducted near or in a port, waterway, or other access point for ships and boats. If any actions are approved and permitted which involve dredging in navigable waters of the United States, the applicant or contractor will be required to contact the US Coast Guard so that a Notice to Mariners is published prior to mobilization of equipment or any operations. The Notice would identify the equipment and potential obstructions that may be in the project area and the dates of the action. Due to the visibility of the cutterhead and hopper dredges offshore, vessels would be able to avoid entering the worksite over the borrow area. The buffer zones established to protect cultural resources would also alert passing yachts, sailboats, sportfishing, and recreational boats. 10. Shoreline Erosion and Accretion: Beneficial Effects X The purpose of the proposed project is to replace sand lost to natural causes on the beach and to restore damage done by hurricanes Florence and Dorian. Therefore, the project would be designed to offset shoreline erosion, especially the -1-2 miles of severe erosion at the south end. It would also be designed to rebuild dunes and restore a healthy beachface profile. The volume of sand needed to restore the design profile would be calculated by the applicant's project engineers to ensure the correct amount of sand is placed on the entire length of the 3-mile shoreline. Accretion would be artificially created by the pumping of up to -1.2 million cubic yards of sand onshore, which will be moved and shaped by land -based equipment. 11. Recreation: Beneficial Effects X A restored beach at Buxton will improve the recreational outlets it provides. The additional volume of sand on the beach will make activities such as beachcombing, sunbathing, day camping, and swimming a more enjoyable experience with added area to accommodate more visitors. A goal of the design, as stated by the applicant, is to restore a beach profile that retains the natural characteristics of northern Outer Banks beaches and continues to attract surfers and other wave riders. The 2017-2018 Buxton project equilibrated rapidly and left a "surfable" profile. The salient created by groins at the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse site continue to produce a favorable break for surfers. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 159 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 12. Water Quality: Negligible Effects X The proposed project would cause negligible effects on water quality. Coastal waters offshore of Buxton are classified as "SB" waters by the State of North Carolina (NCDEM 1989), meaning they can be used safely for swimming, primary and secondary recreation, fish and wildlife propagation, and all other uses requiring lower quality waters (NCDEM 1991) (USACE 2010). To maintain the SB designation, waters affected by the proposed project must be analyzed to ensure the water stays within the SB-designated range. Water quality at Buxton beach is affected by the frequent, high -wave energy off the beach, which tends to inhibit the accumulation of silts and clays. The inshore zone has free circulation of oceanic waters with little direct input of fine-grained material from nearby inlets or estuaries. While dredging operations will mobilize sediments in the borrow area, low percentages of silts and clays are expected to limit the scale of dredge -generated sediment plumes in the water column. Sand- and granular -sized material settles almost instantaneously relative to the settling rates of silts and clays. Diver observations and borings by the applicant over the proposed borrow areas showed low concentrations of suspended sediment or in -situ silts and clays. Low concentrations of fine-grained material tend to minimize the potential for pollutants to adsorb on particles and become concentrated within the proposed project area. Therefore, water quality will return rapidly to its pre -project status and is expected to retain its SB classification throughout project operations. 13. Consideration of Property Ownership: Beneficial Effects X The value of oceanfront and ocean view property will increase and be maintained as a result of the proposed project. Property owners will benefit financially, aesthetically, and recreationally from renourishment. Nearly 33 percent of Dare County's tax levy funds Dare County schools. Beach community properties such as Buxton's effectively subsidize the Dare County school system via property taxes on high -value real estate. Any reduction of the effective subsidy derived from Buxton property and economic activity would result in increased property taxes overthe remainder of the County. Loss of the first rows of oceanfront properties would result in an incremental county -wide tax increase to make up for the reduced tax base. 14. Needs and Welfare of the People: Beneficial Effects X Benefits to the people have been described above in economic, land use, and recreational terms. Another factor is the strengthening of the social fabric when friends and families vacation together. Generations of families living inland have been drawn to Buxton and the northern Outer Banks for rest and relaxation. They faithfully keep their annual tradition of hosting family gatherings (in owned or rented properties) at the beach. This social tradition extends well beyond the County and draws visitors from many states and foreign countries. As a popular destination, Buxton and Cape Hatteras' many assets build community and civic welfare in a wholesome vacation setting. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 160 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 7.2. Other Public Interest Factors 7.2.1 Geologic and Mineral Resources The National Park System encompasses lands with significant geologic features, landforms, and landscapes characteristic of the United States. The principal landform associated with Cape Hatteras National Seashore is the barrier island and its associated beaches, capes, inlets, sounds, and related habitats. The Proposed Action Area does not represent any unique barrier island features that are only found within the -3-mile-long Buxton segment of the Outer Banks. Further, the Buxton segment has been modified by sand scraping, dune re -construction after storms, installed vegetation and emergency shore protection devices, such as sand bags, to protect developed property. Any proposed action by the Applicant should seek to maintain or improve upon this altered landscape for the general benefit of park users and indigenous wildlife. No mineral resources, gas or oil reserves, or unique geologic features would be impacted by the project. Therefore, the impact topic of geologic resources is dismissed from further analysis. The impact of the project on the form and profile of the barrier island, beach, and borrow area is addressed under Appendix D-Littoral Processes. 7.2.2 Soils and Upland Topography The proposed project would involve the placement of beach quality sand in the active beach zone. It would not involve any direct sand placement on existing vegetation. The sand placement would seek to match the natural elevation and slope of the dry sand beach, while widening this zone without significant change in topography. The proposed project would involve some dune re -building with the aim of improving dunes damaged by hurricanes Florence (2018) and Dorian (2019). Itwould increase sand volume and widen the beach with the purpose of returning to its post-2017-2018 project conditions. Because the proposed project would not alter the basic topography of the project area or modify soils where vegetation exists, the issue of soils and upland topography are dismissed from further analysis. 7.2.3 Wetlands Executive Order (EO) 11990 - Protection of Wetlands, directs all federal agencies to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. In the absence of such alternatives, parks must modify actions to preserve and enhance wetland values and minimize degradation. Consistent with EO 11990 and NPS Director's Order#77-1: Wetland Protection, the National Park Service adopted a goal of no net loss of wetlands. Director's Order #77-1 states that for new actions where impacts to wetlands cannot be avoided, proposals must include plans for compensatory mitigation that restores wetlands on NPS lands, at a minimum acreage ratio of 1:1. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 161 Buxton, Dare County (NC) For the purpose of implementing EO 11990 on NPS-managed lands, any area that is classified as a wetland according to the USFWS Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Report FWS/OBS-79/31- Cowardin et al 1979) is subject to NPS Director's Order #77-1 and its implementation procedures. Under the Cowardin definition, a wetland must have one or more of the following three attributes: • At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes (wetland vegetation) • The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil • The substrate is non -soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at sometime during the growing season of each year The Cowardin wetland definition encompasses more aquatic habitattypes than the definition and delinea- tion manual used by the USACE for identification of wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Federal regulations define wetlands as: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water (hydrology) at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation (hydrophytes) typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (hydric soils). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (40 CFR 232.2 (r). Wetlands can be identified by the presence of those plants (hydrophytes) that are adapted to life in the soils that form under flooded or saturated conditions (hydric soils). The proposed Buxton project area is a high-energy, active beach zone where mobile sandy sediments preclude the establishment of vegetation. The 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual and its regional supplements require that all three of the parameters listed above (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, wetland hydrology) be present in order for an area to be considered a wetland. Under the Cowardin wetland definition, the intertidal beach is classified as a marine wetland. Marine wetlands are found along the entire length of ocean shoreline between extreme high tide and extreme low tide and are subject to high wind and wave energy. The intertidal beach zone (Cowardin marine wetland) continually adjusts to wave energy and sand supply, maintaining a profile under conditions of erosion or accretion. Prior to the 2017-2018 beach nourishment project, the intertidal zone in the proposed project area was degraded by the presence of sand bags and homes with foundations in the active surf zone. Any activity that increases the sand supply within the project area is likely to maintain or incrementally increase the area of marine wetlands, provided the introduced sediments are similar in size and texture as the native beach. As with the 2017-2018 beach nourishment, in preparation for the proposed renourishment project, sand coring was conducted in the offshore borrow areas to determine the best sediment match for the beach of the project area. For the proposed project, the following best -management practices would be observed: • Nourished shoreline would have similar slopes as the existing shoreline. • Use of heavy equipment to shape the pumped sand would leave no trace of disturbance when restoration efforts are complete JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 162 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Because no statement of findings for wetlands needs to be prepared, the impact on wetlands is dismissed from further analysis. 7.2.4 Energy Resources There are no known fossil energy resources in the proposed project area. Waves and winds are considered an energy resource with potential to augment local power supplies along the coast. The proposed project would not alter wave or wind power and would only impact a small area of ocean bottom for a few months during construction. Impacts on energy resources under the proposed project were considered, but were dismissed from further analysis in this EA. 7.2.5 Visual Resources The proposed project would create temporary, short-term impacts to the vistas characteristic of an undeveloped barrier island. Heavy equipment and a dredge pipeline would be placed on the beach and would be visible to beachgoers in the vicinity of the active construction area. These impacts are unavoidable and are associated with all earthmoving projects. However, upon project completion after a few months of local impacts, all equipment would be removed and the project area would be left to evolve naturally. The vistas after project completion are expected to remain the same as pre -project conditions or to improve with removal of emergency sand bags along areas where they have been placed due to severe erosion. Extra sand added to the beach system is expected to eventually build up along the back - shore and toe of the foredunes. As the sand placed on the beach would closely match the native sand in terms of color, texture, and grain size distribution, no long-term adverse impacts on vistas or user experi- ence would occur. Visual resources of the project area were considered, but were dismissed from further analysis in this EA. 7.2.6 Climate Change Climate change refers to any significant changes in average climatic conditions (such as mean tempera- ture, precipitation, or wind) or variability (such as seasonality, storm frequency, etc) lasting for an extended period such as decades or longer. Recent reports by the US Climate Change Science Program, the National Academy of Sciences, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provide evidence that climate change is occurring and may accelerate in the coming decades. Strong evidence exists to show that global climate change is being driven by human activities worldwide, primarilythe burning of fossil fuels and tropical deforestation. These activities release carbon dioxide and other heat -trapping gases, commonly called greenhouse gases, into the atmosphere (Climate Change 2007, www.IPCC.ch.2017). Impacts of climate change on the project are likely to be of a subtle, gradual nature. A rise in sea level would modify the beach profile and may cause wave attack to occur at higher elevations and/or be trans- lated farther inland. Changes in climate such as general warming, changes in water availability, and storm frequency, intensity, or duration could cause changes in the rate of sand loss on the beach over decades. While most people visiting or passing through would be unaware of the changes, changes in shoreline JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 163 Buxton, Dare County (NC) position may occur as a result of sea -level rise (SLR). Because SLR operates at long time scales and the proposed project is designed to last up to a decade, the impact of SLR over one decade is expected to be small in relation to the scale and scope of the proposed project. Beaches are generally considered to respond rapidlyto changes in sea level with profiles displaced upward and landward in relation to the rate of SLR (Bruun 1962, NRC 1995). This process occurs episodically during storm events whereby a new (higher) berm is formed in relation to the particular combination of high waves, storm surge and tides superimposed on the eustatic change in sea level. The amount of shoreline recession associated with a particular SLR is a function of the average foreshore or beachface slope (NRC 1995, Dean 2002). Best -available data and projections of future SLR indicate strong probability for a rise of 3-6 centimeters (cm) over the next ten years (IPCC 2017—www.ipcc.ch). Arise of this magnitude would equate to shoreline recession of-0.5-1.0 mZ (1.5-3.0 ft) along the beach foreshore. Such a recession would be dwarfed by the anticipated average widening (-60 ft) of the beach associated with the proposed project. Two aspects of climate change must be considered in an environmental impact analysis and are recom- mended for consideration in an EA: • Human impact on climate change (ie - through our actions, the potential to increase or decrease emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change) • The impact of climate change on humans (ie - how are the resources that we manage likely to change in response to changing climate conditions, and how does that change otherwise affect our management actions and the impacts of those actions on the resource?) The proposed project would not result in the construction of any permanent carbon -emitting infra- structure. It would also not result in any enhancement of vehicular use or create any new recreational attraction that would increase vehicular carbon emissions. During the construction process, the proposed project could result in a temporary increase in emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of construction equipment. However, because temporary construction impacts would cease on completion, the proposed project would have no effect on climate change. The applicant considered the impact of the proposed project on climate change, but dismissed it as an impact topic for further analysis. 7.2.7 Soundscapes The National Park Service strives to maintain or reduce existing noise impacts within its parks to preserve, to the greatest extent practicable, the natural park sounds. The Proposed Action Area is adjacent to NC 12 and is, therefore, subject to regular noise emissions from vehicles. During construction activities, a temporary, localized increase in noise generation would occur due to the use of heavy equipment; however, the soundscape of the project overall would not be noticeably altered. Therefore, the impact topic of soundscapes was considered, but dismissed from further analysis in this Environmental Assessment. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 164 Buxton, Dare County (NC) The Village of Buxton is a bustling beach community, but still maintains a family atmosphere in which reasonable noise levels are the norm and encouraged by local law enforcement. The proposed project area is adjacent to a beach community, commercial activity, and local traffic and is, therefore, subject to regular noise emissions from vehicles. During construction activities, a temporary, localized increase in noise generation would occur due to the use of heavy equipment; however, the soundscape of the project overall would not be noticeably altered. Once the project is completed over the course of several months, the soundscape would return to its normal levels. Therefore, the impact topic of soundscapes was considered, but was dismissed from further analysis in this EA. 7.2.8 Noise On shore, noise levels in the proposed project area are relatively low. No commercial or industrial activities that create increased ambient noise levels exist in the project area. Generally, noise levels near the Buxton beach are those associated with public use. For example, additional noise may be generated from vehicle and foot traffic to and from the piers or local pier fishing or beach surfing contests. The residential nature of ocean shoreline areas generally equates to low ambient noise levels (USACE 2010). Offshore noise associated with dredging operations may trigger avoidance reactions in coastal wildlife and particularly marine mammals reliant on sound for navigation and communication. Reine et al (2014) found that the frequency and peak pressure of noise generated during dredging varies, depending on the type of dredge. Because sound plays an important role in the marine environment for certain species, potential impacts of elevated sound levels are addressed for a number of species that may be present in the project area including birds, whales, and sea turtles. 7.2.9 Lightscapes In accordance with NPS Management Policies (NPS 2006), the National Park Service strives to preserve natural ambient lightscapes and other values that exist in the absence of manmade light. The Proposed Action would not change lightscapes within the Action Area upon completion, and therefore the impact topic of lightscapes is dismissed from further analysis in this EA. Construction activities would temporarily impact lightscapes in the active work area as a result of the likely need to work 24/7 during a limited period of time when offshore dredging is feasible in the Buxton project area. Construction lighting at night is subject to OSHA regulations (CFR 1926.56). Because of the potential impacts of construction lighting on threatened and endangered species, the USFWS has prescribed certain measures if these species are present in the project area. These include the prescribed use of certain types of lighting on the beach and instructions for directing lights in particular ways to minimize impacts. More detail on light minimization is provided in Appendix E-Biological Assessment. The proposed project would not change lightscapes within the project area upon completion, and therefore the impact topic of lightscapes is dismissed from further analysis in this EA. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 165 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 7.2.10 Infrastructure No Seashore infrastructure is located within the immediate boundaries of the proposed project area. Therefore, infrastructure is dismissed from further analysis. Park operations include certain monitoring and managing of threatened and endangered species, including patrols along the beach to locate and mark nests. These activities are expected to continue during and after the Proposed Action and to be a key means of minimizing impacts of the project by establishing no -work buffers and providing additional monitoring beyond that which is proposed by the Applicant. Following the completion of construction, park operations, with respect to endangered species monitoring, are expected to remain the same, albeit along a wider beach with potentially more habitat area to consider. (See Appendix B for a complete discussion of monitoring shorebird and sea turtle nests and relocating sea turtle nests.) The potential impact of the Proposed Action on park operations was considered but dismissed from further analysis. 7.3 Public and Private Need The proposed project is expected to mitigate erosion and provide continued access to a viable recreational beach for the benefit of the public at large. The proposed project will also increase storm protection which will provide benefits to public and private properties, help preserve the tax base of the community, and reduce public expenditures after storms. These benefits will extend over multiple years and are consistent with the applicant's long-term strategy to monitor and maintain the beach using defined erosion (or beach condition) thresholds. No additional public or private needs are identified and, therefore, the topic of public and private need is dismissed from further analysis in this EA. 7.4 Unresolved Conflicts as to Resource Use No unresolved conflicts related to the proposed project have occurred. 7.5 Extent/Permanence of Beneficial and/or Detrimental Effects Detrimental effects are expected to be minimal and short-term. Beneficial effects are expected to be of high value with project life up to five years. Many of these are discussed in Appendix E-Biological Assessment (see Table 11.2), and Appendix F-Essential Fish Habitat Assessment regarding the impacts on federal and state protected species. Assuming the preferred alternative is approved, the applicant acknowledges that disruptions within the environment would occur and the implementation of certain environmental protection measures would be needed during the "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction." However, upon completion of construction, the environmental effects would be beneficial due to the project's greater longevity and highervolume of sand, which would produce a wider, longer -lasting beach. "Beach Renourishment with Summer Construction" is considered the safest and most efficient alternative and, over the long-term, provides the most environmentally beneficial remedy for maintaining a stable beach following the 2017-2018 beach nourishment. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 166 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 8.0 CONSIDERATION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 8.1 Geographic Scope for Cumulative Effects Assessment The 3-mile stretch of oceanfront beach fronting the Village of Buxton (-4,000 ft) and contiguous undeveloped sections of the National Seashore to the north encompasses the project limits. The project area is bounded by the foredune crest and the edge of the nearshore shelf at -24 ft NAVD. Its northern boundary is the Haulover beach access and runs south to the existing groin field frontingthe old Cape Hatteras Lighthouse site. Buxton is located at the south end of the primary littoral cell between Cape Henry at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay and Cape Hatteras (-120 miles of oceanfront with similar exposure to waves from the northeast). It is also situated at the south (downcoast) end of the secondary littoral cell bounded by Oregon Inlet and Cape Hatteras (-45 miles). The primary and secondary littoral cells constitute the geographic limits for consideration of the cumulative impacts of the proposed project. 8.2 Identify/Describe the Direct and Indirect Effects On shore in the project area, direct effects would be the construction activity itself. A pipeline from the offshore dredge would be positioned on the beachface, where it would pump and place sand onto the beach. Land -based equipment would move and shape the sand to create a new beach profile. These areas would be marked off where beachgoers would not be able to pass. However, this would be short-lived as the pump and fill operation completes a section and moves to the next fill area. Shorebirds would easily relocate from the construction area, finding another stretch of shoreline for resting and foraging. Infauna or benthic surf zone prey, such as sand crabs and beach hoppers, who live in the wet sand would likely be disrupted and/or buried by construction, but would rapidly recover. Offshore dredge operations in the borrow areas would cause direct effects from water turbidity, but these would be short-term as sediments would settle quickly once activity stopped in the area. Many benthic organisms would be destroyed by excavation or burial, but studies have shown that benthic assemblages tend to experience recovery soon after project completion, measured in weeks to months (USACE 2001, CZR-CSE 2014). Another possible direct effect from dredge operations would be the presence of endangered species in the borrow area such as sea turtles, manatees, or whales. However, endangered species monitors/observers positioned on dredges would alert the dredge operator of any such species spotted. Should one of these species be observed, mitigation procedures would immediately go into effect, and the dredge would stop operations or relocate. Immediately after project completion, the direct effects would be a newly restored beach of up to -1.2 million cubic yards that will be placed, then shaped to form a new beach profile across the foreshore. Dunes along the Buxton oceanfront that were damaged by hurricanes Florence and Dorian would be rebuilt by land -based equipment with sand pushed up to create a larger volume of sand along the former dune alignment or as landward as practicable without impacts to existing vegetation. The beach would equilibrate over a few weeks to months, stabilizing the profile and providing improved storm protection. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 167 Buxton, Dare County (NC) The volume of sand placed on the beach would be designed to last up to five years along a majority of the project area before the profiles return to the pre -nourishment condition. During operations, indirect effects would include construction impacts on noise levels, soundscapes, and visual aesthetics, increasing noise levels in the immediate area, and blemishing scenic vistas of the beach and shoreline. All would be temporary and cease with the completion of the project. Indirect effects will be seen in improved shorefront for beach activities and improved habitat, especially for migrating shorebirds and nesting loggerhead sea turtles. Surveys would be conducted annually to monitor the performance of the beach and to measure the cumulative effects of the project. 8.2.1 Potential Effects on Species of Concern (MBTA, MMPA, State -Protected) Section 6.4, Appendix E (Biological Assessment), and Appendix F (Essential Fish HabitatAssessment) provide a detailed discussion of the potential effects of the proposed project. Following is a summary of findings with respect to the primary species of concern. Colonial Waterbirds (Caspian Tern, Gull -billed Tern, Common Tern, Least Tern, Black Skimmer) — The proposed project would have direct, site -specific, short-term, negligible to minor impacts to foraging or resting birds which may be in the area. Wilsons's Plover —The proposed projectwould have short-term adverse impacts during construction and potentially long-term beneficial effects due to the addition of dry beach habitat. American Oystercatcher — The proposed project would have short-term adverse impacts during con- struction and potentially long-term beneficial effects due to addition of dry beach habitat. Bald Eagle — The proposed project would have a negligible impact during sand placement including short-term, elevated noise levels. Long-term impacts would be imperceptible, but favorable with the addition of new beach foraging habitat. Peregrine Falcon — The proposed project would have short-term, negligible -to -minor impacts during sand placement operations limited to the immediate area of active construction. Long-term impacts would be minor, but beneficial with the addition of expanded beach foraging habitat. Marine Mammals (excluding ESA species) (dolphin species, pilot whales) — The proposed project will pro- duce direct, minor, local and short-term adverse impacts due to construction noise. However, the noise associated with operating dredges is unlikely to exceed Level A or Level B thresholds (see Section 6.4.1.6). Long-term impacts would be neutral. Diamondback Terrapin (state -protected species) — No adverse impacts are likely to occur to diamond- back terrapin because its habitat is backbarrier areas landward of the foredune. Seabeach Knotweed (state -protected species) — No adverse impacts are likely to occurto seabeach knot - weed because there is currently no known occurrence of the plant. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 168 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 8.2.2 Potential Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species (see Section 6.4.3) Piping Plover — The closest documented nest occurred on Cape Point approximately one mile south of the proposed project. However, the piping plover utilizes the project beach for roosting, and therefore, the project will produce minor, short-term, adverse impacts to the species. With an abundance of similar habitat nearby and the limited sections of shoreline under construction at any particular time, the direct and indirect impacts are considered insignificant with preferred habitats nearby. Upon completion of the project, the long-term impacts will be beneficial due to the construction of a wider beach. Roseate Tern — Due to rarity of appearance in the proposed project area, no direct or indirect impacts to this species are expected. Rufa Red Knot — The proposed project will produce minor, short-term, adverse impacts to the species, because it is likely to be present from April through June foraging in the surf zone and roosting on the beach. However, with an abundance of similar habitat nearby and limited sections of shoreline under construction at any particular time, the direct and indirect impacts are considered insignificant. Upon completion of the project, the long-term impacts will be beneficial because of a wider beach. Atlantic Sturgeon — The proposed project is likely to adversely impact the Atlantic sturgeon as a result of its possible year-round presence near the borrow areas. Direct effects could include noise, turbidity, tem- porary interruption of access to food sources, accidental collision with hopper dredge, and potential loss of foraging habitat. Indirect effects could include changes in the marine nearshore bottom habitat. The USACE will initiate formal Section 7 consultation with NMFS forthe Atlantic sturgeon. The applicant antici- pates incorporating protective measures, including ESA species observers onboard dredges, as required under the 2020 SARBO. Shortnose Sturgeon — Because the species is rarely documented within the marine habitats of the project area, the proposed project may impact, but is not likely to adversely impact the shortnose sturgeon. Seabeach Amaranth — The project may impact, but is not likely to adversely impact the seabeach ama- ranth. Additions of new dry -sand beach would potentially have a beneficial effect on the propagation of seabeach amaranth. Whales — The proposed project may impact, but is not likely to adversely impact, any protected whale species with the potential to occur in the project vicinity. The species most likely to be within the geo- graphic limits of the proposed project (northern Outer Banks littoral cell) would be the right whale. Noise and collisions with ships are the primary concern. Endangered species observers will be stationed on the dredge(s), maintain lookoutfor whales in the project area, and trigger avoidances as required underterms and special conditions of the permit. Sea Turtles — The proposed project may impact, and is likely to adversely impact nesting, female sea turtles on the beach, or other sea turtles in nearshore waters. The USACE will initiate formal Section 7 consultation with NMFS for swimming sea turtles and with USFWS for nesting, female sea turtles on the beach. The 2020 SARBO from NMFS will be utilized for any take which might occur. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 169 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 8.2.3 Potential Effects on EFH, HAPC, or Life Stages of Associated Managed Fish Increased development of barrier islands and increased erosion of low-lying, barrier -island segments with- out adequate dunes have resulted in dredging (both inlet maintenance and excavation of offshore sites) and beach placement of dredged sediments as common practices in coastal North Carolina. Out of 326 miles of ocean shoreline in North Carolina, 86 miles (-26 percent) have been nourished at least one time, and an estimated total of 163 miles (50 percent) have either received nourishment or are being considered for nourishment sometime in the future (unpublished data, NCDENR 2014). The average renourishment interval has been 4.4 years for NC projects. This means that in a given year, -6 percent of the NC coast has been subject to beach reconstruction over the past several decades. The construction duration of nourish- ment for any single project is typically -3-4 months. Considering only nearshore waters within state limits, the primary littoral cell to Cape Henry (VA) encom- passes -360 square miles (-230,400 acres). The secondary littoral cell is -135 square miles (-86,400 acres). Relative to these areas and assuming an average impact width of -800 ft alongshore, the footprint of the proposed project (filling) represents -0.43 square miles (-275 acres) or -0.1 percent of the littoral and nearshore zone within the primary cell. Borrow area totaling a maximum of -250 acres represents -0.1 percent of the primary nearshore waters under consideration. Several other beach nourishment projects have occurred or are ongoing between Cape Henry and Cape Hatteras, including: 1) Encompassing 10 miles of shoreline —Nags Head (NC), a locally -sponsored nourishment project (2011 and 2019). A limited post -storm restoration project under FEMA funding will add -0.5 million cy along an assumed -4-mile length of shoreline in 2022. 2) Encompassing -8.9 miles of shoreline —Virginia Beach (VA), an authorized federal project (2002), and Sandbridge (VA), a locally -sponsored, then federally sponsored project (1998, 2003, 2007, 2013, 2020). 3) Encompassing - 2 miles of shoreline—Rodanthe (NC), an NCDOT/USACE nourishment project (2014). 4) Encompassing 7.9 miles of shoreline —Duck, Kitty Hawk, Kill Devil Hills, and the taper of Kitty Hawk, Southern Shores (NC), a locally -sponsored nourishment project (2017) with renourishment planned for summer 2022. 5) Encompassing 2.9 miles of shoreline —Buxton (NC), a locally -sponsored nourishment project (2017-2018) and the present planned renourishment in summer 2022. 6) Encompassing -2.5 miles of shoreline —Avon (NC) a locally -sponsored nourishment planned for summer 2022. Combined with the Buxton project area, these projects represent -34.2 miles (28.5 percent) of the primary length of shoreline from Cape Henry to Cape Hatteras. The average duration between nourishment events along the Outer Banks and Virginia Beach is likely to be higher than the historical duration, which appears biased by the relatively high frequency of nourishment at the beaches of Wrightsville, Carolina, and Kure since the 1960s (USACE 2010). Northern Outer Banks (and Virginia Beach) nourishment projects were JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 170 Buxton, Dare County (NC) relatively rare before 2010. Dare County has developed a plan for assisting Outer Banks communities with nourishment on a five-year schedule, and the Buxton area appears to be on a defacto -4-5-year schedule. Assuming the average renourishment schedule is a five-year cycle, the average length of shoreline impacted in a given year is expected to be -7 miles or -6 percent of the primary littoral cell. This estimate will increase incrementally if additional Outer Banks communities, such as Avon, elect to restore eroded beaches in the future. A doubling of the average length of shoreline being nourished each year to -12 miles or 10 percent of the primary shoreline is considered realistic over the course of the next several decades due to anticipated impacts of erosion, sea -level rise, and historical development situated close to the foredune. Potential effects to marine resources (including food sources and various life stages) ortheir habitats from dredging or placement of sediments may include some or all of the following: • Reduced food availability • Direct habitat removal or burial • Increased water -column turbidity • Dissolved -oxygen reduction • Contaminant and nutrient release • Character changes in benthic sediment • Character changes in benthic composition of infauna • Suspension and dispersion of infauna • Entrainment The potential effect varies from project to project and is dependent on methods, frequency, season, loca- tion, and the marine resources present in the project area. Over the past few decades, improved dredging methods, equipment, and techniques, improved project design, sustained interagency collaboration and coordination, the establishment of sediment criteria, regional planning, and specific permit conditions have all contributed to the minimization of these potential effects. Largely due to these improvements and collaboration for their NEPA process and permitting, the USACE-Wilmington District has determined that most beach nourishment projects in North Carolina can now be properly evaluated with a detailed Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Signifi- cant Impact (EA/FONSI), instead of an environmental impact statement (Raleigh Bland, USACE-SAW Regulatory Office, pers Comm, 8 August 2017). EFH and HAPC — Table 6.5 listed the EFH categories and geographically defined HAPCs within the pro- posed project area or vicinity and, with the exception of Cape Hatteras shoals, only those categories/fea- tures in the Impact Activity columns in that table which have designations other than N (for no potential impact) are discussed below with emphasis on the SAFMC resource specifically designated within that EFH or HAPC. USACE (2013) contains descriptions of both cutterhead and hopper dredge equipment, potential sedimentation and turbidity effects from their operation, and a summary table of minimization measures extracted from the final EFH assessment for the Emergency Beach Fill Along NC Highway 12 in Rodanthe, JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 171 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Dare County, North Carolina (USACE 2013—Sections 13.1-13.2 and Table 4). For additional details on differences between dredge types and the summary of various placement methods to reduce impacts, please refer to Section 5 or USACE (2013). While the purpose of this assessment is to address project -specific impacts to EFH/HAPC, a suite of large- scale dynamics and changes in relationship patterns across trophic levels of the southeastern US Atlantic coastal environment attributed to climate change are also likely to impact EFH/HAPC in various ways and at an unknown pace. Natural long-term variability in the region and response to such larger scale drivers is not well understood, but obviously large-scale oscillations in oceanic circulation influence oceanog- raphy. Among other noted climate changes which impact EFH/HAPC (eg - increases in temperature, sea level, and acidity), the Gulf Stream also appears to be weakening along with its associated Atlantic Merid- ional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which may have implications for primary and secondary produc- tivity if this weakening results in a decline in duration, magnitude, or frequency of Gulf Stream -associated upwelling events [per S Rahmstorf et al (2015) in NOAA 2017]. Sargassum — Pelagic sargassum is positively buoyant and, depending on the prevailing surface currents, remains in waters of the continental shelf for extended periods or can be cast ashore when storm currents and wind allow such onshore/nearshore transport. Therefore, pelagic sargassum species could drift through the vicinity of the dredge operation in the proposed borrow area or, depending on wind and currents, could drift into the nearshore or surf zone. Because it occurs in the upper few feet of the water column, it is not subject to direct effects from dredging, although sediment -placement activities associated with the proposed project could introduce temporary turbidity in the shallow water column during sand placement. However, this turbidity is short-lived and will likely duplicate storm conditions; thus, no impacts are expected to this EFH or its associated managed fish species. If floating mats are encountered during dredging or are washed ashore during sand placement and are buried, these mats would represent a very small portion of this EFH or HAPC available. Since sargassum occurs in the upperfewfeet ofthe watercolumn and is notcommonlyfound in the project area, the project is not expected to have any impact on this EFH or HAPC or the life stages of managed species that utilize them. Any impacts that may occur are expected to be minor and within acceptable limits. Marine Water Column — Dredging and sand placement activities conducted during project construction will occur in the marine water column in the immediate vicinity of the borrow area and the target beach, which have the potential to impact nearshore and intertidal surf zone resources of both larval, juvenile, and/or adult life stages of both predator and prey. These impacts may include minor and short-term sediment plumes (and related turbidity) as well as the release of trace constituents from the sediment. Marine sediments can be sinks/reservoirs for various pollutants most typically sourced to atmospheric or riverine deposition. Regarding sediments that may be released into the water column during dredging or sand placement activities in connection with beach nourishment projects, trace constituents are usually associated with JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 172 Buxton, Dare County (NC) the following: source sediment having proximity to either an active or old port, wastewater treatment facilities, effluents from industries, or undocumented spill of pollutants. Additionally, nutrients can accumulate in various soft -bottom sediments and be reintroduced into the water column when disturbed. Although it could possibly contain constituents from an unknown spill, the proposed borrow area is within a naturally formed, relict underwater beach ridge located at a considerable distance from a port, inlet, or known effluent source, so it is unlikely the proposed project would release harmful contaminants or nutrients during dredging or sand -placement activities. The borrow area is regularly exposed to waves >10 ft and generally exhibits only trace amounts of fine-grained clays to which contaminants can adsorb. Othereffects from turbidity in the watercolumn would include changes in light penetration and visibility which may be either beneficial or problematic (whether predator or prey) and can interfere with nutrient availability for filter feeders. Because the proposed borrow area consists of >99 percent sandy or gravelly material, settling of sediments placed into suspension during dredging operations is expected to be rapid and measured in minutes, returning the borrow area to ambient conditions soon after cessation of operations. Turbidity in the water column from beach placement of sand may create localized, stressful habitat conditions and may result in the temporary displacement of fish and other biota. Given the high-energy offshore environment and the coarse sediment composition, the turbidity plume created is expected to be of limited aerial extent and short-lived. Coarse sediments have much higher settling velocities than finer material (Table 8.1). Fine-grained sediments (such as silts and clays) produce greater and longer - lasting turbidity plumes, which can impact large areas of the sea floor more than coarser, sand -sized material (USACE 2002a). Suspended sediments settle at predicted rates depending on grain size as shown in Table 8.1. TABLE 8.1. Sediment settling velocities. The mean diameter of sediments for the proposed project fall in the range of 0.29-0.42 millimeters (mm). [ds - sieve diameter. dv - volume sphere diameter. df - sedimentation diameter. *Wentworth Classification] ds (mm) d (mm) df (mm) @ 10°C (m/sec) @ 20°C (m/sec) *Sand Classification 0.089 0.10 0.1 0.005 0.007 of 0.126 0.14 0.14 0.010 0.013 of-f 0.147 0.17 0.16 0.013 0.016 f 0.208 0.22 0.22 0.023 0.028 f 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.028 0.033 f-m 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.033 0.039 m 0.42 0.46 0.40 0.05 0.058 m 0.59 0.64 0.55 0.077 0.084 c 0.76 0.80 0.70 0.100 0.110 c 1.25 1.40 1.00 0.15 0.160 vc 1.8 1.90 1.20 0.17 0.170 vc JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 173 Buxton, Dare County (NC) The time necessary for sediments in the turbidity plume to settle whether in suspension from dredge activity, in the slurry itself, or resuspended during manipulation is also affected by current and wave climate in the borrow area during dredge activity and in the intertidal zone during placement and manipu- lation. While turbidity plumes associated with dredging are often short-lived and may affect relatively small areas, subsequent resuspension and redispersal of dredged sediments can be propagated beyond the dredged area for extended periods in certain wave climates (CSA International et al 2010). However, these effects are minimal in sandier offshore areas like the proposed borrow area. The impacts from turbidity associated with the proposed project may be similar, on a smaller scale, to the effects of storms. Storm effects also generally include increased turbidity and suspended sediment load in the water column and, in some cases, changes in fish community structure (Hackney et al 1996). Severe storms have been associated with fish kills, but such situations are not associated with beach disposal of dredged sand. Turbidity will be most noticeable in proximity to the slurry discharged from the pipe head which operates ahead of the beach -building activities. The section of beach affected per day will vary from 800 ft to 1,000 ft in length with-200-300 ft per day as the estimated completion rate. Elevated turbidity levels were detected within up to -500 ft down -current of the discharge point along Nags Head during the 2011 project (CSE 2012). The discharge plume was generally not detectable at greater distances. The Buxton 2018 project utilized similar sediments and demonstrated similar rapid reduction in turbidity several hundred feet from the discharge point. Van Dolah et al (1994) assessed turbidity conditions associated with a beach nourishment project at Folly Beach (SC), where the native mean grain size is -0.2 mm, and drew the following conclusion: Although dredge effluent does increase turbidity levels in the immediate vicinity of the outfall, there are many other factors such as local weather and wave energy that will also produce this effect. The turbidity levels at Folly Beach during nourishment and the dispersal of the sediment plume were not considered unusual or severe relative to normal fluctuations and background levels. In their environmental report on the "Use of Federal Offshore Sand Resources for Beach and Coastal Restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware and Virginia" (MMS 1999), the US Department of Interior - Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) (previously MMS) provided the following assessment: In order to assess if turbidity causes an impact to the ecosystem, it is essential that the predicted turbidity levels be evaluated in light of conditions such as during storms. Storms on the Mid -Atlantic shelfmaygenerate suspended matterconcentrations ofseveral hundred mg/L (e.g., Styles and Glenn 1999). Concentrations in plumes decrease rapidly during dispersion. Neff (1981, 1985) reported that solids concentrations of1000 ppm two minutes after discharge decreased to 10 ppm within one hour. Poopetch (1982) showed that the initial concentration in the hopper overflow of 3,500 mg/L decreased rapidly to 500 mg/L within 50 m. For this reason, the impact of the settling particles from the turbidity plume is expected to be minimal beyond the immediate zone of dredging. Burlas et al (USACE 2001) found that certain fish species (eg - kingfish) were attracted to higher turbidity waters, whereas other species (eg - bluefish) avoided high turbidity water around the discharge pipe JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 174 Buxton, Dare County (NC) during a major nourishment project along the central New Jersey coast. This study indicates that fish may seek as well as avoid locally turbid water associated with beach nourishment and that the presence of elevated turbidity can repel, or even attract, certain species dependent upon their particular adaptive behavior. In addition to USACE-Burlas et al (2001), other studies have also found insignificant impact or even a temporary increase in surf zone fish populations associated with nourishment projects as possibly attributed to: 1) Release of nutrients and infauna during dredging. 2) Wide -foraging nature of surf zone fish. or 3) Short-term stay of migratory fish in the project area (Deaton et al 2010). So while highly migratory managed species (such as bigeye, bluefin, skipjack, and yellowfin tunas) all are presumed to be in the waters near Buxton, it is unlikely these species will be affected by the associated turbidity of the proposed project. [Note: While it is only a representational dataset, NCDMF recreational catch data from 2004 to 2019 show tuna in those intercepts only for private and charter boats, and not in any beach intercepts including piers.] Fish larvae in the ocean waters near Oregon Inlet generally travel westward until they encounter the shoreline, then migrate along the shoreline until they encounter the inlet (USACE 2002b). As stated in the EFH assessment prepared for the recent Rodanthe project by the USACE (2014), results from larval ingress and egress studies suggest that larval transport from offshore shelves to estuarine nursery habitats occurs in three stages: (1) offshore spawning grounds to nearshore, (2) nearshore to the locality of an inlet or estuary mouth, and (3) from the mouth into the estuary (Boehlert and Mundy 1988). Results from the Hettler and Hare (1998) study suggest two bottlenecks for offshore -spawning fishes with estuarine juveniles: (1) the transport of larvae into the nearshore zone and (2) the transport of larvae into the estuary from the nearshore zone. While the methods fish larvae use to cover large distances over the open ocean and find the inlets to their estuarine nurseries is uncertain, both passive and active methods of movement are suspected alongwith the use of environmental cues such as salinity, depth, temperature, swells, etc. Various studies have hypothesized passive wind and depth -varying current dispersal and active horizontal swimming transport. However, data are limited regarding larval distribution in the nearshore area. As indicated in USACE (2014), population level calculations of larval entrainment from hydraulic dredging activities were insignificant within a representative high concentration inlet bottleneck at Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina. Therefore, the risk of larval entrainment from dredging activities in the offshore borrow areas associated with the proposed project would likely be even less. However, some larvae in the marine water column adjacent to the beach could be buried or injured during sand placement activities, but not in numbers that would have a long-term effect at the species level. Very few peer -reviewed papers have discussed responses of fish larvae or eggs to man-made sounds. While many other factors may be at play in the responses of juveniles and adults to man-made noise or to any long-term consequences, one of the most important will be largely determined by the presence or absence JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 175 Buxton, Dare County (NC) of a gas bladder (Popper et al 2014). Gas bladders, along with their location within the body, make fish more susceptible to pressure -mediated injury to the ears and other tissues than those without and allow fish to detect a broader frequency range and at greater distances (Popper et al 2014). Most bony fishes have gas bladders while the more primitive cartilaginous fishes (sharks and rays) do not. Despite recent interest and increased concern, wide information gaps make it very difficult to draw conclusions about the nature and levels of man-made sounds and their potential to cause harm on fish, turtles, or invertebrates (Hawkins et al 2014). For the reasons described, marine water column EFH will experience temporary turbidity from both the dredge operation and the sand -placement activity along with the potential for some fish or benthos larval death and/or injury from turbidity; however, mobilejuvenile and adult fish species have the ability to locate away from the most disruptive activities. Noise levels may result in avoidance behaviors in some mobile fish species, but levels are not expected to cause hearing damage. Feeding activities of fish that prey on the benthic invertebrates may be temporarily interrupted, but these interruptions are considered minor. Effects of the proposed project are not expected to be long-lasting or cause significant impact to marine column EFH or the life stages of managed species that are found within this habitat. Unconsolidated/Shallow Subtidal Bottom (Marine Only) — This EFH is extensive and includes all areas of submerged or intertidal bottom seaward of the beach not considered hard bottom. This EFH provides large areas of nursery and foraging grounds for invertebrates and managed fish. Dredging of sediments in the offshore borrow area will disturb and dislodge benthic organisms and either cause mortality from burial or entrainment or disrupt their normal behaviors during the disturbance window. Beach disposal of the dredged sediments can affect fishery resources through the burial of intertidal and surf zone resources that managed fish may utilize. However, some demersal fish species are sometimes attracted to this type of disturbance and feed on the numerous fauna that may be suspended in the water column from the dredging or disposal activity. Other more sensitive demersal species can opt to move away to adjacent feeding areas. While Deaton eta[ (2010, pg 364) acknowledge "the relative quick recovery on intertidal and shallow subtidal benthic communities" associated with soft -stabilization projects on oceanfront shorelines, without adequate best management practices known to enhance biological recovery, recovery rates in mined areas are usually longer. While not specifically designated as EFH, HAPC, Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) or Strategic Habitat Areas, features called Rippled Scoured Depressions (RSDs) and Rippled Channel Depressions (RCDs) should also be considered. These are recognized as important soft -bottom habitat, and such features provide a structure diversity for fish and benthos in the nearshore environment (Deaton et at 2010). As a nourished beach equilibrates, sediment placed in the targeted nourishment zone could gradually move within these nearshore RSD/RCD features, which shift seasonally in response to wave action. However, as stated in USACE (2014), Thieler et al (1999, 2001) demonstrated it is likely that the features would be maintained through the self -reinforcing pattern in response to both alongshore and across -shore flows independent of beach JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 176 Buxton, Dare County (NC) nourishment activities. Therefore, benthic organisms normally associated with fine- and coarse -grained sediments in the nearshore component of this EFH are not likely to be significantly altered by the project. Managed species, whether piscivorous or not, are attracted to this EFH largely due to its use by their preferred food, a process driven by the dynamics of a typical food web which is built from the bottom to the top and largely dependent on the benthic community in the unconsolidated sediments. Spatial and temporal variation in the benthic community prey species can therefore affect growth, survival, popula- tion levels of predators, and all higher trophic level species (Normandeau Associates 2014). The annual and seasonal variability in the benthic community of this EFH is well documented, and when subject to storms during a monitoring period (hurricanes or northeasters common to the Outer Banks), project effects can be difficult to discern with confidence (Deaton et al 2010). However, known factors that maxi- mize benthic biological recovery rates in the offshore portion of this EFH include use of hopper dredges, shallow excavation, use of topographic highs, and rate of sand movement. In US Gulf and Atlantic sandy borrow areas studied within BOEM jurisdiction, general faunal recovery (total abundance and biomass) has been shown to vary from 3 months to 2.5 years; however, paucity of long- term studies suggest that diversity and dominants composition may take 3.5 years (Michel et al 2013). A recent longer -term (6- and 8-year) study of offshore borrow areas dredged for two South Carolina beach nourishment projects indicated that both borrow areas shifted toward finer sediments post -dredging and showed little recovery as measured by faunal density, number of species, and changes in composition at the species level (eg - opportunistic taxa recolonization) (Crowe et at 2016). However, like others, this study also surmised that dredging depth was a likely factor that contributed to the influx offinersediments which, in turn, affected the benthic community recovery. Most offshore borrow sites alongthe South Carolina coast consist of fine sand (0.15-0.3 mm diameter) and are in close proximity to tidal rivers and inlets with high concentrations of mud in suspension (Van Dolah et at 1998). Infilling of borrow areas with muddy sediments is more likely at South Carolina sites than in the proposed project area. Those factors which maximize recovery in the beach intertidal zone include grain size (similarity between native beach and borrow source is considered the most important factor), season of nourishment (winter placement avoids peak recruitment periods), frequency of nourishment (allows for growth to maturity across years), location of sediment placement (maintains stable geomorphology across the normal beach seasonal profile to ensure sand remains in the system as long as possible), and rate of longshore transport (upstream recruitment opportunity). The Nags Head 2011 project, which was monitored quantitatively for benthic populations on the beach and in the borrow area, showed no infilling fines in the borrow area and accurate placement of properly sized sediment. A full suite of species similar to the native beach and offshore zone recolonized the impact areas within one season. By the second year taxa richness and abundances were similar to controls (CZR-CSE 2014). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 177 Buxton, Dare County (NC) In subtidal environments frequently disturbed by natural events, infauna are well adapted to such pertur- bations by being small -bodied, short-lived, with a maximum rate of fecundity, efficient dispersal mechan- isms, dense settlement, and rapid growth rates. Burial or temporary exposure from dredging could also be beneficial or problematic, depending on species and niche. [A more mobile fauna may be able to dig vertically to the new surface and avoid burial, and less mobile prey species temporarily exposed may pro- vide more available food source for predator species.] However, it is recognized that tube dwellers and permanent burrow dwellers are most susceptible to these types of disturbances compared to more mobile organisms. A study of 50 dredge and disposal projects concluded that benthic recovery measured in months was associated with shallow, naturally disturbed habitats, unconsolidated fine-grain sediments, and univari- ate analytical approaches, while longer recovery (years) was associated with deep stable habitats, sand and gravel sediments, and multivariate orfunctional group analytical techniques (Wilber and Clarke 2007). This same study also noted that absence of both deposit feeders and of mid -depth burrowers may indicate an area is in a state of recovery. Polychaete worms and crustaceans recover most rapidly (several months) (Rutecki et al 2014), while deep burrowing mollusks are slower and may take several years (Brooks et al 2006). However, while polychaetes comprise the larger component of soft sediment infauna, a complete life history is known for only about 5 percent of the >8,000 described polychaete species (Ramey 2008). Additionally, studies have shown that avoidance of the peak larval recruitment period (early spring in the eastern US) can have a beneficial effect on the recovery rate (Wilber et al 2009)—the Buxton renourishment project is proposed to occur in the summer. On a spatial scale, which far exceeds the proposed borrow area, another system driver which can affect both speed and diversity of biological recovery of a post - disturbance benthic assemblage is variability in supply, transport, and settlement of larvae for some species (CSA International et al 2010). While some disturbance, mortality, and burial will occur with dredging and sand placement activi- ties, these effects are not expected to be long-lasting or cause significant impact to unconsolidated/ shallow subtidal bottom EFH (marine only) or the life stages of managed species which are found within this habitat. Nearshore Shoals Habitat — Shore -oblique ridges and shoals are common features in nearshore waters of the northern Outer Banks (Swift 1976). Some of the shoals, including Diamond and Wimble, cover thousands of acres and are recognized for their importance as spawning or nursery areas for finfish (Deaton et al 2010). The proposed borrow area is situated on or within a similar nearshore shoal and represents a minute fraction of the same type of habitat found in state waters between Cape Henry and Cape Hatteras. Underwater relief of natural shoals off the Outer Banks is of the order 30 ft or more in comparison with the proposed maximum excavation depth of 10 ft. Proposed borrow area as well as larger named complexes like Wimble Shoals or Diamond Shoals represent low -relief features characteristic of relict beach ridges (See Fig 1.2). However, the ridge and nearby flatter habitat provide complexity for some species of fish and invertebrates. Site -specific information about the JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 178 Buxton, Dare County (NC) fish and invertebrates found within the borrow area was not located, but biological resources which may be common in the area can be inferred from the offshore benthic data collected for the 2011 Nags Head project. Anyvertical relief can provide refugia for an abundance of potential prey, which then affords more suitable foraging ground and likely attracts more predators. A deeper understanding and appreciation for the diversity of demersal and pelagic fishes associated with shoal complexes has been gained with recent studies in the Mid -Atlantic Bight (predominantly north of Maryland) and support their designation as EFH (eg - pelagics such as bay anchovy, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic mackerel, butterfish, striped bass). Potential feeding, spawning, and maturation can take place in these habitats during fall and spring migrations of numerous managed and unmanaged fish species, especially those behaviorally and morphologically adapted to bottom feeding in sedimentary environ- ments (ie - skates, scups, drums, sea robins, black seabass, flounders) (CSA International et al 2010). The water depths in the shallowest portion of the borrow area that is proposed to be dredged range from about 35-40 ft (11-12 m) at the top of the ridge to about 45-50 ft (14-15 m) along the flatter topography on either side of the gentle slopes of a higher feature. As described in the EFH assessment for the 2014 nearby Rodanthe beach nourishment project, modeling performed for that project showed that for shoals in similar water depths, waves more likely influence their formation rather than currents (USACE 2013). However, depths in the proposed borrow area are at the shallower end of the 33-100 ft (10-30 m) model range. Another model suggests that post -dredge infill of borrow areas is largely dependent on whether or not the ridge is active, whether or not there is sand available for refilling, and the actual dredging location within the ridge (CSA International et a12010). This model suggests that the best location for dredging on a shoal or ridge (at least from a physical standpoint) is the leading, downdrift edge as the borrow scour area can then be fed by ongoing physical (wave) processes which, if active, are presumed to quickly refill the borrowed area. The ridge crest would be the second-best, followed by the trailing edge. If the ridge is not active, only larger -scale processes (eg- major storms will rebuild the ridge). The Dibajnia and Nairn (2011) model (referred to in the Rodanthe EFH assessment) also tested various dredging methodologies and subsequent reformation scenarios in order to suggest ways to dredge offshore that would protect and maintain the morphologic integrity of ridge and shoal features; thereby also affording protection of or reestablishment of benthos and fish habitat. The proposed borrow area is subject to periods of high waves from the south as well as high waves during northeasters. Consequent net shoal migration and the leading edges of the shoal are likely to fluctuate and be of less significance with respect to the layout of the borrow area excavations (see Appendix D - Littoral Processes). Only coarse grain sediment (>90 percent sand) will be placed on the ocean beach strand in the Buxton project area. Any turbidity with this placement is not expected to extend to nearby named shoals, such as Diamond Shoals, which are located south of the proposed project area. However, turbidity associated with the removal of sediment from the offshore borrow area will have short-term impacts on the water column in the immediate vicinity and will potentially allow some settlement of fines to the bottom. The JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 179 Buxton, Dare County (NC) associated turbidity effects from dredging in the proposed borrow area and from sand placement on the Buxton beach will not adversely impact nearby sandy shoals with altered longshore currents or altered tidal climate. Dredge operations in the proposed, offshore borrow areas will alter the geometry of the existing sand feature which can alter benthic species recruitment patterns, especially if the area refills with finer -grained sediments. However, the effects of these alterations will be minimized by the method and location of targeted cutting, such that portions of the habitat structure unique to the feature and important to resource use will be maintained. A combination of physical and environmental variables (eg - temperature, depth, current facing versus lee side) as well as differences in sampling season or gear type bias (otter trawl versus beam trawl) all contribute to differences in cross -shelf, species assemblage distributions among research studies of shoals. Studies of shoals in the Mid -Atlantic Bight show most diversity, taxa richness, and abundance documented from the flats adjacent to shoals. According to Slacum et al (2010), winter was the period of lowest finfish and invertebrate use of shoal habitat (Diaz et al 2004, Slacum et al 2010, and Normandeau Associates 2014). Vasslides and Able (2008) evaluated shoreface sand ridges as habitat for fishes of the northeast coast and noted that shoreface sand ridges may have a distinct influence on fish abundance and assemblages. Con- trary to other studies which found higher species richness and abundance in the surrounding inner shelf habitat (Diaz et al 2004 & Slacum et al 2010), Vasslides and Able noted highest species abundance and richness on either side of the sand ridge with distinct recreationally and commercially important species assemblages. The fish found at the top of the ridge were typical prey species (sand lances, anchovies, smallmouth flounder) favored by both resident and transient piscivores in the Mid -Atlantic Bight (Chao and Musick 1977, Chase 2002, Walter et al 2003, Gartland et al 2006) and, thus, sand ridges may influence the distribution of these economically important piscivores (Vasslides and Able 2008). Use of the topographic high of the proposed borrow area, overall shallow excavation depth, and the loca- tion of the borrow site in an area of high sand movement are important factors that will maximize biological recovery rates (Deaton et al 2010, CZR-CSE 2014). Further, the area of the proposed borrow excavations represents <<1 percent of the extant similar habitat available offshore within the Buxton/northern Outer Banks littoral cell. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to pose a threat to nearshore shoals EFH or the life stages of managed species which are found within this habitat. Any impacts that may occur are within reasonable limits. 8.3 Temporal Scope of Assessment Through surveys conducted in summer to fall each year, sand volume has been monitored on a regular basis since the completion of the 2017-2018 beach nourishment project. Following the proposed renourishment project, annual monitoring will continue and will be published. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 180 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 8.4 Describe the Affected Environment Within the primary littoral cell extendingfrom Cape Henry to Cape Hatteras, net sand transport is predomi- nantly to the south (Inman and Dolan 1989), but reverses along southern Virginia beaches where it is directed north into the Chesapeake Bight (USACE 2010). The Buxton project area is an east -facing beach within the primary littoral cell. Beaches within the primary littoral cell are exposed to deep -water waves from the southeast to the north, including some of the highest waves along the US East Coast (Leffler et al 1996). During Hurricane Irene (2011) and Hurricane Sandy (2012), peak wave heights about one mile off Duck and Nags Head exceeded 27 ft (McNinch et al 2012, CSE 2013b). While hurricane waves often propagate and drive sand to the north, more frequent northeast waves produce net southerly transport in the Buxton project area (Inman and Dolan 1989). Mean monthly wave heights near the proposed project area are -3.7 ft in July and -5.6 ft in January (see Fig 5.2). The mean tide range is 2.99 ft and the spring tide range is -3.5 ft (source: NOAA). Sea level rose during the 201" century with the recent tide gauge record showing a 4.3-inch (-11 cm) rise over 30 years at Oregon Inlet (NCCRC 2015). Everts et al (1983) prepared a detailed analysis of shoreline change for the Outer Banks, which researched measurements of ocean and sound shoreline changes between the 1850s and 1980s, and reviewed earlier maps and charts. This analysis was a cooperative study conducted by the Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) and National Ocean Service (NOS) within USACE and NOAA. Everts et al found that the Outer Banks, on average, was narrowing by -0.9 m/yr (-3 ft/yr) with the majority of the recession occurring along the oceanfront [-0.8 m/yr (2.6 ft/yr) average], and the sound shoreline was stable with a net recession of 0.1 m/yr (-0.3 ft/yr) on average. The Everts et at study (1983) theorized that the principal losses of sand along the Outer Banks are associated with inlets, particularly the deposits of sand into the sound. The Buxton project area is vulnerable to natural losses of sand due to inlet effects and wind and wave energy over a period of time as well as sudden sand losses due to nor'easters and hurricanes. A regular schedule of beach surveys has been followed since 2012 leading up to the 2017-2018 nourishment project and continuing during 2018-2021. In preparation for the proposed renourishment, the applicant conducted condition surveys of the beach in August 2020. The surveys confirmed volumes of sand in the foredune, on the visible beach, and in the nearshore zone out to a depth >40 ft (see Fig 3.1). This analysis identified which beach segments were critically eroded and provided a measure of sand deficits with respect to a normal stable beach (see Appendix D-Littoral Processes). Each nourishment project constructed or planned within the study area adds sediment to the littoral system. While this sediment remains mobile, nearly all of the volume would be conserved given the nature of the sediment quality. Therefore, on a site -specific basis, nourishment at the scales implemented to date greatly exceeds the average annual erosion rate along the Outer Banks as reported by Everts et al (1983). As nourishment sites lose sand, adjacent unnourished beaches tend to benefit over time by either a reduction in erosion rates or an increase in accretion rates. To some degree, each nourishment project in JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 181 Buxton, Dare County (NC) the Outer Banks tends to offset a sand deficit and mitigate erosion somewhere for many years after its design life for the locality has passed (Dean 2002). Because such effects are widely spread and incremental, they can only be detected via rigorous comparative surveys. However, the impact can be projected based on simple relationships between volumes of nourishment and added beach area. CERC (1984) reported a typical nourishment impact of one square foot added to the beach for every cubic yard of sand. Outer Banks projects from 2010 to 2020 have added over 17 million cubic yards to the littoral zone from Duck to Cape Hatteras (-68 miles). If eventually distributed uniformly over this shore length, the volume would add -17 million square feet (-390 acres) of beachfront lands. This is equivalent to an average widening of -45 ft, or roughly 15 times the average annual shoreline recession rate for the Outer Banks measured by Everts et al (1983). A stated long-term strategy of Dare County is to replace chronic sand losses along Outer Banks beaches and advance the shoreline seaward to create a protective buffer between the ocean and development. Each planned project contributes to the goal directly for the community involved and indirectly for neighboring communities and the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. 8.5 Determine Environmental Consequences The proposed action is a renourishment project designed to mimic the natural processes of accretion, which also occur along Hatteras Island at neighboring beaches. The project will reverse the effects of sand loss and severe erosion and protectthe NC Highway 12, while adding replacement volume, then modifying the dune and beach profile to enhance Buxton beach. Additions of sand by artificial means are generally more impactful than natural additions, because of scale and rates of change to the profile (ie - more sand can be placed on the beach in a short period of time to create a wider beach and counter the effects of erosion). The added sand, if similar in texture to native sand, would be indistinguishable after the beach equilibrates. Evidence from the 2017-2018 Buxton nourishment project indicates that few if any harmful effects resulted from that project. The proposed project seeks to duplicate most of the features of the 2017-2018 project by using similar sediments and construction methodology, and by placing most of the sand in the active littoral zone. A principal difference between the 2017-2018 project and the proposed renourishment will be the incorporation of a protective dune along portions of the project and a sand -fencing plan for the entire length to reduce sand encroachment on existing development. The cumulative beneficial effects of renourishment would be of high value to the shorebird and sea turtle species attracted to a wider sand beach. It would also be of great significance to the local tourism economy and would fortify real estate values and tax revenues. 8.6 Mitigation to Avoid, Minimize or Compensate for Cumulative Effects As the proposed project will widen the beach and thus improve species habitat, cumulative effects are expected to be positive. Mitigation to avoid, minimize or compensate for cumulative effects related to project construction would not be needed. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 182 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 8.7 Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Impacts Section 8.2.3 discussed the geographical and physical impacts of the project on similar habitats between Cape Henry and Cape Hatteras along with a list of anticipated nourishment projects in the northern Outer Banks. When all planned or executed projects are considered along the 120-mile primary littoral cell, some temporal and spatial effects will occur. Itwas demonstrated thatthe frequency of nourishment at any particular locality in Dare County is unlikely to be more frequent than one event per five years. It was further shown that at this frequency, -6 percent of the study area would be impacted for part of any given year (the typical construction duration is 3-4 months). A doubling of this rate of nourishment due to more communities at risk or higher erosion rates associated with increasing sea levels and storm intensities would potentially involve 10-12 percent of the Dare County shoreline in a given year. This would leave -90 percent of the shoreline out of direct effects of nourishment in an average year. It was further demonstrated that nourishment sediment tends to be conserved in the littoral zone. There- fore, as nourishment volume is lost over time in a particular project area, it likely contributes to the sand budget along adjacent, unnourished beaches. This was proven for Cape Point's east beach which accreted significantly as a result of downcoast spreading of the 2017-2018 Buxton nourishment project (CSE 2019c). Thus, indirect effects would be positive and expand alongshore over time. The principal benefit is the addition of beach area and dune habitat with a concomitant reduction of storm damages. An improved and maintained beach tends to reduce the installation of emergency sand bags to protect vulnerable property. The borrow areas proposed or utilized for nourishment are not unique along the Outer Banks and likely constitute <1 percent of similar bottom habitat within state waters. The percentage of similar offshore area would be substantially less if federal waters are included. 8.7.1 Potential Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Project on Species of Concern Section 6.4 discussed the species of concern (MBTA-, MMPA-, state -protected), potential impacts of the proposed project on those species, and the possible cumulative impacts forwhich all known or planned projects in the study area are considered. This subsection repeats the conclusions given in Section 6.4 with respect to probable cumulative impacts. MBTA-Protected Species Colonial Waterbirds (Gull -billed Tern, Caspian Tern, Common Tern, Least Tern, Black Skimmer) — Habitat loss or degradation due to human activities associated with recreation or development elsewhere in Dare County would continue. However, the proposed project would provide up to five years of wider beach availability for bird use. When added to the cumulative effects of the four 2022 northern Outer Banks nourishment projects, construction of the NCDOT fly -over bridge (Rodanthe), periodic Oregon Inlet dredging, and continued development in Dare County —the incremental adverse impact on colonial waterbirds of the "No -Action Alternative" is imperceptible, and impacts are imperceptible to noticeable for "Preferred Alternative -Beach Renourishment With Summer Construction." JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 183 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Wilson's Plover —Under the proposed project, impacts to nesting and foraging habitat would occur and individual birds may be disturbed during construction, but these are considered negligible, temporary, and short-term, and would not likely adversely impact Wilson's plover. Sand that migrates from the nour- ished beach downdrift within the littoral current would feed the existing foraging and roosting habitat along the Seashore, a potential long-term benefit to the species. The incremental adverse impacts on Wilson's plover of either of the two evaluated alternatives are imperceptible when added to the cumulative adverse effects of the four 2022 northern Outer Banks nourishment projects, construction of the NCDOT fly -over bridge, periodic Oregon Inlet dredging, and continued development in Dare County. American Oystercatcher — The proposed project would have the short-term potential to adversely impact nesting birds, but may provide beneficial impacts to nesting habitat due to a wider beach. Overall, the American oystercatcher is not likely to be adversely impacted by the project. The incremental adverse impacts on American oystercatcher are imperceptible when added to the cumulative effects of the four 2022 northern Outer Banks nourishment projects, construction of the NCDOT fly -over bridge, periodic Oregon Inlet dredging, and continued development in Dare County. Bald Eagle — The bald eagle would not likely be adversely impacted by the proposed project. The incre- mental adverse impacts to bald eagle are imperceptible when added to the cumulative adverse effects of the four 2022 northern Outer Banks nourishment projects, construction of the NCDOT fly -over bridge, periodic Oregon Inlet dredging, and continued development in Dare County. Peregrine Falcon — Habitat loss or degradation due to human activities associated with recreation or development elsewhere in Dare County would continue, but the proposed project would provide beneficial impacts of a wider dry beach used by shorebirds which are prey for peregrine falcon. The incremental adverse impacts to peregrine falcon of either of the two evaluated alternatives are imperceptible when added to the cumulative effects of the four 2022 northern Outer Banks nourishment projects, construction of the NCDOT fly -over bridge, periodic Oregon Inlet dredging, and continued development in Dare County. MMPA-Protected Species Marine Mammals — The proposed project has the potential to temporarily affect certain behaviors of some species, particularly avoidance of sounds generated by dredging activities, and may adversely impact marine mammals. The incremental adverse impacts to marine mammals are imperceptible when added to the cumulative adverse effects of the four 2022 northern Outer Banks nourishment projects, construction of the NCDOT fly -over bridge, periodic Oregon Inlet dredging, noise from ocean-going vessels, and offshore exploration for oil and gas. State -Protected Species Diamondback Terrapin — No adverse impacts are likely to occur to the diamondback terrapin. The negligible potential impacts to the diamondback terrapin due to the proposed project are imperceptible JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 184 Buxton, Dare County (NC) when added to the cumulative effects of four 2022 northern Outer Banks nourishment projects and other development and infrastructure activity continuing in Dare County. Seabeach Knotweed — Habitat loss or degradation due to human activities associated with recreation or development elsewhere in Dare County would continue. Considering the lack of historic occurrence in the proposed project area, it would be unlikely for seabeach knotweed to be adversely impacted by either of the two evaluated alternatives. The incremental adverse impacts to seabeach knotweed of either of the two evaluated alternatives are imperceptible when added to the cumulative effects of the four 2022 northern Outer Banks nourishment projects, construction of the NCDOT fly -over bridge, periodic Oregon Inlet dredging, and continued development in Dare County. 8.7.2 Endangered and Threatened Species (ESA -Protected) This subsection repeats the conclusions given in Section 6.4 with respect to probable cumulative impacts. (See Appendix E-Biological Assessment, Section 9.1.) Piping Plover — Upon completion of the project, the piping plover would potentially benefit from increasing roosting area produced by a wider beach. However, the piping plover is considered highly sensitive to climate change, development, construction activities, increased frequency of storms, and increased beach use. Therefore, the proposed project may affect and is likely to adversely affect the piping plover. Roseate Tern — Impacts and cumulative impacts to the roseate tern would be similar to those of the piping plover. However, the roseate tern is rarely observed in the proposed project area and, therefore, cumulative impacts are expected to be unmeasurable when added to other planned nourishment projects in Dare County and increased beach use by visitors. Rufa Red Knot — Impacts and cumulative impacts to the rufa red knotwould be similartothose of the piping plover. The decline in species population is linked to climate change and the commercial harvest of horseshoe crab in Delaware Bay. When combined with development activities and other beach nourishment projects in Dare County, the Proposed Action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the rufa red knot. Atlantic Sturgeon — Climate change, overfishing, and dams on spawning rivers all have the potential to affect the Atlantic sturgeon. Dredging operations could potentially result in an incidental take because the borrow area is situated -12 miles from Hatteras Inlet and -35 miles from Oregon Inlet, which are key pathways between ocean waters and spawning grounds. Therefore, the proposed project may affect and is likely to adversely affect the Atlantic sturgeon. Shortnose Sturgeon — Because it is rarely documented within the aquatic marine habitats of the proposed project area, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon. Seabeach Amaranth — Beach nourishment activities could potentially impact seabeach amaranth if it were present, but the plant has not been documented within the proposed project area and therefore is JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 185 Buxton, Dare County (NC) unlikely to be affected. Coastal development and encroachment on habitat by increased human recrea- tional use of the dry beach will continue to have adverse cumulative effects on seabeach amaranth. However, the construction of a wider beach will potentially increase the area of unvegetated, dry -sand habitat favored by the species. The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely impact, the seabeach amaranth. Whales — The North Atlantic right whale is the species with the highest likelihood of being in the vicinity of the dredge activity. All other whale species, including finback whales, are not expected to utilize waters in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Marine mammal observers will be stationed on board dredge(s) to alert crews to take evasive action and suspend work to avoid collisions. Cumulative effects to the finback and North Atlantic right whales would include the continuation of current threats, such as ensnarement in commercial fishing gear, overfishing of prey species for human or animal food sources, habitat degradation, and noise. When added to the noise generated by seismic testing/sur- veys in ocean waters from Delaware to Florida as part of oil/gas exploration activities and by pile -driving associated with construction of offshore wind turbine clusters on the western Atlantic continental shelf, noise from dredging operations may be cumulatively detrimental, even if it does not cause measurable injury. Effects of the proposed project are considered to be insignificant or discountable; therefore, the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, any protected whale species with the potential to occur in the project vicinity. Sea Turtles — Turtle populations are adversely impacted by climate change (eg — sea level rise, inunda- tion, nest temperatures, and sex ratios), a decline of seagrass beds, steadily encroaching human develop- ment, and nuisance lighting. The proposed project will add incrementally to these cumulative impacts, both in the water column (potential takes by hopper dredge) and on the beach (interfere with nesting activities). Minimization measures will be followed including onboard sea -turtle monitors and beach monitors (all nests will be relocated prior to construction) to reduce the likelihood of lethal take on the beach and in nearshore waters. However, there is a likelihood that an incidental take could occur, especially for the loggerhead. Therefore, the proposed project may affect and is likely to adversely affect nesting female sea turtles on the beach or other sea turtles in the nearshore waters. The USACE would initiate formal Section 7 consultation with USFWS for nesting sea turtles and with NMFS for swimming sea turtles. The 2020 SARBO from NMFS is expected to be utilized for any take which might occur. 8.7.3 Potential Cumulative Effects of Proposed Project on EFH and HAPC Recent nearby nourishment projects have occurred in four other Dare County towns or villages, including Duck, Kitty Hawk, Kill Devil Hills, and Buxton in 2017, and Nags Head in 2019. A short segment of Southern Shores is included in the project at Kitty Hawk (September 2017). Prior to 2017, NCDOT's 2014 Rodanthe emergency nourishment occurred -22 miles north of the southern end of the proposed Buxton project. Depending on how time -crowded or space -crowded future offshore dredging and beach placement operations would be, cumulative effects could be harmful to managed fishes and their habitats (marine water column, sorgossum, Cape Hatteras shoals) within the borrow area and/or the surf zone. Dare County JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 186 Buxton, Dare County (NC) government has been developing a long-range beach nourishment plan that will eventually schedule and coordinate beach segments in need of sand into a five-year rotation to ensure more equitable use of available county funds. Such a staggered and coordinated approach should reduce, either spatially or temporally, the negative cumulative effects of multiple projects which occur in close proximity. As post -nourishment beach invertebrate population recovery appears to be most sensitive to the similarity between native and introduced sediments, North Carolina adopted sediment criteria for beach nourish- ment projects in the state. Geological models of shoal formation offshore have shown that as long the seafloor irregularity remains on which to reform a ridge, dominant shelf processes will reconstruct these features as predicted by the shelf -ridge process models despite repeated dredge episodes from the crest, leading -edge, or trailing edge (CSA International et al 2010). Along with strict adherence to NC sediment criteria, additional offshore dredging and sand -placement mitigative practices for beach nourishment projects will also minimize the potential of cumulative effects to the EFH and HAPC. With the high quality of the sediment selected for sand placement, little to no interruption to long - shore or cross -shore sediment transport dynamics, one -time -only strategic removal of shoal sands from designated borrow areas, and the small amount of soft bottom, marine water column, or sandy shoal in the proposed project area relative to the amount of available other similar EFH or HAPC at any time, the proposed activity would not be expected to pose a significant cumulative threat. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 187 Buxton, Dare County (NC) — THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK — JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 188 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 9.0 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES 9.1 Avoidance and Minimization When considering effects on waters of the United States due to the proposed project —overall, there would be no effect, and in the offshore borrow areas and dredge operation areas, there would be little effect as a result of the project. The presence of dredges offshore of the proposed project area would cause temporary disturbance of the waters and borrow area sediments. This disturbance would be short-lived and would change with the dredge relocation. If marine species are observed by the on -site dredge moni- tor, the operator would follow mitigation measures to relocate or stop operations until the species has left the area. Other mitigation is provided through the professional operation standards followed by reputable and experienced dredge operators. If the USACE decides to permit the proposed project, then avoidance and minimization measures would be incorporated into the terms and conditions of the USACE federal permit as outlined in subsections 1.3.1., 5.2.3, and as described intermittently in species effects determinations in Sections 6, 8, and 10. See Section 1.3.2 and Appendix B (Monitoring & Mitigation Measures) for a detailed listing of endan- gered species monitoring and environmental protection measures that the applicant anticipates implementing during construction. An overarching goal is to produce: • A nourished shoreline with similar slopes, sediments, and morphology as the existing shoreline • No trace of disturbance by heavy equipment when restoration efforts are completed The proposed project will comply with all hopper -dredge protocols as outlined under the existing SARBO. Currently, no minor project modifications are known to be needed during the preparation of this EA. 9.2 Compensatory Mitigation Compensatory mitigation is not required to offset environmental losses resulting from proposed unavoid- able impacts to waters of the United States. The remainder of this section does not apply. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 189 Buxton, Dare County (NC) — THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK — JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 190 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 10.0 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS, POLICIES, AND REQUIREMENTS 10.1 Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) The applicant's "Preferred Alternative -Beach Nourishment with Summer Construction" in the proposed project area would potentially impact threatened or endangered species. Accordingly, the applicant pre- pared a Biological Assessment (BA) (Appendix E) and an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment (Appendix F) in connection with the proposed project. The USACE, as the lead federal agency for the proposed Buxton project, will initiate Section 7 consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and other federal and state resource agencies. Under Section 7 consultation, USFWS or NMFS may authorize an incidental take through a Biological Opinion for ESA - protected species that are likely to be adversely affected by the project activities. Officials at USFWS and NMFS have been involved in pre -application meetings and have had opportunities to provide input prior to completion of the BA and EA. 10.1.1 Other Agency Documented Compliance No other federal agency has taken steps to document compliance with Section 7 of the ESA. 10.1.2 Consultation with NMFS and/or USFWS Consultation with NMFS and USFWS was initiated and will be completed as part of the EA review process. In support of the 2017-2018 nourishment project, Dare County submitted a BA (CSE 2015) and received the Biological Opinion (BO) (USFWS 2016). Following in Table 10.1 is a matrix of species as they will or will not be impacted by the "No Action Alternative" and the "Preferred Alternative-BeachNourishmentwithSummer Construction". JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 191 Buxton, Dare County (NC) TABLE 10.1. (6 pages) Effects matrix summary for the three alternatives addressed in this EA for ESA -protected, other federally protected, and/or state protected species with the potential to occur, and proposed mitigation to offset adverse effects. No -Action Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative 3 Resource Alternative Winter Construction Summer Construction EASTERN BLACK RAIL Existing breeding, foraging, or Temporary -short term, negligible Temporary -short term, negligible resting habitat in back barrier disruption from noise from project disruption from noise from project Present year round on areas could be reduced by activities for the rare individuals activities for the rare individuals NC Outer Banks but inlet breach should one occur. who may be in the back barrier (more in summer than winter but mostly north of Oregon habitats in vicinity. still rare) who may be in the back Inlet and rare in project barrier habitats in vicinity. area PIPING PLOVER No effect to existing breeding, Temporary -short term, negligible Temporary to short term, foraging, or resting habitat. disruption of foraging areas. negligible disruption of foraging Present year round on Potential beneficial effect Foraging habitat could be affected areas; but not likely to adversely NC Outer Banks; nests in should a breach occur and although historically project area is affect. Foraging habitat could be Seashore near tidal new tidal inlet habitat form. low quality foraging habitat. Any affected although historically inlets or overwash areas; Potential beneficial effect if plovers resting in the project area project area is low quality foraging no nests in project area. future overwash events build during construction would be habitat. No nesting habitat within new breeding, foraging, or temporarily displaced. No adverse the project area. Any plovers resting habitat. No adverse effect to critical wintering habitat. resting in the project area during effect to critical wintering Potential beneficial longterm construction would be temporarily habitat. effect to resting habitat (wider dry displaced. No adverse effect to beach) and foraging habitat (lower critical wintering habitat. slope intertidal beach) and critical Potential beneficial longterm wintering habitat by downcoast effect to resting habitat (wider dry migration of nourishment beach) and foraging habitat (lower sediment. slope intertidal beach) and critical wintering habitat by downcoast migration of nourishment sediment. MITIGATION. Prescribed NPS surveys for use of the beach by piping plovers will occur into mid - August and include the project area. No construction will occur within any NPS established buffers. ROSEATE TERN No effect to breeding, foraging No effects to breeding, foraging, or Temporary to short term, or resting habitat. Negligible resting habitat. Negligible effect to negligible disruption of resting and No nesting habitat or effect to resting habitat. resting habitat. Beneficial short foraging areas for the rare visitor; breeding occurs at term effect to resting habitat but not likely to adversely affect. Seashore; rare visitor (wider dry beach). Any birds resting in the project during migration May area during construction would be through Sep. Jul records temporarily displaced. Beneficial within Seashore. longterm effect to resting habitat (wider dry beach). ROSEATE TERN No effect to foraging or resting Temporary, negligible effect but Temporary, negligible, minor habitat. not likely to adversely affect. adverse effect. Foraging habitat No nesting in North Foraging habitat could be affected could be affected although Carolina; birds have although historically project area is historically project area is low been observed in all low quality foraging habitat. quality foraging habitat. Beneficial months in Seashore with Beneficial long-term effect to long-term effect to resting habitat highest numbers during resting habitat (wider dry beach) (wider dry beach) and foraging peak migration in Apr- and foraging habitat (lower slope habitat (lower slope intertidal May and Aug -Sep. intertidal beach). beach). JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 192 Buxton, Dare County (NC) No -Action Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative 3 Resource Alternative Winter Construction Summer Construction ATLANTIC STURGEON No adverse effect. Potential Temporary, negligible to minor Temporary, negligible to minor beneficial effect if inlet breach effect due to potential disruption effect due to potential disruption Documented in projectvicinity opens new access to Pamlico in early spring during inshore in late spring during inshore waters most all year; moves to Sound habitats. Duration of migration. migration. freshwaters inshore to spawn benefit would depend on MITIGATION: Conservation MITIGATION: Conservation in spring. NCDOT response or length of measures to minimize impacts or measures to minimize impacts or time inlet remained open. disruption provided by NMFS disruption provided by NMFS during consultation will be consultation will be followed. followed. Qualified NMFS/PRD Qualified NMFS/PRD-approved approved endangered species PSO on dredge at all times would observer on dredge at all times follow standard reporting who will follow standard procedures and would have reporting procedures and has authority to stop dredge ops if authority to stop dredge ops if Atlantic sturgeon observed in Atlantic sturgeon observed in area of danger or in dredge area of danger or in dredge screen, skimmer funnels, or drag screen, skimmer funnels or drag heads. heads. SHORTNOSE STURGEON No effect. Potential beneficial Temporary, negligible to minor Temporary, negligible to minor effect if inlet breach opens new adverse effect due to potential effect due to potential disruption Move to freshwater from late access to Pamlico Sound disruption in late winter or early in nearshore waters but not winter to early spring; remains habitats. Benefit duration spring during migration to fresh likely to adversely affect. in estuarine and nearshore depends on how long inlet and estuarine waters. waters remainder of year. One open and NCDOT response. record from Pamlico Sound. GIANT MANTA RAY No effect. Temporary, negligible to minor. Temporary, negligible to minor. Noise avoidance could affect Noise avoidance could affect Errant individuals could be feeding behavior depending on feeding behavior depending on present in most any month but presence of prey species. presence of prey species usually in deeper oceanic MITIGATION: Qualified NMFS/ MITIGATION: Qualified NMFS/ waters associated with PRD-approved PSO on dredge at PRD-approved PSO on dredge at upwelling. all times would follow standard all times would follow standard reporting procedures and has reporting procedures with authority to stop dredge ops if a authority to stop dredge ops if a giant manta ray is spotted in area giant manta ray is spotted in area ofdanger. ofdanger. SEABEACH AMARANTH Long-term, moderate effects to Temporary, negligible to minor. Temporary, negligible to minor. potential habitat. Beach would Potential beneficial longterm Potential beneficial longterm No plants documented in the eventually become too narrow effects (wider beach above effects (wider beach above Seashore since 2005; no to support; alternatively, wrack line). wrack line). records from project area. regular overwash would MITIGATION: NPS biologists, who MITIGATION: NPS biologists. who increase potential habitat. survey for the plant each year, survey for the plant each year, would notify if found. If found, would notify if found. If found, steps to avoid the plant(s) will be steps to avoid the plant(s) will be identified by NPS manager identified by NPS manager coordinating with USFWS coordinating with USFWS biologists. biologists. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 193 Buxton, Dare County (NC) No -Action Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative 3 Resource Alternative Winter Construction Summer Construction WEST INDIAN MANATEE No adverse effects. Beneficial No effects. Species not typically Temporary, negligible to minor effect if breach inlet formed to present in winter. adverse effects. Noise avoidance provide additional access to MITIGATION. Qualified NMFS/ could affect behavior. inshore/sound foraging areas. PRD-approved PSO on dredge at MITIGATION. Qualified NMFS/ all times would follow standard PRD- approved PSO on dredge at reporting procedures and has all times would follow standard authority to stop dredge cps if a reporting procedures with manatee is spotted in area of authority to stop dredge cps if a danger. manatee is spotted in area of danger. WHALES No effects. Temporary, negligible to minor Temporary, negligible to minor effects. Noise avoidance could effects. Noise avoidance could Fin and humpback migrate affect behavior of winter affect behavior of any whales through the western Atlantic in migration. The 2020 SARBO present. The Proposed Action winter, North Atlantic right determination is that the during the applicant's preferred migrate through in spring and Proposed Action may affect but summer construction window are found closer to shore in is not likely to Adversely Affect will align with the NMFS spring but can be in project the North Atlantic right whale determination of Not Likely to vicinity throughout the winter during winter migration. Adversely Affect the North months. Blue whales have Similarly, the Proposed Action Atlantic right whale, which been documented closer to May Affect but is Not Likely to migrates near the area in other shore (winter only) than once Adversely Affect the humpback seasons. The Proposed Action expected but no strandings whale which is unlikely to be may affect but is not likely to have been documented in observed in shallow waters. adversely affect the humpback NC 1997-2020. The 2020 MITIGATION. Qualified NMFS/ whale. SARBO issued No Effect PRD-approved PSO on dredge at MITIGATION. Qualified NMFS/ determinations for blue, fin, all times would follow standard PRD- approved PSO on dredge at sei, and sperm whales when all reporting procedures and has all times would follow standard pertinent PDC's are followed, authority to stop dredge cps if a reporting procedures and has particularly vessel speed whale is spotted in area of authority to stop dredge cps if a reductions. danger. whale is spotted in area of danger. SEATURTLES Long-term, moderate adverse No effect during construction. Temporary, negligible to minor; effect to nesting habitat. Project would occur outside of likely to adversely affect. (includes green, hawksbill, Beach would eventually the sea turtle nesting season. No Nesting females could be Kemp's ridley, leatherback, become too narrow to support adverse effect on critical disturbed in project area. No and loggerhead) nesting. Regular overwash migratory habitat. Nesting adverse effect on critical Some commonly nest in would decrease nest success. beaches would have longterm migratory habitat. Nesting Seashore; others never to Potential beneficial short term beneficial effect (wider beach beaches would have short-term rarely, but may be present in effect if breach occurred which and lower slope). negligible effect but beneficial project vicinity waters. would allow new temporary long-term effects (wider beach access to back barrier habitats and lower slope). until the breach closed. A MITIGATION. No night work or potential NCDOT solution to a only night work w/turtle friendly breach may include a lighting; night-time monitors temporary bridge which may must survey the affected beach have short term adverse effect area on any given night before to turtles in the area during the required 9 am daily survey. construction. Nesting surveys initiated by15 April for leatherback and 1 May for others. Surveys would JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 194 Buxton, Dare County (NC) No -Action Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative 3 Resource Alternative Winter Construction Summer Construction SEA TURTLES (concluded) continue during project by trained experienced personnel, duly authorized and permitted by agencies. Construction would not begin until the daily survey was completed in any given area. All nests in project area to be relocated by NPS personnel as soon as possible after discovery (no later than 0900) to a location to ensure hatch success. Nests discovered after project completion in an area will not be relocated if laid in location conducive to hatch. All in -situ or relocated nests must be marked with stakes to delimit a 10-foot bufferzone around the nest two on -beach markers, and must be monitored daily. Qualified NMFS/ PRD- approved PSO on dredge at all times would follow standard reporting procedures and has authority to stop dredge ops if a sea turtle is spotted in area of danger. MARINE MAMMALS No adverse effect. Beneficial Temporary, negligible to minor Temporary, negligible to minor (other than those above) effect from breach inlet (new potential adverse effect during potential adverse effects during access to back barrier sound dredge and pumping activity. dredge and pumping activity. Four species common to and river habitats) for species Common bottlenose dolphin Common bottlenose dolphin abundant in project vicinity; which seek such areas. most likely to be affected by most likely to be affected by three of which are present year noise from project construction. noise from project construction. round. COLONIAL WATERBIRDS Long-term, moderate adverse No effect. Birds not normally Temporary to short term, effect to nesting habitat as present in winter. Beneficial long negligible to minor effect to (includes gull -billed tern, beach would eventually term effect to nesting habitat nesting birds and disruption of common tern, least tern, become too narrow to support (wider beach). foraging and resting areas. Caspian tern, and black nesting. Breach inlet would Beneficial longterm effect to skimmer) provide new foraging and nesting habitat (wider beach). All nest on NC beaches resting habitats. MITIGATION. NPS surveys and no including Seashore and within construction within 300 meters of project area. As a group, can active colonies. be in project area from March to Nov. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 195 Buxton, Dare County (NC) No -Action Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative 3 Resource Alternative Winter Construction Summer Construction AMERICAN OYSTERCATCHER Long-term, moderate No effect. Species not normally Temporary to short term, adverse effect to nesting present in this area during negligible to minor effect to Common in Dare County all habitat. Beach would winter. Beneficial longterm nesting birds and foraging and year with low numbers in eventually become too effect to nesting habitat (wider resting areas. Beneficial long - winter months. Nests and narrow to support nesting. beach). term effect to nesting habitat breeds in Seashore. (wider beach). MITIGATION: NPS surveys and no construction within 300 meters of active nests or chicks. WILSON'S PLOVER Long-term, moderate Temporary to short term, Temporary, negligible, minor. adverse effect to nesting negligible disruption of Foraging habitat could be Rare nester in Seashore; habitat. Beach would foraging and resting areas. affected; historically, project present March to October eventually become too area is low quality foraging with occasional Jan or Nov narrow to support nesting. habitat. Beneficial long-term occurrence. No nests in project area but a effect to resting habitat (wider few nests have been dry beach) and foraging habitat documented elsewhere at (lower slope intertidal beach). Seashore. MITIGATION. NPS surveys and no construction within 300 meters of active colonies. PEREGRINE FALCON No effect to breeding or Temporary to short term, Temporary to short term, resting habitat. Potential negligible adverse effect from negligible adverse effect No nesting along NC coast; beneficial effect to foraging disruption of foraging areas. from disruption of foraging uncommon May to Aug; more habitat if inlet breach occurs. Beneficial longterm effect to areas. Beneficial longterm common in Oct. Winter foraging and resting habitat effect to foraging and resident. (wider dry beach). resting habitat (wider dry beach). BALD EAGLE No effect to breeding, Temporary to short term, Temporary to short term, foraging, or resting habitat. negligible adverse effect from negligible adverse effect from No nests in project area; disruption of foraging and disruption of foraging and birds observed all months in resting areas resting areas. Seashore, but more common in winter. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 196 Buxton, Dare County (NC) State Protection Only Resource No -Action Alternative Alternative 2 Winter Construction Preferred Alternative 3 Summer Construction DIAMONDBACK TERRAPIN Long-term, unpredictable, No effects. Temporary, negligible to minor moderate effects to existing effects due to potential Nests and forages in marsh or potential habitat. Overwash disruption when crossing NC 12; back dune areas; hibernates could bury nests, young, or such disruptions already occur in back -barrier muds. No adults and habitats, but may from existing traffic. Project record from within project increase and build habitats related traffic would be activity area. further into the sound temporary and mostly confined overtime which could be to the beach where the turtle is beneficial. A breach may not found. destroy habitat if inlet became permanent. SEABEACH KNOTWEED Long-term, unpredictable, Temporary, negligible to minor Temporary, negligible to minor moderate effects to existing effects. Potential beneficial long effects. Potential beneficial long Unpredictable colonizer potential back -barrier habitat term effects (wider beach). term effects (wider beach). species found between wrack (existing foredune habitat not MITIGATION: NPS biologists MITIGATION: NPS biologists line and foredunesand suitable). Overwash could survey for the plant eachyear survey for the plant eachyear overwash fans. No record bury seeds and habitats, but and will notify if found. and will notify if found. from within project footprint, may increase brackish and but documented in project back barrier habitat or assist vicinity (near the Cape in seed dispersal which could Hatteras lighthouse). be beneficial. 10.1.3 Effects Determination for ESA -Protected Species Of the federally listed species with the potential to occur in the proposed project area or vicinity shown in Table 10.1, evaluation of the effects of the proposed project resulted in a May Effect, not Likely to Adversely Affect conclusion for five species (roseate tern, seabeach amaranth, finback whale, north Atlantic right whale, and shortnose sturgeon), and a May Effect, Likely to Adversely Affect conclusion for eight species, including five sea turtles (Kemp's ridley, green, leatherback, loggerhead, and hawksbill), the Atlantic sturgeon, piping plover, and red knot. As mentioned in Appendix E-Biological Assessment, Section 9.4, the 2020 SARBO from NMFS is expected to be utilized forthe sea turtles. Section 7 consultation will be initiated and USFWS and NMFS will respond with their Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement(s) as applicable (USFWS-species on land; NMFS-species in water). Table 10.2 is a summary of the determination of the effects for those 13 species. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 197 Buxton, Dare County (NC) TABLE 10.2. Summary effects determination of ESA -protected species with the potential to occur in project area or vicinity. SPECIES FEDERAL/ STATE STATUS DETERMINATION Birds Eastern black rail T/PT NO EFFECT Piping plover T/T MAYAFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Roseate tern E/E MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Red knot T/T MAYAFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Caspian tern T MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Common tern MBTA/E MAYAFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Least tern MBTA/SC MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Gull -billed tern MBTA/T MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Black skimmer MBTA/SC MAYAFFECT, NOT LIKELYTO ADVERSELY American oystercatcher MBTA/SC MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Wilson's plover MBTA/SC MAYAFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Bald eagle BEGEPA/T MAYAFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Peregrine falcon MBTA/E MAYAFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Fishes Atlantic sturgeon E/SC MAYAFFECT, LIKELYTOADVERSELYAFFECT Shortnose sturgeon E/E MAYAFFECT, NOT LIKELYTO ADVERSELY Giant manta ray T MAYAFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Plants Seabeach amaranth j T/T NO EFFECT Seabeach knotweed E NO EFFECT Mammals Fin whale E MAYAFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Humpbackwhale E MAYAFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY North Atlantic right whale E MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Blue whale E MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY West Indian manatee T/T MAYAFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Marine mammals (other) MMPA MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Reptiles Green sea turtle T/T MAYAFFECT, LIKELYTOADVERSELYAFFECT Hawksbill sea turtle E MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY Kemp's ridleysea turtle E/E MAYAFFECT, LIKELYTOADVERSELYAFFECT Leatherback sea turtle E/E MAYAFFECT, LIKELYTO ADVERSELYAFFECT Loggerhead sea turtle j T/T MAYAFFECT, LIKELYTOADVERSELYAFFECT Diamondback terrapin I SC I NO EFFECT JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 198 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 10.2 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Essential Fish Habitat As a condition of any federal permits for the proposed project, the applicant would follow the requirements of the USACE to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA), Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), and other NEPA/environmental requirements. 10.2.1 Other Agency Document Compliance No other federal agency has taken steps to document compliance with the EFH provisions of the Magnuson -Stevens Act. 10.2.2 Review Required Under Magnuson -Stevens Act The proposed project requires review under the Magnuson -Stevens Act. For a full report, see Appendix E- Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. The applicant notified the NOAA-Southeast Regional Office (SERO) in spring 2021 about the proposed Buxton project and informed the agency that an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment (Appendix F) was in preparation. Although both SAFMC and MAFMC manage numerous fish stocks, only those which have a federal Fishery Management Plan (FMP) have designated Essential Fish Habitat. The applicant also has communicated with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). Since 1942, ASMFC has been the deliberative body of the Atlantic coastal states, and it coordinates the management and conservation of 25 nearshore fish species. Some of these 25 species are also managed by either SAFMC or MAFMC. Many of these species are included in the EFH and/or Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) addressed in Appendix F-Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. 10.2.3 Effect Determination The proposed Buxton renourishment project would not be expected to cause any significant adverse impacts to EFH or HAPC for those species managed by SAFMC and MAFMC. Coordination with representa- tives of NMFS and NCDMF will continue throughout the life of the project in order to ensure that all parties are aware of any fisheries impacts. Additionally, both NMFS and NCDMF will be provided with information from any required project surveys, and the development of detailed borrow area use plans will be coordinated with both agencies. The following EFH considerations were developed in coordination with the NCDMF and NOAA-NMFS, and will be implemented for the proposed Buxton renourishment project to the maximum extent practicable: • Promote quick benthic recovery through shallow borrow area excavation. • Use topographic highs and/or areas of high sand movement within offshore borrow areas. • Encourage dredge operations that leave behind unimpacted "ridges" to allow for recovery. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 199 Buxton, Dare County (NC) • Avoidance of hard bottom resources (within the nearshore toe of fill and offshore borrow area). • Construction of a temporary berm during placement on the beach strand in order to minimize turbidity. These will be integrated into the Buxton project construction process in order to minimize physical and biological impacts to EFH and to assure that any adverse effects are short-term and localized on both an individual and cumulative effects basis. 10.2.4 Consultation with NMFS On behalf of Dare County (via a pre -application interagency meeting on 7 November 2019), the applicant notified the NOAA Southeast Regional Office (SERO) about the proposed Buxton renourishment project and informed the agency that an Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (Appendix F) was in preparation. The applicant consulted SERO's webpage and used it to generate the list of species to evaluate. The USACE will continue NMFS coordination required to receive concurrence on the analysis of the effects on EFH and conservation/mitigation recommendations included in this EA. Although both SAFMC and MAFMC manage numerous fish stocks, onlythose with a federal FMP have desig- nated EFH. While no official coordination is required with ASMFC—since 1942, it has been the deliberative body of the Atlantic coastal states and coordinates the management and conservation of 27 Atlantic coastal fish species or species groups. Some of these 27 species/groups are also managed by either SAFMC or MAFMC and many also utilize EFH and/or HAPC addressed in this EA. Coordination with representatives of NMFS and NCDMF will continue throughout the life of the project in order to ensure that all parties are aware of any fisheries impacts. Additionally, both NMFS and NCDMF will be provided with information from any required project surveys, and the development of detailed borrow area use plans will be coordinated with both agencies. 10.3 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) As a condition of any federal and state permits, the Applicant has consulted with the NC State State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) (organized within NCDNCR) regarding the proposed project in the project area for the proposed renourishment project. The applicant will draw on its previous experience working with SHPO when applying for permits for the 2017-2018 nourishment project. In consultation with Tidewater Atlantic Research (TAR) of Washington (NC), the applicant would advise SHPO of potential cultural resources located by TAR that may be present or impacted in the general vicinity of the project. (TAR 2021). 10.3.1 Known Cultural Sites Present The Buxton offshore area is part of the infamous "Graveyard of the Atlantic," which has claimed up to 5,000 shipwrecks since first recorded in the 1700s. Previous exploration of underwater cultural resources has JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 200 Buxton, Dare County (NC) documented over 190 shipwrecks offshore of Dare County. The earliest known shipwreck, James E Newsome, occurred before 1728. For the 2017-2018 nourishment project, surveys were conducted by Tidewater Atlantic Research Inc (TAR -Washington NC) to locate previously unidentified cultural sites. Under contract to the Corps of Engineers [MATER 1999, in USACE (2000) FEIS Appendix B], MATER completed the report— "Phase 1 Upland and UnderwaterArchaeologicol Survey of the Dare County Beaches and Borrow Areas." The scope was to locate, identify, and assess the significance of any upland and under- water cultural material in the proposed project area. Archaeological survey equipment included a marine magnetometer and side -scan sonar to identify any submerged cultural resources within the proposed borrow areas. The upland survey included a terrestrial reconnaissance along the beaches of Dare County to identify any exposed shipwreck remains (USACE 2010). Remote -sensing survey operations were carried out on 23-24 December 2014 and 1-2 January 2015 in the designated borrow area of the Buxton 2017-2018 project to provide more detailed, site -specific data. TAR obtained bathymetry, side -scan sonar, shallow seismic measurements, and magnetometer measurements over the borrow areas. A total of 123 magnetic anomalies were identified within the -450- acre sand search area. Except for a cluster of 10 anomalies buffered for avoidance, all had signatures similar to those produced by deteriorated small pipe, old cable, or deteriorated wire. None of the 113 remaining magnetic signatures are suggestive of complex vessel remains. Based on these findings, the applicant established a minimum 200-ft (radius) buffer area around each potential cultural -resource site and eliminated these buffer areas from consideration for dredging (USACE-USDOI-NPS 2015) (See Figure 1.2). A search of shipwreck records indicated no known vessel remains are in the Proposed Action Area. The proposed borrow area is located adjacent to and immediately north of the 2017-2018 borrow area on the same morphologic underwater ridge as shown in Figure 1.2. A submerged cultural resource remote -sensing survey of the proposed borrow area was conducted by Tidewater Atlantic Research (TAR) of Washington, North Carolina. Fieldwork was completed by 24 July 2021, and the results and findings are included as an appendix to this EA (Appendix G-Cultural Resources Survey). Work performed by TAR consisted of a background literature survey, historical research, and cartographical investigation. Field investigations identified one magnetic anomaly inside the proposed borrow area and two within the 200-ft perimeter of the borrow area. All three anomalies represent very small ferrous objects. None appear to represent a potentially significant submerged cultural resource, and therefore, no avoidance was recommended. Analysis of the acoustic data identified no evidence of sonar targets in the borrow area or its immediate vicinity. Consequently, no potentially significant submerged cultural resources will be impacted by dredging in the proposed borrow area or its adjacent 200-ft buffer. Data generated by the cultural resources survey does not identify any historical shipwrecks or other submerged cultural resources. However, in the event that any project activities expose potential prehistoric or historic cultural material, the dredging company should immediately shift operations away from the site and notify the representatives of the North Carolina State Historic Presentation Office (SHPO) in Raleigh (NC), the Underwater Archaeology Branch (UAB) in Kure Beach (NC), the Application (Dare JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 201 Buxton, Dare County (NC) County), and the Engineer (CSE). Notification should address the exact location, where possible, the nature of material exposed by project activities, and options for immediate archaeological inspection and assessment of the sites. 10.2.2 Effect Determination on Cultural Resources Regarding cultural resources onshore, the proposed project would not affect the placement and dune - building operation because no resources have been identified for the project area on the beach. The applicant rates the project as having a "minimal adverse effect" on cultural resources in the waters where the dredges are located as buffer zones would be established to prevent dredging near any identified resources. 10.4 Tribal Trust Responsibilities Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any anticipated impacts on Indian Trust resources from a proposed project or action by US Department of the Interior agencies be explicitly addressed in environmental documents. A consultation was not conducted with a federally -recognized tribe, because the regulated activity (ie - the proposed project) will not affect protected tribal resources and tribal rights including treaty rights and Indian lands. While the Outer Banks area was populated by many native Indian tribes when first explored in the 1600s, most tribes either migrated east, were killed by white settlers, or died from European -imported diseases. Of the eight state or federally recognized Indian tribes in North Carolina, none are currently located in the Outer Banks area (https://americanindiancenter.unc.edu/resources/faqs-about-american-indians/), and the lands comprising the park are not held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of Indians due to their status as Indians. In addition, no tribes claim significant historical or cultural resources in the proposed Buxton project area. Previous experience with the 2017-2018 nourishment project confirmed that no tribal resources have been found in the project area, and the same result is expected for the proposed renourishment project. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect tribal trust resources, treaty rights, or lands. 10.5 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act -Water Quality Certification (WQC) The NC Department of Environmental Quality's Division of Water Resources (NCDEQ-DWR) administers the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification. The NCDWR must review the proposed project and issue a 401 Certification prior to state or federal permits for construction involving dredge and fill in navigable waters of the United States. As defined by the Clean Water Act (CWA), the proposed project impacts the waters of the United States and is, therefore, subject to review by the USACE. A Section 401 WQC is required for the proposed renourishment project and would be issued as part of the NC Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) requirements. Certification would be issued in the future after the project progresses further in the review process. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 202 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 10.6 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) The proposed project will be considered as a package by USACE and other federal and state agencies. For coastal management, the proposed project would be reviewed under the NCDEQ-NCDCM. NCDCM administers CAMA and must review the proposed project priorto issuance of a major CAMA permit. NCDCM requires a permit application and supporting documents under NEPA in parallel with a federal permit application. NCDEQ is the overall coordinating state agency responsible for soliciting review and comment on the proposed project from relevant state resource agencies or divisions of NCDEQ, including NCDCM, NCDMF, NCDWR, and NCWRC. Other corresponding agencies are the NCDOT and the NC Office of State Archaeology (NCOSA). A CZMA Consistency Concurrence is not required for the proposed project. See Section 10.6. 10.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act —National Wild & Scenic River System The proposed project area is not located in a National Wild and Scenic River System or in or near a river designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion. 10.8 Effects on Federal Projects —Section 14 of Rivers & Harbors Act (33 USC 408) As administered by the USACE, Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act regulates construction, filling, dredging, or excavation in navigable waters of the United States. The proposed project would require a 408 permit issued by the USACE. Following the review and approval of this EA, a 408 would be issued. 10.9 Corps Wetlands Policy (33 CFR 320.4(b)—Wetlands Impacts The proposed project will not impact wetlands. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 203 Buxton, Dare County (NC) — THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK — JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 204 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 11.0 SPECIAL CONDITIONS Beach nourishment projects which are conducted when threatened or endangered species are present in the Action Area generally involve permits with special conditions incorporated. The special conditions include mitigation and monitoring measures designed to protect species at risk and ensure that sediment quality meets acceptable standards. 11.1 Conditions Required Some special conditions would be required. Conditions required to protect the public interest, ensure effects are not significant, and/or ensure compliance of the activity with any of the laws above are dis- cussed previously in this EA, including: • Mitigation to protect threatened and endangered species • Measures taken to ensure public safety 11.2 Required Special Condition(s) Anticipated monitoring and mitigation measures outlined in Appendix B-Monitoring and Mitigation Measures of this EA. The final special conditions will be incorporated into the permits by USACE and NPS with input from federal (eg - USFWS and NOAA-NMFS) and state (NCDEQ-DCM) agencies. These special conditions will be based on a review of the permit application, supporting documents, and the present EA. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 205 Buxton, Dare County (NC) — THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK — JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 206 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 12.0 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS 12.1 Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule Review The proposed permit action has been analyzed for conformity applicability pursuant to regulations imple- menting Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. It has been determined that the activities proposed under this permit will not exceed de minimus levels of direct or indirect emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors and are exempted by 40 CFR Part 93.153. Any later indirect emissions are generally not within the USACE continuing program responsibility and generally cannot be practicably controlled by the USACE. The Air Quality Section of the NCDEQ hasjurisdiction over air quality in Dare County (applicant). According to the Washington (NC) district office, ambient air quality in Dare County complies with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In addition, Dare County is located in an area classified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as being in attainment for all six criteria air pollutants. Activities associated with dredging and beach nourishment produce localized, temporary increases in pollutant levels associated with operation of heavy machinery, mainly through the combustion of diesel fuel. The highest levels would occur at the dredge offshore and at the active work zone along the beach. Pollutant concentrations are expected to diminish exponentially with distance from construction and return to ambient levels in close proximity to the work areas. Upon completion of the work, no additional discharges or sustained impacts would be associated with the proposed project. Windy conditions along the Outer Banks are expected to disperse pollutants rapidly from the area. Emissions are not expected to beat a level that would contribute measurably to greenhouse gases on a wider scale and are not expected to produce conditions that would alter Dare County's current EPA classification. For these reasons, a conformity determination is not required for this permit action. 12.2 Presidential Executive Orders (EO) 12.2.1 Consultation with Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians (EO 13175) This action has no substantial effect on one or more Indian tribes, Alaskan, or Hawaiian natives. 12.2.2 Floodplain Management (EO 11988) All federal agencies are required by Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) to evaluate the likely impacts of their actions in floodplains. The objectives of the EO 11988 are to avoid, as much as possible, the short- and long-term adverse impacts associated with occupancy, modification, or destruction of floodplains and to avoid indirect support of development and new construction in such areas where there is a practicable alternative. NPS Director's Order #77-2 (Floodplain Management) provides NPS procedures for complyingwith EO 11988. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 207 Buxton, Dare County (NC) The barrier -island floodplains help to reduce the impact of hurricanes and other storms on the shorelines that they shelter. These floodplains provide storm -water holding capacity, reducing runoff that could otherwiseflood developed areas. They also provide habitat for species adapted to the coastal barrier island environment. Storm events such as hurricanes and nor'easters (winter storms along the mid -Atlantic coast) and associated wave action and high precipitation are the prime sources of flooding in the Seashore. Additionally, some areas are known to be susceptible to minor flooding without wave involvementwhen large amounts of rainfall occur. North Carolina's barrier islands have historically been and continue to be affected by coastal forces and flooding events. The barrier islands of the Seashore are predominantly flat and narrow and lie adjacent to the shallow and wide Pamlico Sound. The widest part of the Seashore is near Cape Point, between the villages of Buxton and Frisco (Pendleton et al 2005). According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Dare County(www.darenc.com/planning/fioodmaps.a5p, accessed May 2015), most of the Seashore is within the 100-year floodplain with the exception of some areas that are located at the Navy tower site on Bodie Island and a larger area on Hatteras Island near Buxton Village, which are within the 500-year floodplain (shaded X Zone). The proposed project area itself lies completely within the 100-year floodplain (https://fris.nc.gov/fris/index.aspx?FIPS=055&ST=NC&user=General%20Public, accessed May 2021). Generally, lands along the ocean beaches and adjacent to the sound (at wide points) are in flood zone VE, which is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to 100-year coastal floodplains that have additional hazards associated with storm waves, high water tables, and periodic flooding. Zone VE is also referred to as the Coastal High Hazard Area. Lands within the 100-year floodplain and not directly adjacent to the ocean or sound lie within the AE zone, which is subject to waves less than 3 feet high (NCDCCPS 2008); only zone VE is found within the Proposed Action Area. None of the alternatives presented by the Applicant would elevate the Action Area above the floodplain or reduce the capacity and function of the affected floodplain. The proposed project can only occur within the floodplain, but it would not reduce the amount of floodplain. It would likely widen the recreational beach and potentially increase the capacity and function of the shoreface floodplain. The proposed project would not pose a risk to humans, an investment risk, or impact floodplain processes and values. The 2017-2018 project was deemed exempt from the need to prepare a Floodplain Statement of Findings per NPS Director's Order #77-2 Floodplain Procedures Manual V. B Exemptions (NPS 2015e). Therefore, the impact of floodplains is dismissed from further analysis of the proposed Buxton renourishment project. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 208 Buxton, Dare County (NC) 12.2.3 Environmental Justice (EO 12898) The USACE has determined that the proposed project would not use methods or practices that discrimi- nate based on race, color, or national origin, nor would it have a disproportionate effect on minority or low-income communities. Executive Order 12898, General Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations, requires all federal agencies to incorporate environ- mental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing the disproportionately high and/or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low- income populations and communities. According to the EPA, environmental justice is the... fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or socio-economic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. The goal of fair treatment is not to shift risks among populations, but to identify potentially disproportion- ately high and adverse effects and identify alternatives that may mitigate these impacts. Environmental Justice is dismissed from further analysis for the following reasons: • The park staff and planning team solicited public participation as part of the planning process and gave equal consideration to all input from persons regardless of age, race, income status, or other socioeconomic or demographic factors • Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any identifiable adverse human health effects. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect adverse impacts on any minority or low-income population • The impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would not disproportionately affect any minority or low-income population or community Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any identified effects that would be specific to any minority or low-income community. 12.2.4 Invasive Species (EO 13112) Because no invasive species are present in the proposed project area, it is expected that they would have no impact on the proposed project. 12.2.5 Energy Supply (EO 13212) and Availability (EO 13302) The proposed project is not one that will increase the production, transmission, conservation of energy, or strengthen pipeline safety. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines for implementation of NEPA require an exami- nation of energy requirements and conservation potential as a possible impact topic in environmental JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 209 Buxton, Dare County (NC) documents [40 CFR 1502.16(e)]. Dare County strives to incorporate and encourage the principles of sustainable design* and development into all facilities and operations. The recently re -built Jennette's Pier (2011) at Nags Head in Dare County (-50 miles north of the project area) is a prime example of the County's support for sustainable design and ecologically sensitive use. Essentially, sustainability is living within the environment with the least impact on the environment. *[The objectives ofsustainability are to design structures to minimize adverse impacts on natural and cultural values, to reflect their environmental setting, to maintain and encourage biodiversity, to construct and retrofit facilities using energy efficient materials and building techniques, to operate and maintain facilities to promote their sustain ability, and to illustrate and promote conservation principles and practices through sustainable design and ecologically sensitive use.] The proposed project could potentially result in reduced use of energy and conservation over the design life of the project if it reduces the frequency of storm repairs needed. Each emergency repair of the infra- structure requires the use of heavy equipment and the importation of construction materials from distant sources. However, the proposed project would not result in noticeable changes to energy requirements or the ability to conserve energy resources during normal, daily activities common to the project area. 12.3 Findings of No Significant Impact Having reviewed the information provided by the applicant and all interested parties and an assessment of the environmental impacts, I find that this permit action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be required. 12.4 Compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Having reviewed the information above, I find that the applicant's proposed project meets Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines provided certain monitoring and environmental protection measures are implemented to the extent practicable as recommended by USFWS and NMFS under their respective Biological Opinions applicable to the project. 12.5 Public Interest Determination Having reviewed and considered the information above, I find that the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 210 Buxton, Dare County (NC) SIGNATURES PREPARED BY: Date: Project Manager REVIEWED BY: Date: Enter name of appropriate level reviewer APPROVED BY: Date: Enter name of appropriate level approver Modify signature lines as needed to reflect district's signature delegation for standard permits JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 211 Buxton, Dare County (NC) — THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK — JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 212 Buxton, Dare County (NC) REFERENCES CITED Armstrong, B N, JC Warner, G Voulgaris, JH List, ER Thieler, MA Martini, E Montgomery, J McNinch, JW Book, and K Haas. 2013. Carolinas coastal change processes project data report for nearshore observations at Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, February 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 2012-1219, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1219/.ASCE. 1994. Coastal Groins and Nearshore Breakwaters. Technical Engineering and Design Guides as Adapted from the US Army Corps of Engineers, No 6, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, 87 pp. ASCE. 1994. Coastal Groins and Nearshore Breakwaters. Technical Engineering and Design Guides as Adapted from the US Army Corps of Engineers, No 6, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, 87 pp. ASMFC. 2012. http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/sturgeonHabitatAddendumIV_Sept2012.pdf. Bagnold, RA. 1941. The Physics of Blown Sand and Desert Dunes. Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 265 pp. Boehlert, G & B Mundy. 1988. Roles of Behavioral and Physical Factors in Larval and Juvenile Fish Recruitment to Estuarine Nursery Areas. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 3. Bolten, AB, LB Crowder, MG Dodd, SL McPherson, JA Musick, BA Schroeder, BE Witherington, KJ Long, and MI Stover. 2011. Quantifying multiple threats to endangered species: an example from loggerhead sea turtles. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, Vol 9, pp 295-301. Brooks, RA, CN Purdy, SS Bell, and KJ Sulak. 2006. The benthic community of the eastern US continental shelf: a literature synopsis of benthic faunal resources. Continental Shelf Research, Vol 26, pp 804-818. Bruun, P. 1962. Sea -level rise as a cause of shore erosion. Journal of Waterways and Harbor Division, ASCE, New York, NY, Vol 88(WW1), pp 117-132. Byrd, J. 2004. The effect of beach nourishment on loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in South Carolina. MS Thesis, College of Charleston, SC. Byrd, BL, AA Hohn, GN Lovewell, KM Altman, SG Barco, A Friedlaender, CA Harms, WA McLellan, KT Moore, PE Rose[, and VG Thayer. 2014. Strandings as indicators of marine mammal biodiversity and human interactions off the coast of North Carolina. Fishery Bulletin 112(1):1-23. Byrne, MW, JM Maxfield, and JC DeVivo. 2009. Migrating and wintering shorebird monitoring at Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2006/2007. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SECN/NRTR - 2009/189. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Carolina Bird Club. 2014. Birds of North Carolina: their Distribution and Abundance. CERC. 1984. Shore Protection Manual. 411 Edition, US Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Ft Belvoir, VA; US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2 vols. CITES. 2013. Sixteenth meeting of Congress of the Parties, Considerations of Proposals for Amendment of Appendices I and II. CoP16 Prop. XXX Bangkok (Thailand) March 3-14. CSA International et al. 2010. Analysis of Potential Biological and Physical Impacts of Dredging on Offshore Ridge and Shoal Features. OCS Study MMS 2010-010. Prepared by CSA International, Inc. in cooperation with Applied Coastal Research and Engineering Inc, Barry A Vittor & Associates Inc, CF Bean LLC, and the Florida Institute of Technology for the US Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Leasing Division, Marine Minerals Branch, Herndon, VA,160 pp + apps. CSE. 2004. Draft beach restoration plan for a locally sponsored project at Nags Head. Memorandum Report for Town of Nags Head, North Carolina; Coastal Science & Engineering (CSE), Columbia (SC) and Morehead City (NC), 29 pp. CSE. 2005a (June). Post -Isabel Emergency Dune Restoration Project at Nags Head. Final Report for Town of Nags Head, Nags Head (NC). CSE, Columbia, SC,12 pp+ project maps and Appendix A, B, C. CSE. 2005b. Analysis of potential downdrift impacts- Hunting Island beach restoration project. Final Report for SCPRT, Columbia, SC; CSE, Columbia, SC, 82 pp + appendices. CSE. 2012. Final Report: 2011 Nags Head beach nourishment project, Volumes 1 and 2. Prepared for Town of Nags Head, NC. CSE, Columbia (SC),163 pp + appendices. CSE. 2013a. Shoreline erosion assessment and plan for beach restoration, Rodanthe and Buxton areas, Dare County, North Carolina. Feasibility Report for Dare County Board of Commissioners, Manteo, NC. CSE, Columbia, SC, 159 pp with synopsis plus appendices. CSE. 2013b. Monitoring and analyses of the 2011 Nags Head beach nourishment project - 2012 Beach monitoring. Year 1 monitoring report for Town of Nags Head, NC. CSE, Columbia (SC), 81 pp+appendices. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 213 Buxton, Dare County (NC) CSE. 2013c. Shoreline erosion assessment and plan for beach restoration, Rodanthe and Buxton areas, Dare County, North Carolina. Feasibility Report for Dare County Board of Commissioners, Manteo, NC. CSE, Columbia, SC, 159 pp with synopsis plus appendices. CSE. 2014. Monitoring and analyses of the 2011 Nags Head beach nourishment project: 2014 beach nourishment monitoring. Prepared for the Town of Nags Head, North Carolina. CSE, Columbia (SC),114 pp+ 9 appendices. CSE. 2015. Monitoring and analyses of the 2011 Nags Head beach nourishment project. Year 4 (2015) beach monitoring report for Town of Nags Head, NC. CSE, Columbia (SC), 97 pp + appendices (2387). CSE. 2018a. (April). Post -Project Monitoring and Maintenance Services. Proposal and Agreement with Dare County. CSE, Columbia, SC, 21 pp. CSE. 2018b. (October). Buxton (Dare County) Post -Florence Beach Condition Survey. Memorandum Report for Dare County; CSE, Columbia, SC, 6 pp+appendix. CSE. 2019a (December). Buxton (Dare County) Post -Dorian Beach Condition Survey. Memorandum Report for Dare County; CSE, Columbia, SC,10 pp. CSE. 2019b (October). Final Construction Report- 2019 Nags Head Beach Renourishment Project. Coastal Science & Engineering Inc (CSE), Columbia (SC), 74 pp + appendices (2458). CSE. 2019c. (January) Buxton (Dare County) Scoping meeting to Protect NC Hwy 12. PowerPoint Presentation for FEMA and Dare County. CSE, Columbia, SC, 24 pp. CSE. 2020 (March). Buxton (Dare County) CategoryG Restoration Project- FEMA Documentation for Disaster4393 Hurricane Florence (Sept 2018) and Disaster 4465 Hurricane Dorian (Sept 2019). Memorandum Report for FEMA; CSE, Columbia, SC, 19 pp plus attachments. CZR-CSE. 2013. Nags Head beach 2011 nourishment project. Post -year 1 report for Town of Nags Head, North Carolina. CZR Incorporated (Wilmington NC) and CSE (Columbia SC), 54 pp plus appendices. CZR-CSE. 2014. Nags Head beach 2011 nourishment project. Post -Year 2 and Final Report for Town of Nags Head, North Carolina. CZR Incorporated (Wilmington NC) and CSE (Columbia SC), 65 pp plus appendices. Chao, LN and JA Musick. 1977. Life history, feeding habits, and functional morphology of juvenile sciaenid fishes in the York River estuary, Virginia. Fish. Bull. 75: 657-702. Chase, BC. 2002. Differences in diet of Atlantic Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) at five seasonal feeding grounds on the New England continental shelf. Fish. Bull. 100:168-180. Coles, RJ 1916. Natural history notes on the devilfish, Manta birostris (Walbaum) and Mobula olfersi (Muller). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 35, 649-657. Cowardin, LM, V Carter, GC Golet, and ET LaRoe. 1979. Wetlands classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-79/31, Washington, DC, 142 pp. Crowe, SE, DC Bergquist, DM Sanger, and RF Van Dolah. 2016. Physical and biological alterations following dredging in two beach nourishment borrow areas in South Carolina's coastal zone. Journal of Coastal Research: Volume 32, Issue 4:875-889. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-00075.1. Dean, RG. 2002. Beach Nourishment: Theory and Practice. World Scientific, NJ, 399 pp. Deaton, AS, WS Chappell, K Hart, J O'Neal, and B Boutin. 2010. North Carolina coastal habitat protection plan. NCDENR, Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC, 589 pp plus appendices. Diaz RJ, GR CutterJr, and CH Hobbs 111. 2004. Potential impacts of sand mining offshore of Maryland and Delaware: Part2-Biological Considerations. Journal of Coastal Research. Vol 20 (1), pp 61-69. Dibajnia, M and RB Nairn. 2011. Investigation of Dredging Guidelines to Maintain and Protect the Geomorphic Integrity of Offshore Ridge and Shoal Regimes, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Leasing Division. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-025. 150 pp. +appendices. Dinsmore, SJ, JA Collazo, and JR Walters. 1998. Seasonal numbers and distribution of shorebirds on North Carolina's Outer Banks. The Wilson Bulletin Vol 110(2), pp 171-181. Dolan, R and H Lins. 1986. The Outer Banks of North Carolina. Professional Paper 1177-B, Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service, US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 49 pp. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 214 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Dolan, R, S Trossbach, and M Buckley. 1990. New shoreline erosion data for the mid -Atlantic coast. Journal of Coastal Research, Vol 6(2), pp 471-478. Doshkov, P., K. Losch, W Thompson, J Wright, and TA Ziegler. 2019. Shorebird monitoring and management at Cape Hatteras National Seashore: 2018 annual report. National Park Service, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Manteo, NC Douglass, SL. 1997. Nearshore placement of sand. In Proceedings 25t" ICCE, ASCE, New York, NY, Vol 3, Chap 286, pp 3708-3721. Engelhaupt, D, T Pusser, J Aschettino, A Engelhaupt, M Cotter, M Richlen, and J Bell. 2020. Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) sightings off the coast of Virginia. Marine Biodiversity Records.13:6. May. https://doi.org/10.1186/s4l200-020-00189-y Everts, CH, JP Battley, and PN Gibson. 1983. Shoreline movements: report 1: Cape Henry, Virginia, to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 1849-1980. Technical Report CERC-83-1, Coastal Engineering Research Center, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 111 pp. FEMA. 2020. Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide V4.0. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, pp 221 + 14 appendices. Fussell, III JO. 1994. A Birder's Guide to Coastal North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 540 pp. Gartland, J, RJ Latour, AD Halvorson, and HM Austin. 2006. Diet composition of young -of -the -year bluefish in the lower Chesapeake Bay and coastal Virginia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol 135, pp 371-378. Gaspard, J, G Bauer, R Reep, K Dziuk, A Cardwell, L Read, and D Mann. 2015. Audiogram and auditory critical ratios of two Florida manatees. Journal of Experimental Biology 215, 1442-1447. doi:10.1242/jeb.065649 Gerstein, E, J Blue, G Pinto, and S Barr. 2006. Underwater noise and zones of masking with respect to hopper dredging and manatees in the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, FL. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 120. 3153. 10.1121/1.4787832. Godfrey, M. 2013. NCWRC website news article, 7 January 2013. Guilfoyle. MP, and RA Fischer. 2006. Summary of first regional workshop on dredging, beach nourishment, and birds of the south Atlantic coast. USACE, Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program. ERDC/EL TR-06-10. Hackney, CT, and MH Posey, SW Ross, and AR Norris. 1996. A review and synthesis of data on surf zone fishes and invertebrates in the south Atlantic Bight and the potential impacts from beach nourishment. Report to USACE, Wilmington, NC, 111 pp. Hawkins, AD, AE Pembroke, and AN Popper. 2014. Information gaps in understanding the effects of noise on fish and invertebrates. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, DOI 10.1007/s11160-014-9369-3, published online 12 September. Hayes, MO. 1994. Georgia Bight. Chapter 7 in RA Davis, Jr (ed), Geology of the Holocene Barrier Island System, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 233-304. Hettler, W and J Hare. 1998. Abundance and Size of Larval Fishes outside the Entrance to Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina. Estuaries. 21.476-499. 10.2307/1352846. Houston, JR. 1995. The economic value of beaches. The CERCular, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Waterways Experiment Station. Vol CERC-95-4, pp 1-4. Houston, JR. 2002. The economic value of beaches - 2002 update. Shore & Beach, Vol 70(1), pp 9-12. Houston, JR. 2013. Global sea level projections to 2100 using methodology of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, ASCE, Vol 139(2), pp 82-87. Houston, A, and S Cameron. 2008. Annual Program Report 2007-2008. Wildlife Diversity Program, Division of Wildlife Management, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Raleigh, NC, p 152. Hranicka, T. 2020. Hatteras Island Real Estate: 2020 State of the Market Report. Island Free Press (27 January). https://islandfreepress.org/real-estate/hatteras-island-real-estate-2020-state-of-the-market-report/. Accessed 24 March 2020. Inman, D, and R Dolan. 1989. The Outer Banks of North Carolina: budget of sediment and inlet dynamics along a migrating barrier system. Jour Coastal Research, Vol 5(2), pp 193-237. Johnson, C, C Powell, and M Miller. 2020. Status and Distribution of Colonial Waterbirds during the 2020 Nesting Season in Coastal North Carolina. Final Report to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. NCWRC. 37 pp. Jutte, PC, RF Van Dolah, and PT Gayes. 2002. Recovery of benthic communities following offshore dredging, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Jour Shore & Beach, Vol 70(3), pp 25-30. Kana, TW, and RK Mohan. 1998. Analysis of nourished profile stability following the fifth Hunting Island (SC) beach nourishment project. Jour Coastal Engineering, Vol 33, pp 117-136. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 215 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Kana, TW, HL Kaczkowski, and SB Traynum. 2015. An empirical approach to beach nourishment formulation. Chapter in YC Kim (ed), Design of Coastal Structures and Sea Defenses, Vol 2, Series on Coastal and Engineering Practice, World Scientific, pp 105-144. Kikukawa, A, N Kamezaki, and H Ota. 1999. Factors affecting nesting beach selection by loggerhead turtles (Caretta: a multiple regression approach. Journal of Zoology249 (4): 447-454. Lane, B. 2013. Hatteras Island economic impact. Report to Outer Banks Visitors Bureau. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 22 pp. Langin, K. 2018. Seaweed masses assault Caribbean islands. Science. 360. 1157-1158. 10.1126/science.360.6394.1157. Leffler, M, C Baron, B Scarborough, K Hathaway, P Hodges, and C Townsend. 1996. Annual data summary for 1994 CERC Field Research Facility (2 volumes). USACE-WES, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS, Tech Rept CERC-96-6. Lesage, V, K Gavrilchuk, R Andrews, and R Sears. 2017. Foraging areas, migratory movements, and winter destinations of the blue whale from the western North Atlantic. Endangered Species Research. Vol. 34: 27-43. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00838. Lindquist DG, Cahoon LB, Clavijo IE, Posey MH, Bolden SK, Pike LA, Burk SW, Cardullo PA, 1994. Reef fish stomach contents and prey abundance on reef and sand substrata associated with adjacent artificial and natural reefs in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Bull. Mar. Sci., 55 308-318. Louime, C, J Fortune, and Gervais, G. 2017. Sargassum invasion of coastal environments: a growing concern. American Journal of Environmental Sciences 13(1): 58-64 MAFMC. 1998. Amendment 11 to the fishery management plan for the summer flounder fishery. Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Dover DE MMS. 1999. Use of federal offshore sand resources for beach and coastal restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. Environmental Report, Minerals Management Service, USDO1, MMS 99-0036. Machemehl, JL. 1979. Damage and repairs to coastal structures. In Proceedings Coastal Structures `79,ASCE, New York, NY, pp 314- 332. Mansfield, KL, V Saba, J Keinath, and J Musick. 2009. Satellite tracking reveals a dichotomy in migration strategies amongjuvenile loggerhead turtles in the northwest Atlantic. Marine Biology (2009) 156: 2555-2570. McBride, M. 2019. Jumby Bay Island SargassumAssessment. Preliminary Report to Jumby Bay Island Company, West Indies. Coastal Science & Engineering Inc, Columbia SC, 18 pp. McClellan, CM and AJ Read. 2007. Complexity and variation in loggerhead sea turtle life history. Biology Letters. McNinch, JE, KL Brodie, HM Wadman, KK Hathaway, RK Slocum, RP Mulligan, JL Hanson, and WA Birkemeier. 2012. Observations of wave runup, shoreline hotspot erosion, and sound -side seiching during Hurricane Irene at the Field Research Facility. Shore & Beach, Vol 80(2), pp 19-37. McQueen, AD, B Suede[, and J Wilkins. 2019. Review of Adverse Biological Effects of Dredging -induced Underwater Sounds. WEDA Journal of Dredging. 17 No. 1. March. Medeiros, AM, OJ Luiz, and C Domit. 2015. Occurrence and use of an estuarine habitat by giant manta ray Manta birostris. US Journal of Fish Biology., Vol 86, Issue 6, pp. 1669-1893. Michel, J, EH Owens, S Zengel, A Graham, Z Nixon, T Allard, W Holton, PD Reimer, A Eamarche, M White, N Rutherford, C Childs, G Mauseth, G Challenger, and E Taylor. 2013. Extent and degree of shoreline oiling: Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Gulf of Mexico, USA. PEoS ONE 8(6):e65087. Miller, M H and C Klimovich. 2017. Endangered Species Act Status Review Report: Giant Manta Ray (Manta birostris) and Reef Manta Ray (Manta alfredi). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD. September. 128 pp. Molina, KC and RM Erwin. 2006. Distribution and conservation status of the gull -billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) in North America. Waterbirds 29: 271-295. Moslow, TF and SD Heron. 1994. The Outer Banks of North Carolina: In Geology of Holocene Barrier Island Systems, Springer-Verlag, pp. 47-74. Mrosovsky, N, and JA Provancha. 1992. Sex ratio of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles: data and estimates from a five-year study. Canadian Journal of Zoology, Vol 70, pp 530-538. NCCRC. 2015. North Carolina sea -level rise assessment report: 2015 update to the 2010 report and 2012 addendum. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management, NC Coastal Resources Commission Science Panel, Raleigh, NC. 34 pp. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 216 Buxton, Dare County (NC) NCDCM. 2009. Developing a Management Strategy for North Carolina's Coastal Ocean. Report of the Ocean Policy Steering Committee, North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, 68 pp plus appendices. NCDEM. 1989. Tar -Pamlico River basin nutrient sensitive waters designation and nutrient management strategy. Water Quality Section, North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC. NCDEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic macroi nverteb rate data base and long term changes in water quality. 1983-1990. Water Quality Section, North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC. NCDEQ. 2016. North Carolina habitat protection plan, Morehead City. NC Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Marine Fisheries, 33 pp. NCDOT.2015. NC Feasibility Study from Avon to Buxton, Dare County North Carolina. State Transportation Improvement Program Project. Prepared for NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit. Division 1 WSB Number 34611.1.2. December. Prepared by URS Corporation. 63 pp. NCNHP. 2017. Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area: 2018 Beach Renourishment at Nags Head County of Dare, North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Raleigh, NC. Project No CP#2276, 27 March 2017, NCNHDE-3209. NMFS. 1997. Regional biological opinion concerning the use of hopper dredges in channels and borrow areas along the southeast U.S. Atlantic coast. South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion (SARBO). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, 16 pp. NMFS. 2003. Biological opinion on the effects of the Army Corps of Engineers dredging in Cape Henry Channel, York Spit Channel, York River Entrance Channel, and Rappahannock Shoal Channel, Virginia, on threatened and endangered species. National Marine Fisheries Service, NE Region, Gloucester, MA, 101 pp plus. NMFS. 2010. Essential Fish Habitat. A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. Southeast Regional Office. NMFS. 2017. Fisheries of the United States, 2017 Report. National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, MD.,142 pp. NMFS. 2020. South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion for Dredging and Material Placement Activities in the Southeast United States. NOAA/NMFS/Southeast Regional Office Protected Resource Division, Consultation Number SERO-2019-03111. March with July update. 653 pp. NOAA. 2016. Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammals, Underwater Acoustic Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Shifts. Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-55, July. NOAA. 2017. South Atlantic Regional Action Plan to Implement the NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy. Draft for Public Review, February 2017. Southeast Fisheries Science Center. NOAA. 2019 84 FIR 66652. Notice of determination on designation of critical habitatfor giant manta ray. 5 December. Pages 66652- 66664. NPS. 1980. Cope Hatteras Lighthouse, Buxton, North Carolina. National Park Service, Authors: MTMA Design Group, JL Machemehl, NPS, 139 pp. NPS. 2006. Management Policies. The Guide to Managing the National Park System. US Department of Interior, National Park Service, US Government Printing Office,180 pp. NPS. 2007. Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2007 sea turtle annual report. US Department of Interior, National Park Service, Manteo, NC, 16 pp. NPS. 2012a. Colonial National Historical Park: repair and stabilize the York River shoreline to protect the Colonial Parkway. Environmental Assessment Doc 333/1008000, PMIS No. 145520. NPS, 222 pp. NPS. 2012b. National Park Service Beach Nourishment Guidance. Technical Report NOPS/NRSS/GRD/NRTR-2012/581, National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO, 59 pp NPS. 2013a. Colonial waterbird 2013 summary. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, US Department of Interior, National Park Service, Harkers Island, NC, 9 pp. NPS. 2013a. Inventory of coastal engineering projects in Cape Hatteras National Seashore. See above Dallas et at. 2013. NPS. 2013b. Sea turtle monitoring 2013 annual report. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, US Department of Interior, National Park Service, Manteo, NC. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 217 Buxton, Dare County (NC) NIPS. 2014. Colonial Waterbird monitoring 2014 annual report. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, US Department of Interior. National Park Service. Manteo, NC. p72. https://www.nps.gov/caha/learn/nature/upload/2014-Colonial-waterbird-Annual-Report- Final-with-maps.Ddf NIPS. 2015a. Colonial waterbird monitoring 2015 annual report. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, National Park Service, Manteo, NC,16 pp. https://www.nps.gov/caha/learn/nature load/2015-CWB-Annual-Report-final.pdf. NIPS. 2015b. Wilson's plover (Charadrius wilsonia) monitoring 2015 report. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, US Department of Interior. National Park Service, pp 78. https://www.nps.gov/caha/learn.nature/upload/2015-WIPL-Annual Report-final.pdf. NIPS. 2015c. Marine Mammal 2015 summary from Cape Hatteras. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, US Department of Interior, National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/articles/caha mm2015.htm. NIPS. 2015d. Sea turtle annual 2015 annual report from Cape Hatteras. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, US Department of Interior, National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/articles/caha st2015.htm. NIPS. 2015e. EA -review and adjustment of wildlife buffers, Cape Hatteras National Seashore. US Department of Interior, National Park Service. April. NIPS. 2016a. Natural resources 2016 annual report. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, US Department of Interior, National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/caha/learn/nature load/2016-Annual-Reports-FINAL-03-09-2017.pdf. NIPS. 2016b. _Marine mammal strandings: 2016 summary. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Manteo, NC. 13 pp. https://www.nps.gov/caha/learn/nature/upload/2016-Marine-Mammal-Summary Final-Maps-01-10-2017.pdf. NPS. 2019. Coastal Species of Concern Predation Management Plan and Programmatic Environmental Assessment. Southeast Region National Park Service -Finding of No Significant Impact. February. 50 pp. NPS.2021a. Cape Hatteras National Seashore Sediment Management Framework- Final Environmental Impact Statement. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO, 150 pp+ appendices. NIPS. 2021b. Joint Record of Decision Sediment Management Framework- Cape Hatteras National Seashore. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO,13 pp + appendices. NRC. 1995. Beach Nourishment and Protection. Committee on Beach Nourishment and Protection, Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council; National Academy Press, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 334 pp. Normandeau Associates Inc. 2014. Understanding the habitat value and function of shoal/ridge/trough complexes to fish and fisheries on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf. Draft Literature Synthesis forthe US Dept. of Interior. BOEM. Odell, J, DH Adams, B Boutin, W Collier II, A Deary, LN Havel, JA Johnson Jr., SR Midway, J Murray, K Smith, KM Wilke, and MIN Yuen. 2017. Atlantic sciaenid habitats: a review of utilization, threats, and recommendations for conservation, management, and research. Arlington: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Management Series No. 14. Overton, MF, and JS Fisher. 2005. Bonner Bridge replacement: parallel bridge corridor with NC 12 maintenance: shoreline change and stabilization analysis. Prepared for URS Corporation -North Carolina and NCDOT, Task Orders 18 and 20, TPI No B-2500. FDH Engineering, Raleigh, NC, 39 pp. Oxenford, HA, J Franks, and D Johnson. 2015. Facing the threat of Sargassum seaweed, in: Symposium: Challenges, dialogue & cooperation towards Sustainability of the Caribbean Sea, 2015. Pendleton, EA, ER Thieler, and SJ Williams. 2005. Coastal vulnerability assessment of Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA) to sea -level rise. Open -File Report 2004-1064, US Geological Survey, Reston VA,18 pp Peterson, CH, and MJ Bishop. 2005. Assessingthe environmental impacts of beach nourishment. BioScience Vol55(10), pp 887-896. Peterson, CH, et at. 2006. Exploiting beach filling as an unaffordable experiment: benthic intertidal impacts propagating upward to shorebirds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Vol 338, pp 205-221. Popper, AN, AD Hawkins, RR Fay, and D Mann. 2014. Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles: A Technical Report prepared by ANSI -Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI.Springer. ASA S3/SC1.4 TR-2014. XVI. 76 pp. ISBN 978-3-319-06658-5. Posey, M and T Alphin. 2001. Effect of hemichordate bioturbation on infaunal abundance and composition on a sandflat in Southeastern North Carolina. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. Posey, M and T Alphin. 2002. Resilience and Stability in an Offshore Benthic Community: Responses to Sediment Borrow Activities and Hurricane Disturbance. Journal of Coastal Research 18(4): 685-697. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 218 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Ramey, P. 2008. Life history of a dominant polychaete, Polygordiusjouinoe, in inner continental shelf sands of the mid-Attantic Bight, USA. Marine Biology 154: 443-452. Ramp, C, J Delarue, PJ Pasboll, R Sears, and PS Hammond. 2015 . Adapting to a warmer ocean -seasonal shifts of baleen whale movements overthree decades. PLOS-one. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121374. Reine, KJ, D Clarke, C Dickerson, and G Wikel. 2014. Characterization of underwater sounds produced by training suction hopper dredges during sand mining and pump -out operations. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and US Army Corps of Engineers. ERDC/EL TR 14-3, BOEM 2014-055. Herndon, VA. Robinson et al. 2011. CEDA. Underwater Sound in Relation to Dredging. Position Paper. 7 November. Central Dredging Association Environment Commission. www.dredging.org. Ross, DG. 1987. Mechanics of Underwater Noise. Peninsula Publishing, Los Altos, CA. Ross, DG. 1993. On ocean underwater ambient noise. Acoustics Bulletin, January/February, pp 5-8. Rulifson, RA, C Bangley, J Cudney, A Dell'Apa, K Dunton, M Frisk, M Loeffler, M Balazik, C Hager, T Savoy, H Brundage III, and W Post. 2020. Seasonal Presence of Atlantic Sturgeon and SharksatCape Hatteras, a Large Continental Shelf Constriction to Coastal Migration. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 12: 308-321. ISSN 1942-5120 online; D O 110.1002/ m cf2.10111 Rutecki, D, T Dellapenna, E Nestler, F Sharf, J Rooker, C Glass, and A Pembroke. 2014. Understanding the Habitat Value and Function of Shoals and Shoal Complexes to Fish and Fisheries on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf. Literature Synthesis and Gap Analysis. Prepared for the US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Contract # M12PS00009. BOEW 2015-012. 176 pp. Schwartz, FJ. 2000. Elasmobranchs of the Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 116, 206- 224. Schweitzer S. 2012. Coastwide survey of colonial nesting waterbirds, May -June 2011. Conference presentation: Hammocks Beach State Park, Swansboro, NC, 8 March 2012. Schweitzer, S, and M Abraham. 2014. American oystercatcher and Wilson's plover breeding distribution and abundance estimates - 2013. Conference Presentation, Hammocks Beach State Park, Swansboro, NC. 6 March 2014. Schweitzer S, AAndersson, N Jennings, and C Johnson. 2017. Status and Distribution of Colonial Waterbirds duringthe 2017 Nesting Season in Coastal North Carolina. Final Report to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. NCWRC. 33 pp. Shirihai H and B Jarrett. 2006. Whales, Dolphins, and Other Marine Mammals of the World. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey. Slacum, WH Jr., WH Burton, and ET Methratta. 2010. Assemblage Structure in Shoal and Flat -Bottom Habitats on the Inner Continental Shelf of the Middle Atlantic Bight, USA. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science. 2:277-298. Street, MW, AS Deaton, WS Chappell, and PD Mooreside. 2005. North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NCTAR. 2021. Remote -sensing archaeological survey of a proposed borrow site off Buxton, Dare County, North Carolina. Cultural Resources Report, Tidewater Atlantic Research Inc, Washington (NC). Swift, DJP. 1976. Coastal sedimentation. In D.J. Stanley and D.J.P. Swift (eds.), Marine Sediment Transport and Environmental Management. Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp 255-310. Thieler, ER, PT Gayes, WC Schwab, and MS Harris. 1999. Tracing sediment dispersal on nourished beaches: two case studies. In Proc Coastal Sediments'99, ASCE, New York, NY, pp 2118-2136. Thieler, ER, OH Pilkey Jr, WJ Cleary, and WC Schwab. 2001. Modern sedimentation on the shoreface and inner continental shelf at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, USA. Journal of Sedimentary Research71(6):958-970. Tucker, AD. 2010. Nest site fidelity and clutch frequency of loggerhead turtles are better elucidated by satellite telemetry than by nocturnal tagging efforts: implications for stock estimation. Journal of Experimental Marine Biologyand Ecology383(1): 48-55. Turner, IL, and P Leatherman 1997. Beach Dewatering as a 'Soft' Engineering Solution to Coastal Erosion -A History and Critical Review. Journal of Coastal Research. Vol 13, No 4, pp 1050-1063 University of South Florida (2019, July 4) Scientists Discover the Biggest Seaweed Bloom in the World. Accessed July 8, 2019. USACE. 1996. Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, North Carolina, fourth groin alternative: design report and environmental assessment. Prepared forthe National Park Service. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, NC, 73 pp plus appendices. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 219 Buxton, Dare County (NC) USACE. 2000 (Sep). Final feasibility report and environmental impact statement on hurricane protection and beach erosion control: Dare County beaches (Bodie Island portion), Dare County, North Carolina. Vol I and Vol II, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, South Atlantic Division, 99 pp + appendices. USACE. 2001. The New York District's Biological Monitoring Program for the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Asbury Park to Manasquan Section Beach Erosion Control Project. Final Report, US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 11 chapters. USACE. 2002a. Coastal Engineering Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Manual 1110-2-1100, Washington, DC (in 6 volumes). USACE. 2002b. Amendmentto the environmental assessment and findings of no significant impact (FONSI) for Folly River navigation project, Charleston County, South Carolina. US Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, SC, 7 pp + app. USACE. 2006. Appendix I - Biological assessment. In Draft General Re-evaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control: West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach), North Carolina. US Army Corps of Engineers, pp 11-I28. USACE. 2008. Hopper dredging interactions with sea turtles—FY07 annual summary report for the northern Gulf of Mexico region. Final report prepared by D Dickerson, M Wolters, C Theriot. Sensitive Species Navigation Support Team Wetlands and Coastal Ecology Branch Environmental Laboratory, USACE Engineering Research & Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. USACE. 2010 (May). Final environmental impact statement, beach nourishment project, Town of Nags Head, North Carolina. US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Washington Regulatory Field Office, NC (Action ID SAW-2006-40282-182), 164 pp+ executive summary, references, and appendices. USACE. 2013. Final essential fish habitat assessment for the emergency beach fill along NC Highway 12 in Rodanthe, Dare County, NC. US Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. 2014. Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement, Coastal Storm Damage Reduction, Bogue Banks, Carteret County, NC. August. USACE. 2015. Environmental assessment Town of Duck shoreline protection project. US Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Prepared by Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. and CBI. USACE. 2017. Environmental Assessment - Nags Head Beach Renourishment. US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Washington Regulatory Field Office, NC,189 pp+8 appendices USACE-USDOI-NPS. 2015. Environmental assessment — beach restoration to protect NC Highway 12 at Buxton, Dare County, North Carolina. US Army Corps of Engineers, US Department of Interior, National Park Service, NPS 603/129663, Volume I (204 pp) and Volume II (AppendixesAto G) (2403). USEPA. 1972. Guidelines for Preparation of Analysis of Section 404 Permit Applications Pursuant to the Section 404(B)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR, Section 230). USFWS. 2007a. Loggerhead sea turtle management (caretta caretta) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, FL, 65 pp. USFWS. 2007b. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May,14 pp. USFWS. 2007c. Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus): 5-year review: summary and evaluation. Ecological Services, Southeast Region, Raleigh, NC. USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. US Department of Interior, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA, 85 pp [online version available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/<]. USFWS. 2010. Status review and conservation recommendations for the gull -billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) in North America. Biological Technical Publication, BTP-R1013-2010. USFWS. 2014. Official species list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in proposed action location or be affected by proposed action (CTN:04EN2000-2014-SLI-0473), 19 September 2014, 5 February 2015, and 29 June 2015. USFWS. 2016. Biological opinion for Buxton Beach Restoration Project, Dare County, NC. US Department of Interior, US Fish & Wildlife Service, FWS Log No 04EN2000-2016-F-0060, Charleston, SC, 212 pp + appendices. Van Dolah, RF, VJ Digre, PT Gayes, P Donovan-Ealy, and MW Dowd. 1998. An evaluation of physical recovery rates in sand borrow sites used for beach nourishment projects in South Carolina. Final Report to SC Task Force on Offshore Resources and Minerals Management Service Office of International Activities and Marine Minerals; SCDNR, Charleston, SC, 77 pp + appendices. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE—Wilmington District (NC) 220 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Van Dolah, RF, RM Martore, AE Lynch, PH Wendt, MV Levisen, DJ Whitaker, and WD Anderson. 1994. Environmental evaluation of the Folly Beach nourishment project. Final Report, USACE, Charleston District and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Division, 101 pp. Vasslides, JM, and KW Able. 2008. Importance of shoreface sand ridges as habitat for fishes off the northeast coast of the United States. Fishery Bulletin, Vol 106(1), pp 93-107. Walter, III, JS, AS Overton, KH Ferry, and ME Mather. 2003. Atlantic coast feeding habits of striped bass: a synthesis supporting a coast -wide understanding of trophic biology. Fisheries Management and Ecology, Vol 10, pp 349-360. Walters, JR, A Dayer, S Dinsmore, M Godfrey, C Gratto-Trevor, ENol, and S Riggs. 2020. Evaluating Past and Present Management of Beach -Nesting Wildlife Species at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The American Ornithological Society Committee on Science Arbitration. July 84 pp. Warraich N, R Zambrano, and EA Wright. 2012. First records of least terns nesting on non -gravel roofs. Southeastern Naturalist. Vol 11 (4), pp 775-778. Webster WD, JF Parnell, WC Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press. 255 pp. Wilber, DH, and DG Clarke. 2007. Defining and assessing benthic recovery following dredged material disposal. Session 3D- Environmental Aspects of Dredging. Western Dredging Association Conference Presentation. WEDA, Florida. Wilber, DH, DG Clarke, G Ray, and R Van Dolah. 2009. Lessons learned from biological monitoring of beach nourishment projects. Session 36-Environmental Aspects of Dredging. Western Dredging Association Conference Presentation. WEDA, Arizona. Witherington, BE. 1992. Behavioral responses of nesting sea turtles to artificial lighting. Herpetologica 48(1): 31-39. Witherington, BE, and RE Martin. 2000. Understanding, assessing, and resolving light -pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. Technical Report TR-2, Florida Marine Research Institute, St Petersburg, FL. Zdravkovic, MG. 2013. Conservation plan forthe Wilson's plover (Chorodrius wilsonia). Version 1.0. Manomet Centerfor Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA, USA. JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 221 Buxton, Dare County (NC) Websites http://www.allaboutbirds.oriz (shorebirds) http://www.a[[aboutbirds.org https://www. audubon.or /fg ield-guide (shorebirds) http://www.birdtife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=3266 (roseate tern; with references added in text above) http://www.carolinabirdclub.org/ncbirds/accounts.12hl2 (Birds of North Carolina) (accessed 3 August 2015) http://www.dpr.ncparks.gov/mammals/reference.php http://www.ebird.or https://www.fws.gov (Species Profiles) http://www.fws.gov/migratoUbirds https://www.fws.gov/bi rds/management/managed-species/bald-and-go [den-eagle-i nformation. ph p https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species-reports http://explorer.natureserve.org/serviet/NatureServe?searchN ame=eubalaena+glaci alis https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/ListedSpeciesMSRP.htmi http://www.fws.gov/northeast/redknot/pdf/Red knot BWfactsheet092013.pdf http://www.fws.gov/northeast/redknot/pdf/OAs RedKnotpL FINAL 092713.pdf http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pdf/Roseatetern05ll.pd http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es seabeach amaranth.html http://www.georgiawi Idlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accounts/birds/geloche[idon ni[otica.pdf- 24 October 2014, USFWS 2010 https://www.greateratiantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2017/08/critical habitat for atlantic sturgeon.html httl2://www.IPCC.ch.2017 http://nas.er.usgsseov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=488 (blue back herring fact sheet) http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/psb/surveys/index.htmi (Interactive North Atlantic Right Whale Sightings Map) http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals (mammals, turtles, and fish species information) https://www.nps.gov/articles/caha pip12014.htm http://www.nps.gov/caha/learn/nature/birds.htm https://www.nps.gov/caha/learn.nature/upload/2015-WIPL-Annua[ Report-finaLpdf. https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federairegister.gov/2017- 17207.pdf?utm source=Atlantic+Sturgeon+Critical+Habitat&utm campaign=ANS+CH&utm medium=email http://seamap.env.duke.edu (OBIS-SEAMAP access 30 March 2017) https://www.seaturtle.org JULY 2021 Environmental Assessment USACE-Wilmington District (NC) 222 Buxton, Dare County (NC)