Signed 2018-02230 Oak Island Modification #2 Package

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
May 14, 2021
Regulatory Division
Action ID: SAW-2018-02230, Permit Modification #2
Mr. David Kelly
Town of Oak Island
4601 E. Oak Island Drive
Oak Island, North Carolina 28465
Dear Mr. Kelley:
Please reference the Town of Oak Island's (Town) May 12, 2021 letter, submitted by
your agent, Moffatt and Nichol Engineers, requesting to modify the issued April 13, 2020
Department of the Army (DA) permit for the dredging, beach placement, and dune planting
activity on Oak Island. The Town had previously requested a two -week time extension from
May 1, 2021 to May 15, 2021 to allow for the continuation of offshore dredging and active
placement of beach -compatible material along the oceanfront shoreline and to allow
demobilization activities from May 15 through May 26, 2021. The Corps of Engineers (Corps)
approved this modification request on April 30, 2021.
The May 12, 2021 extension request seeks an extension of dredging and beach fill
operations until midnight on May 17, 2021 for the Dredge Ohio (cutterhead or hydraulic dredge)
and until midnight on May 22, 2021 for the Dredge Dodge Island (hopper dredge). The deadline
for demobilization from the beach will remain at dusk on May 26, 2021. The demobilizing from
the beach of all pipeline and equipment must occur during daylight hours only.
Upon the review of the Town's request and coordination with the federal agencies, our
office has determined that the modification can be authorized pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. In our Section 7 re -consultation
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), their office completed the April 29, 2021
Biological Opinion (BO) (see Attachment B) to address the original modification and it's
potential for adverse effects to federally listed species and critical habitat. This BO supersedes
the previous State Programmatic Biological Opinion that covered the Town's initial work. The
USFWS has completed an amendment to this BO, dated May 13, 2021, to address requested
Modification #2. The Town must adhere to all the Conservation Measures outlined in the
original BO and the Corps' April 30, 2021 modification (these conditions also included with this
authorization) for the continued beach placement, demobilization, and dune planting activities.
These measures are included in Attachment (A) for your convenience.

-2-
Furthermore, during Moffat and Nichol's review of a pipeline location for the hopper
dredge, hardbottom habitat was discovered within the alignment. Please note that, if additional
pipeline is to be used, all corridors must be surveyed for hardbottom and verified by our office
prior to any installation. This permit modification does not authorize the placement of any
pipeline or anchors within hardbottom habitat at any time.
All other Special Conditions as prescribed in the original April 13, 2020 DA
authorization remain valid, including the full implementation of the National Marine Fisheries
Service Protective Resource Division's 2020 South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion
(SARBO). If you have any questions or comments, please contact Greg Currey at (910) 523-
1151 or [e-mail], Wilmington Regulatory Field Office.
Sincerely,
CURREY.GREGORY Digital ysigned by
CURREY.GREGORY.EUGEN E.105
.EUGENE.1051011 1011950
Date: 2021.05.14 12:07:34
950-04,00,
Greg Currey, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures:
Copies furnished via email w/enclosures:
Moffatt & Nichol; Mr. Sam Morrison
Moffatt & Nichol; Ms. Dawn York
USFWS: Ms. Kathy Matthews
NCDEQ/DWR; Ms. Holley Snider
NCDEQ/DWR; Mr. Paul Wojoski
NCDEQ/DCM; Ms. Tara MacPherson
NCDEQ/DCM; Ms. Heather Coats
NOAA/NMFS; Mr. Fritz Rohde
NOAA/NMFS; Ms. Twyla Cheatwood
NCWRC; Ms. Maria Dunn
NOAA/NMFS; Mr. Pace Wilber

-2-
ATTACHMENT (A)
(USFWS Conservation Measures)
FOR BEACH PLACEMENT ACTIVITIES FROM MAY 1— MAY 22, 2021
1. All derelict concrete, metal, and coastal armoring geotextile material and other debris must
be removed from the beach prior to any sand placement to the maximum extent possible. If
debris removal activities take place during the sea turtle nesting season, the work must be
conducted during daylight hours only and must not commence until completion of the sea
turtle nesting survey each day.
2. Predator -proof trash receptacles must be installed and maintained during construction at all
beach access points used for the project construction and any maintenance events, to
minimize the potential for attracting predators of piping plovers, red knots, and sea turtles.
All contractors conducting the work must provide predator -proof trash receptacles for the
construction workers. All contractors and their employees must be briefed on the importance
of not littering and keeping the Action Area free of trash and debris.
All personnel involved in the construction or sand placement process along the beach shall be
trained to recognize the presence of piping plovers and red knots prior to initiation of work
on the beach. Before start of work each morning, a visual survey must be conducted in the
area of work for that day, to determine if piping plovers or red knots are present. If plovers or
red knots are present in the work area, careful movement of equipment in the early morning
hours should allow those individuals to move out of the area. Construction operations shall
not begin until individual plovers or red knots have exited the work area for the day. If piping
plovers or red knots are observed, the observer shall make a note on the Quality Assurance
form for that day and submit the information to the Corps and the Service's Raleigh Field
Office the following day. See REPORTING, below.
4. Only beach compatible fill must be placed on the beach or in any associated dune system.
Beach compatible fill must be sand that is similar to a native beach in the vicinity of the site
that has not been affected by prior sand placement activity. Beach compatible fill must be
sand solely of natural sediment and shell material, containing no construction debris, toxic
material, or other foreign matter, or large amounts of granular material, gravel, or rock. The
beach compatible fill must be similar in both color and grain size distribution (sand grain
frequency, mean and median grain size and sorting coefficient) to the native material in the
Action Area. Beach compatible fill is material that maintains the general character and
functionality of the material occurring on the beach and in the adjacent dune and coastal
system.
a) Beach compatible fill consisting predominantly of quartz, carbonate (i.e., shell, coral) or
similar material with a particle size distribution ranging between 0.0625 millimeters
(mm) and 2.76 mm, classified as sand by either the Unified Soils or Wentworth
classification systems;

-3-
b) Beach compatible fill containing less than or equal to 2 % fine-grained sediment (<
0.0625 mm, considered silt, clay and colloids) by weight, unless sufficient sampling of
the project area indicates that the native sediment grain size distribution contains > 2 %
fine-grained material, in which case compatible material should be considered the
percentage of fine-grained native material plus no more than an additional 2 % by weight;
c) Beach compatible fill containing coarse gravel, cobbles or material retained on a 3/4 inch
sieve in a percentage or size not greater than found on the native beach; and
d) Beach compatible fill that does not contain carbonate (i.e., shell) material that exceeds the
average percentage of carbonate material on the native beach by more than 15 % by
weight.
5. During dredging operations, material placed on the beach shall be inspected daily to ensure
compatibility. If during the sampling process non -beach compatible material, including large
amounts of shell or rock, is or has been placed on the beach all work shall stop immediately
and the NCDCM and the Corps will be notified by the permittee and/or its contractors to
determine the appropriate plan of action.
6. From May 1 through November 15, to the maximum extent practicable, excavations and
temporary alteration of beach topography (outside of the active construction zone) will be
filled or leveled to the natural beach profile prior to 9:00 p.m. each day.
7. If any nesting turtles are sighted on the beach during construction, construction activities
must cease immediately until the turtle has returned to the water, and the sea turtle permit
holder responsible for nest monitoring has marked for avoidance or relocated any nest(s) that
may have been laid. If a nesting sea turtle is observed at night, all work on the beach will
cease and all lights will be extinguished (except for those necessary for safety) until after the
female has finished laying eggs and returned to the water.
8. During the sea turtle nesting season, the contractor must not extend the beach fill more than
2,000 feet along the shoreline (divided between two work areas) and must confine work
activities within these two work areas between dusk and dawn of the following day until the
daily nesting survey has been completed and the beach cleared for fill advancement. A
permitted sea turtle surveyor must be present on -site in each work area to ensure no nesting
and hatchling sea turtles are present. Once the beach has been cleared and the necessary nest
relocations have been completed, the contractor will be allowed to proceed with the
placement of fill and work activities during daylight hours until dusk at which time the 2,000-
foot total length limitation must apply. If a nesting sea turtle is sighted on the beach within
the construction area, activities must cease immediately until the turtle has returned to the
water and the sea turtle permit holder responsible for nest monitoring has relocated the nest.
9. If movement of equipment up or down the beach (outside of the active nighttime
construction area) is required between dusk and dawn, an additional nighttime monitor must
accompany vehicles operating on the beach, watching for signs of turtle activity ahead of the
vehicle. If activity is discovered, the vehicle must stop or reverse direction until the activity
ceases and the monitor clears the forward progress of the vehicle. Movement of equipment
up or down the beach during nighttime operations would be conducted from the off -beach

In
access point to the construction area and vice -versa (traveling from the off -beach access point
to the construction area).
10. The Applicant shall submit alighting plan for the equipment and dredge that will be used in
the project. The plan shall include a description of each light source that will be visible on or
from the beach and the measures implemented to minimize this lighting. The plan shall be reviewed
for approval by the Service.
11. Direct lighting of the beach and nearshore waters must be limited to the immediate
construction area during the nesting season and must comply with safety requirements.
Lighting on all equipment must be minimized through reduction, shielding, lowering, and
appropriate placement to avoid excessive illumination of the water's surface and nesting
beach while meeting all Coast Guard, Corps EM 385-1-1, and OSHA requirements. Light
intensity of lighting equipment must be reduced to the minimum standard required by OSHA
for General Construction areas, in order to not misdirect sea turtles. Shields must be affixed
to the light housing and be large enough to block light from all on -beach lamps from being
transmitted outside the construction area or to the adjacent sea turtle nesting beach (Figure 2-
2).
CROSS SECTION
Li* Source
top S�jie�D;
SOtI0H1
ocean seach Work Area Bend()
Figure 2-2. Beach lighting schematic.
BEACH LIGHTING
SCHEMATIC
12. Daily (before 9 am) nesting surveys and egg relocation must be conducted if any portion of
the sand placement occurs during the period from May 1 through November 15. If sand is
placed on the beach at night, a nighttime monitor must survey the beach area that is affected
that night, prior to the morning's normal nesting activity survey. No daytime movement of

-5-
equipment up or down the beach (outside of the active nighttime construction area described
in number 5, above) may commence until completion of the sea turtle nesting survey each
morning. If nests are constructed in the project area, the nests must be marked and either
avoided until completion of the project or relocated.
a) Nesting surveys must be initiated by May 1 and must continue through the end of the
project. If nests are constructed in areas where they may be affected by construction
activities, the eggs must be relocated to minimize sea turtle nest burial, crushing of eggs,
or nest excavation.
b) Nesting surveys and nest marking will only be conducted by personnel with prior
experience and training in these activities, and who are duly authorized to conduct such
activities through a valid permit issued by the Service or the NCWRC. Nesting surveys
must be conducted daily between sunrise and 9 am.
c) Only those nests that may be affected by construction or sand placement activities will be
relocated. Nest relocation must not occur upon completion of the project. For
demobilization, nests will be marked and avoided. Nests requiring relocation must be
moved no later than 9 am the morning following deposition to a nearby self -release beach
site in a secure setting where artificial lighting will not interfere with hatchling
orientation. Relocated nests must not be placed in organized groupings. Relocated nests
must be randomly staggered along the length and width of the beach in settings that are
not expected to experience daily inundation by high tides or known to routinely
experience severe erosion and egg loss, predation, or subject to artificial lighting. Nest
relocations in association with construction activities must cease when construction
activities no longer threaten nests.
d) Nests deposited within areas where construction activities have ceased or will not occur
for 65 days must be marked for avoidance and left in situ unless other factors threaten the
success of the nest. Nests must be marked with four stakes at a 10-foot distance around
the perimeter of the nest for the buffer zone. The turtle permit holder must install an on -
beach marker at the nest site and a secondary marker at a point as far landward as
possible to assure that future location of the nest will be possible should the on -beach
marker be lost. No activities that could result in impacts to the nest will occur within the
marked area. Nest sites must be inspected daily to assure nest markers remain in place
and the nest has not been disturbed by the project activity.
13. From May 1 through November 15, staging areas for construction equipment must be located
off the beach. Nighttime storage of construction equipment not in use must be off the beach
to minimize disturbance to sea turtle nesting and hatching activities. In addition, all
construction pipes placed on the beach must be located as far landward as possible without
compromising the integrity of the dune system. Pipes placed parallel to the dune must be 5 to
10 feet away from the toe of the dune if the width of the beach allows. If pipes are stored on
the beach, they must be placed in a manner that will minimize the impact to nesting habitat
and must not compromise the integrity of the dune systems.
14. Demobilization of equipment from the beach must be conducted only during daylight hours,
after the daily survey for sea turtle nests has been completed. Any nests that are identified
must be marked for avoidance as described in number 12.d. above and avoided during all
demobilization activities.

52
15. Visual surveys for escarpments along the Action Area must be made immediately after
completion of sand placement, and within 30 days prior to May 1 for two subsequent years
after any construction or sand placement event. Escarpments that interfere with sea turtle
nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for a distance of 100 feet must be leveled and the
beach profile must be reconfigured to minimize scarp formation by the dates listed above.
Any escarpment removal must be reported by location. If the sand placement activities are
completed during the early part of the sea turtle nesting and hatching season (May 1 through
May 30), escarpments must be leveled immediately, while protecting nests that have been
relocated or left in place. The Service must be contacted immediately if subsequent
reformation of escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in
height for a distance of 100 feet occurs during the nesting and hatching season to determine
the appropriate action to be taken. If it is determined that escarpment leveling is required
during the nesting or hatching season, the Service or NCWRC will provide a brief written
authorization within 30 days that describes methods to be used to reduce the likelihood of
impacting existing nests. An annual summary of escarpment surveys and actions taken must
be submitted to the Service's Raleigh Field Office.
16. Sand compaction must be monitored at least twice after each sand placement event. Sand
compaction must be monitored in the project area immediately after completion of any sand
placement event and one time after project completion between October 1 and May 1. Out -
year compaction monitoring and remediation are not required if the placed material no longer
remains on the dry beach. Within 7 days of completion of sand placement and prior to any
tilling (if needed), a field meeting shall be held with the Service, NCWRC and the Corps to
inspect the project area for compaction and determine whether tilling is needed.
a) If tilling is needed, the area must be tilled to a depth of 36 inches. All tilling activities
shall be completed prior to May 1 of any year.
b) Tilling must occur landward of the wrack line and avoid all vegetated areas that are 3
square feet of greater, with a 3 square feet buffer around all vegetation.
c) If tilling occurs during the shorebird nesting season (after April 1, shorebird surveys are
required prior to tilling per the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
d) A summary of the compaction assessments and the actions taken shall be included in the
annual report to NCDCM, the Corps and the Service's Raleigh Field Office.
e) These conditions will be evaluated and may be modified if necessary, to address and
identify sand compaction problems.
17. Two surveys must be conducted of all lighting visible from the beach placement area by the
Applicant or the Corps, using standard techniques for such a survey, in the year following
construction. The first survey must be conducted between May 1 and May 15, and a brief
summary provided to Service. The second survey must be conducted between July 15 and
August 1. A summary report of the surveys (including the following information:
methodology of the survey, a map showing the position of lights visible from the beach, a
description of each light source visible from the beach, recommendations for remediation,
and any actions taken) must be submitted to the Raleigh Field Office within 3 months after
the last survey is conducted. After the annual report is completed, a meeting must be set up
with the Applicant, County, the Corps, NCWRC, and the Service to discuss the survey report,
as well as any documented sea turtle disorientations in or adjacent to the project area. If the

-7-
project is completed during the nesting season and prior to May 1, the contractor may
conduct the lighting surveys during the year of construction. See APPENDIX for survey
instructions.
18. Beginning May 1st, in addition to daily (sunrise to 9:00 AM) monitors, the contractor
will add nightly (dusk till dawn) certified monitors to conduct beach surveillance during
construction to prevent unintentional harm to sea turtles or their nesting areas.
19. There will be no daytime movement of equipment up or down the beach for the day
(outside of the active construction area) until completion of the sea turtle nesting survey,
which will be performed by 9:00 AM each morning.
20. Will confine work activities within two work areas (totaling 2,000 if of shoreline)
between dusk and dawn of the following day until the daily sea turtle nesting survey has
been completed and the beach cleared for fill advancement. Additionally, pipeline will be
kept close to the dune and monitored as well.
21. If nesting turtles, hatchlings, nests, or eggs are seen in the project area:
a) Construction activities will cease immediately within 500 feet of the turtle.
b) All lights will be extinguished (except for those necessary for safety) until after
the female has finished laying eggs and returned to the water, and the designated
sea turtle monitor has marked for avoidance or relocated any nest(s) that may
have been laid.
c) The nests will be marked and either avoided until completion of the project or
relocated prior to commencement of construction for the day.
d) The contractor shall maintain a 50 ft buffer from a nest, or any eggs found. Work
inside the 50 ft buffer zone shall only resume upon receiving permission from
Wildlife Resources Commission staff.
e) If recently emerged hatchlings from an unmarked nest are observed, all work shall
immediately stop within 100 ft of the hatchlings. Work shall not resume within
100 ft of the emerged nest until authorized sea turtle volunteers can excavate the
nest and release any remaining hatchlings into the ocean.
f) If a nesting sea turtle is observed and the turtle successfully places a clutch of
eggs on the beach, work in the area shall not resume until the eggs can be
relocated to a safe area. If the turtle returns to the water without nesting, work
may resume in the affected area.
22. Lighting during the nesting season:
a) Lighting associated with the project will be minimized to reduce the possibility of
disrupting and/or misdirecting nesting and/or hatchling sea turtles.
b) Direct lighting of the beach and near -shore waters will be limited to the
immediate construction area during the nesting season and will comply with
safety requirements.

10
c) Lighting on all equipment will be minimized through reduction, shielding,
lowering, and appropriate placement to avoid excessive illumination of the
water's surface and nesting beach while meeting all USACE, USACE EM 385-1-
1, and OSHA requirements.
d) Shields will be affixed to the light housing and be large enough to block light
from all on -beach lamps from being transmitted outside the construction area or to
the adjacent sea turtle nesting beach.
Reporting Commitments:
In order to monitor the impacts of incidental take, the Corps must report the progress of the Action
and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement (50 CFR
§402.14(i)(3)). This section provides the specific instructions for such monitoring and reporting
(M&R). As necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility, the Corps must require any
permittee, to accomplish the M&R through enforceable terms that are added to the permit, contract,
or grant document. Such enforceable terms must include a requirement to immediately notify the
Corps and the Service if the amount or extent of incidental take specified in the ITS is exceeded
during Action implementation.
1. Sea turtle nesting surveys must be conducted within the project area between May 1 and
November 15 of each year, for at least two consecutive nesting seasons after completion of each sand
placement activity (2 years post -construction monitoring after initial construction and each
maintenance event). Acquisition of readily available sea turtle nesting data from qualified sources
(volunteer organizations, other agencies, etc.) is acceptable. However, in the event that data from
other sources cannot be acquired, the permittee will be responsible to collect the data. Data collected
by the permittee for each nest should include, at a minimum, the information in the table, below. This
information will be provided to the Service's Raleigh Field Office in the annual report, and will be
used to periodically assess the cumulative effects of these types of projects on sea turtle nesting and
hatchling production and monitor suitability of post construction beaches for nesting.
Parameter
Measurement
Variable
Number of False Crawls
Visual Assessment of all
Number/location of false crawls
false crawls
in nourished areas; any
interaction of turtles with
obstructions, such as sandbags
or scarps, should be noted.
Nests
Number
The number of sea turtle nests in
nourished areas should be noted.
If possible, the location of all
sea turtle nests should be
marked on a project map, and
approximate distance to scarps
or sandbags measured in meters.
Anyabnormal cavity

In
morphologies should be
reported as well as whether
turtle touched sandbags or
scarps during nest excavation.
Nests
Lost Nests
The number of nests lost to
inundation or erosion or the
number with lost markers.
Nests
Relocated nests
The number of nests relocated
and a map of the relocation
area(s). The number of
successfully hatched eggs per
relocated nest.
Lighting Impacts
Disoriented sea turtles
The number of disoriented
hatchlin s and adults
2. A report describing any actions taken must be submitted to the Service's Raleigh Field Office
following completion of the proposed work for each year when a sand placement activity has
occurred. The report must include the following information:
a) Project location (latitude and longitude);
b) Project description (linear feet of beach, actual fill template, access points, and borrow areas);
c) Dates of actual construction activities;
d) Names and qualifications of personnel involved in sea turtle nesting surveys and relocation
activities (separate the nesting surveys for nourished and non -nourished areas);
e) Descriptions and locations of self -release beach sites; and
f) Sand compaction, escarpment formation, and lighting survey results.
Information should be submitted to the following address:
Pete Benjamin, Supervisor
Raleigh Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
[phone]
FOR DEMOBILIZATION ACTIVITIES FROM MAY 16 — MAY 26, 2021
1. Demobilization Work After May 1 Only Allowed During Daytime. Demobilization of
equipment from the beach must be conducted only during daylight hours, after the daily survey
for sea turtle nests has been completed. Any nests that are identified must be marked for
avoidance and avoided during all demobilization activities.

-10-
2. Vehicle Access: Access points for construction vehicles must be as close to the project site as
possible. Construction vehicle travel down the beach must be limited to the maximum extent
possible.
3. No Nest Relocations: Sea turtle nests must not be relocated for repair or replacement of
structures, shoreline debris removal, or relocation of structures. If work is conducted between
May 1 and November 15, the sea turtle surveyor must mark nests for avoidance.
4. Nest Avoidance: If a sea turtle nest(s) cannot be safely avoided during construction, all
activity within that portion of affected project area must be delayed until complete hatching and
emergence of the nest, and inventory of nest contents by authorized volunteers.
5. Survey Coordination: During the sea turtle nesting season, vehicles and equipment must not
enter the beach until after sea turtle patrol has confirmed nesting/false crawls within the
designated work area. Daily coordination must be conducted between sea turtle volunteers, the
contractor, and NCWRC to ensure that the beach has been adequately surveyed and nests
marked, prior to beginning of work. Work should not be conducted at night.
6. Nest Buffers: A buffer distance of 50 feet must be marked at all nests and false crawls
identified within the work area, in which no power equipment or vehicles must be used. A buffer
distance of 20 feet must be marked at all sea turtle nests and false crawls identified within the
work area, in which no hand tools can be used for digging.
7. Sighting of Nesting Sea Turtles: If any nesting turtles are sighted on the beach during
demobilization, all activities must cease immediately until the turtle has returned to the water,
and the sea turtle permit holder responsible for nest monitoring has marked for avoidance or
relocated any nest(s) that may have been laid.
8. Vehicle Access Corridors: If the vehicle access corridor is located between a marked turtle
nest and the ocean, starting no more than 50 days after the nest is laid, any tire ruts or other
depressions that are present in the corridor shall be levelled by the end of the workday. Levelling
the ruts and depressions will minimize impacts to emerging hatchlings.
9. Level Excavations: From May 1 through November 15 to the maximum extent practicable,
excavations and temporary alteration of beach topography (outside of the active construction
zone) must be filled or levelled to the natural beach profile prior to 9:00 p.m. each day.
10. Reporting: A report describing the fate of sea turtle nests and hatchlings and any actions
taken, must be submitted to the Raleigh Field Office within 30 days of completion of the project.
Reports should be submitted to the following address:
Raleigh Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
[phone]
Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of an endangered or threatened species, initial
notification must be made to the Service's Law Enforcement Office below. Additional
notification must be made to the Service's Ecological Services Field Office identified above, and
to the NCWRC at [phone]. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured individuals
and in the preservation of specimens in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death
or injury.

-11-
Jason Keith
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
[phone], extension 34
DUNE PLANTING BETWEEN MAY 1-NOVEMBER 15
1. Light vehicles, such as an ATV or UTV, may be driven or parked on the berm in dry sand or
in wet sand. Vehicles must not be driven on the dune at any time.
2. A pick-up truck (or similar vehicle) may be driven or parked below the normal high tide line
(or wrack line), in wet sand. For this project, that line is typically marked by shell deposits at
the top of the high tide swash zone.
3. Any sand ruts created from traversing or parking on the beach should be removed by the
responsible party.
4. The limits of the expected planting area for each day should be marked on the beach the night
before, to inform the sea turtle patrol of the limits of the day's work. Physical markings may
consist of a flagged stake at each end of the designated planting area.
5. Driving on beach or dune planting should begin only after sea turtle patrol has confirmed
nesting/false crawls within the designated work area. Daily coordination should be conducted
between sea turtle volunteers, the dune planting contractor, and NCWRC to ensure that the
beach has been adequately surveyed and nests marked, prior to beginning of work.
Coordinate with Maria Dunn ([e-mail]) or Matthew Godfrey
([e-mail]) at NCWRC to establish the procedures for each project. Work
should not be conducted at night.
6. By the end of each day, any sand ruts created from traversing or parking on the beach should
be removed by the responsible party.
7. An irrigation system should not be installed.
8. A buffer distance of 50 feet should be marked at all nests and false crawls identified within
the work area, in which no power equipment or vehicles should be used.
9. A buffer distance of 20 feet should be marked at all sea turtle nests and false crawls identified
within the work area, in which no hand planting should be completed.
10. If a nest(s) cannot be safely avoided during construction, all activity within the affected
project area should be delayed until complete hatching and emergence of the nest.
11. Nighttime storage of equipment or materials should be off the beach (landward of the dune
crest).
12. Existing native dune vegetation should be disturbed only to the minimum extent necessary.
13. Notification of completion should be provided to the Service and NCWRC, including the
location of the area(s) planted. Areas should be identified using street addresses, lat/longs, or
landmarks, as available. Notification by email is acceptable.
14. In the event a nest is disturbed or uncovered during planting activity, all work should cease,
and notifications made to the Service's Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (919-856-
4520, ext. 27) and to the NCWRC (252-241- 7367).

ATTACHMENT (B)
(USFWS April 29, 2021 BO)

Biological Opinion
Town of Oak Island
U.S. Army Corp s of Engineers
Brunswick County, North Carolina
SAW 2018-02230
FWS Log #: 04EN2000-2020-F-2226
U.S.
PIM a vvu nil=
SEWICE
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Digitally signed by
PETER BENJAMIN
Date: 2021.04.29
12:41:13-04'00' April 29, 2021
Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONSULTATION HISTORY.......................................................................................................................................4
BIOLOGICAL OPINION............................................................................................................................................4
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................4
2. PROPOSED ACTION.......................................................................................................................................5
2.1. Action Area................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2. Sand Placement..........................................................................................................................................7
2.3. Dune Vegetation Planting.........................................................................................................................16
2.4. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions.................................................................................................17
3. PIPING PLOVER...........................................................................................................................................18
3.1. Status of Piping Plover..............................................................................................................................18
3.2. Environmental Baseline for Piping Plover.................................................................................................41
3.3. Effects of the Action on Piping Plover.......................................................................................................44
3.4. Cumulative Effects on Piping Plover.........................................................................................................47
3.5. Conclusion for Piping Plover.....................................................................................................................47
4. RED KNOT...................................................................................................................................................48
4.1. Status of Red Knot....................................................................................................................................48
4.2. Environmental Baseline for Red Knot.......................................................................................................60
4.3. Effects of the Action on Red Knot.............................................................................................................60
4.4. Cumulative Effects on Red Knot................................................................................................................64
4.5. Conclusion for Red Knot............................................................................................................................64
5. Loggerhead, Green, Leatherback, Hawksbill, and Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles .............................................. 65
5.1. Status of Sea Turtle Species......................................................................................................................65
5.2. Environmental Baseline for Sea Turtle Species.........................................................................................86
5.3. Effects of the Action on Sea Turtle Species...............................................................................................89
5.4. Cumulative Effects on Sea Turtle Species.................................................................................................94
5.5. Conclusion for Sea Turtle Species..............................................................................................................95
6. CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NWA POPULATION OF THE LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE ................................... 96
6.1. Status of Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat.....................................................................................96
6.2. Environmental Baseline for Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat......................................................100
6.3. Effects of the Action on Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat............................................................102
6.4. Cumulative Effects Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat....................................................................104
6.5. Conclusion for Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat...........................................................................104
7. SEABEACH AMARANTH.............................................................................................................................105
7.1. Status of Seabeach Amaranth................................................................................................................105
7.2. Environmental Baseline forSeabeach Amaranth...................................................................................108
7.3. Effects of the Action on Seabeach Amaranth.........................................................................................110
7.4. Cumulative Effects on Seabeach Amaranth............................................................................................111
7.5. Conclusion for Seabeach Amaranth........................................................................................................112

8. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT.................................................................................................................113
8.1. Amount or Extent of Take.......................................................................................................................114
8.2. Reasonable and Prudent Measures........................................................................................................117
8.3. Terms and Conditions.............................................................................................................................117
8.4. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements...............................................................................................118
9. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................118
10. REINITIATION NOTICE...............................................................................................................................119
11. LITERATURE CITED....................................................................................................................................120
3

CONSULTATION HISTORY
This section lists key events and correspondence during the course of this consultation. A
complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in the Service's Raleigh Office.
October 22, 2019 — The Corps issued a public notice concerning the Town of Oak Island's
proposed dredging and beach nourishment project, on Oak Island and in the adjacent Atlantic
Ocean. The Service responded to the public notice on November 21, 2019. The Corps proposed
and the Service agreed that the August 28, 2017 Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion for
NC Beach Sand Placement (SPBO) would cover the project, since all work was proposed to be
conducted during the winter work window.
April 27, 2020 — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) authorized the project.
April 8, 2021 — After months of delays due to COVID-19 and other issues beyond the control of
the applicant, the contractor began dredging and placing sand on the beach.
April 9, 2021 — The Service participated (by phone) in a meeting to discuss the project. The
Corps indicated plans to authorize an extension of sand placement into the sea turtle nesting
season. The Service recommended that the Corps reinitiate formal consultation for extension of
the work (extension of the project past April 30 would not be covered by the August 28, 2017
SPBO).
April 15, 2021 — By email, the Corps provided a project information and a request for reinitiation
of formal consultation. The Service initiated formal consultation by letter on April 28, 2021.
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
1. INTRODUCTION
A biological opinion (BO) is the document that states the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), as to whether a
Federal action is likely to:
• jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
• result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
The Federal action addressed in this BO is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) proposed
authorization of an extension of the Town of Oak Island's 2020-2021 dredging and beach
nourishment project, with sand placement on Oak Island (the Action). This BO considers the
effects of the Action (specifically sand placement) on piping plover, red knot, seabeach
amaranth, the leatherback, green, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles, and the Northwest
Atlantic (NWA) population of the loggerhead sea turtle. This BO also considers the effects of
the Action (sand placement) on designated critical habitat for the NWA population of loggerhead
sea turtle. The effects of dredging are not considered in this BO.
2

The Service previously concurred with the Corps' determination that the Action is not likely to
adversely affect the West Indian manatee by letter dated November 21, 2019. This species is not
further addressed in this BO.
A BO evaluates the effects of a Federal action along with those resulting from interrelated and
interdependent actions, and from non -Federal actions unrelated to the proposed Action
(cumulative effects), relative to the status of listed species and the status of designated critical
habitat. A Service opinion that concludes a proposed Federal action is not likely to jeopardize
species and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat fulfills the Federal
agency's responsibilities under §7(a)(2) of the ESA.
"Jeopardize the continued existence" means to engage in an action that reasonably would be
expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and
recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of
that species (50 CFR §402.02). "Destruction or adverse modification" means a direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of designated critical habitat for the conservation
of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or
significantly delay development of such features (50 CFR §402.02).
This BO uses hierarchical numeric section headings. Primary (level-1) sections are labeled
sequentially with a single digit (e.g., 2. PROPOSED ACTION). Secondary (level-2) sections
within each primary section are labeled with two digits (e.g., 2.1. Action Area), and so on for
level-3 sections. The basis of our opinion for each listed species and each designated critical
habitat identified in the first paragraph of this introduction is wholly contained in a separate
level-1 section that addresses its status, environmental baseline, effects of the Action, cumulative
effects, and conclusion.
2. PROPOSED ACTION
The Town of Oak Island is dredging a portion of Central Reach and placing the dredged material
along the shoreline on Oak Island for beach nourishment. The project involves the discharge of
dredged material into approximately 122 acres of waters of the United States, specifically 72
acres of intertidal open waters and 50 acres of subtidal open waters, along approximately 20,700
linear feet (If) of shoreline. The dune/berm will be constructed at 13.5 to 14.5 feet NAVD88. In
addition, approximately 8.5 miles of dune/berm is proposed to be planted with native dune
vegetation (four miles this summer, and 4.5 additional miles in the next year). The dune crest
and landward side of the dune is proposed for planting, but not the ocean side. The Town of Oak
Island has requested authorization to extend state and federal permits to allow for beach
placement activities to proceed through May 15, 2021, with demobilization activities (during
daylight hours only) through May 26, 2021.
The applicant is utilizing an approximate 304-acre sand source site for the acquisition of beach -
compatible material suitable for placement along the Oak Island shoreline. The applicant plans to
dredge approximately 1.1 million cubic yards of material from Central Reach to address
sediment losses, as well as ensure improved beach widths along this portion of Oak Island.
5

Sediment within the Central Reach borrow site is currently being excavated by a hopper or
cutterhead dredge and pumped by submerged pipeline to the disposal area. A second dredge will
be added after May 1. This BO only considers the sand placement activity, demobilization, and
dune planting. Sand placement and demobilization of sand placement equipment is proposed to
extend into the sea turtle nesting season until May 26, 2021. Dune grass planting is expected to
extend to the end of June 2021.
2.1. Action Area
For purposes of consultation under ESA §7, the action area is defined as "all areas to be affected
directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the
action" (50 CFR §402.02). The "Action Area" for this consultation includes the Atlantic Ocean
and the oceanfront shoreline within the Town of Oak Island (Figure 2-1). The Action Area for
direct impacts includes those sections (up to 20,7001f) of shoreline in the Town of Oak Island
where sediment disposal and other earthen manipulation will occur. The Action Area for
indirect impacts, however, is larger. Because piping plovers, red knots, and sea turtles are highly
mobile species, animals influenced by direct project impacts may move great distances from the
actual project site. The range of these movements produced by the project constitutes the Action
Area for indirect impacts; for the purposes of this opinion for piping plover, red knot, and sea
turtles, it will be the entire length of Atlantic Ocean shoreline from the Cape Fear River to
Lockwoods Folly Inlet (approximately 68,000 If).
IDNE3
Figure 2-1. Action Area for the 2020-2021 Town of Oak Island Nourishment Project (Moffat
and Nichol).
71

2.2. Sand Placement
The proposed action includes extension of current dredge and fill activities to May 26, 2021, into
the sea turtle nesting season. Beach sand placement is proposed to be conducted until May 15,
2021, followed by demobilization activities (during daylight hours) until May 26, 2021.
Activities include sand placement along 20,7001f (3.92 miles) of oceanfront shoreline and
demobilization of pipeline and equipment. Beach quality sand would be dredged using two
dredges (cutterhead hydraulic pipeline dredge or hopper dredge) with pump -out capability.
Material will be obtained from a portion of Central Reach. Placement onto the beach would be
accomplished via submerged pipeline with direct pump -out. Two shoreline work areas are
proposed (one for each dredge). Once discharged, the sand is shaped and graded according to
the design template using earth -moving equipment such as bulldozers and excavators.
Conservation Measures
To avoid and minimize impacts from sand placement to listed species and other resources, the
Corps has proposed the following conservation measures:
Proposed Conservation Measures for Beach Placement Activities from May 1— May 15,
2021
All derelict concrete, metal, and coastal armoring geotextile material and other debris must
be removed from the beach prior to any sand placement to the maximum extent possible. If
debris removal activities take place during the sea turtle nesting season, the work must be
conducted during daylight hours only and must not commence until completion of the sea
turtle nesting survey each day.
2. Predator -proof trash receptacles must be installed and maintained during construction at all
beach access points used for the project construction and any maintenance events, to
minimize the potential for attracting predators of piping plovers, red knots, and sea turtles.
All contractors conducting the work must provide predator -proof trash receptacles for the
construction workers. All contractors and their employees must be briefed on the importance
of not littering and keeping the Action Area free of trash and debris.
3. All personnel involved in the construction or sand placement process along the beach shall be
trained to recognize the presence of piping plovers and red knots prior to initiation of work
on the beach. Before start of work each morning, a visual survey must be conducted in the
area of work for that day, to determine if piping plovers or red knots are present. If plovers or
red knots are present in the work area, careful movement of equipment in the early morning
hours should allow those individuals to move out of the area. Construction operations shall
not begin until individual plovers or red knots have exited the work area for the day. If piping
plovers or red knots are observed, the observer shall make a note on the Quality Assurance
form for that day and submit the information to the Corps and the Service's Raleigh Field
Office the following day. See REPORTING, below.
4. Only beach compatible fill must be placed on the beach or in any associated dune system.
Beach compatible fill must be sand that is similar to a native beach in the vicinity of the site
7

that has not been affected by prior sand placement activity. Beach compatible fill must be
sand solely of natural sediment and shell material, containing no construction debris, toxic
material, or other foreign matter, or large amounts of granular material, gravel, or rock. The
beach compatible fill must be similar in both color and grain size distribution (sand grain
frequency, mean and median grain size and sorting coefficient) to the native material in the
Action Area. Beach compatible fill is material that maintains the general character and
functionality of the material occurring on the beach and in the adjacent dune and coastal
system.
a) Beach compatible fill consisting predominantly of quartz, carbonate (i.e., shell, coral) or
similar material with a particle size distribution ranging between 0.0625 millimeters
(mm) and 2.76 mm, classified as sand by either the Unified Soils or Wentworth
classification systems;
b) Beach compatible fill containing less than or equal to 2 % fine-grained sediment (<
0.0625 mm, considered silt, clay and colloids) by weight, unless sufficient sampling of
the project area indicates that the native sediment grain size distribution contains > 2 %
fine-grained material, in which case compatible material should be considered the
percentage of fine-grained native material plus no more than an additional 2 % by weight;
c) Beach compatible fill containing coarse gravel, cobbles or material retained on a 3/4 inch
sieve in a percentage or size not greater than found on the native beach; and
d) Beach compatible fill that does not contain carbonate (i.e., shell) material that exceeds the
average percentage of carbonate material on the native beach by more than 15 % by
weight.
During dredging operations, material placed on the beach shall be inspected daily to ensure
compatibility. If during the sampling process non -beach compatible material, including large
amounts of shell or rock, is or has been placed on the beach all work shall stop immediately
and the NCDCM and the Corps will be notified by the permittee and/or its contractors to
determine the appropriate plan of action.
6. From May 1 through November 15, to the maximum extent practicable, excavations and
temporary alteration of beach topography (outside of the active construction zone) will be
filled or leveled to the natural beach profile prior to 9:00 p.m. each day.
7. If any nesting turtles are sighted on the beach during construction, construction activities
must cease immediately until the turtle has returned to the water, and the sea turtle permit
holder responsible for nest monitoring has marked for avoidance or relocated any nest(s) that
may have been laid. If a nesting sea turtle is observed at night, all work on the beach will
cease and all lights will be extinguished (except for those necessary for safety) until after the
female has finished laying eggs and returned to the water.
8. During the sea turtle nesting season, the contractor must not extend the beach fill more than
2,000 feet along the shoreline (divided between two work areas) and must confine work
activities within these two work areas between dusk and dawn of the following day until the
daily nesting survey has been completed and the beach cleared for fill advancement. A
permitted sea turtle surveyor must be present on -site in each work area to ensure no nesting
and hatchling sea turtles are present. Once the beach has been cleared and the necessary nest
relocations have been completed, the contractor will be allowed to proceed with the
placement of fill and work activities during daylight hours until dusk at which time the 2,000-
8

foot total length limitation must apply. If a nesting sea turtle is sighted on the beach within
the construction area, activities must cease immediately until the turtle has returned to the
water and the sea turtle permit holder responsible for nest monitoring has relocated the nest.
9. If movement of equipment up or down the beach (outside of the active nighttime construction
area) is required between dusk and dawn, an additional nighttime monitor must accompany
vehicles operating on the beach, watching for signs of turtle activity ahead of the vehicle. If
activity is discovered, the vehicle must stop or reverse direction until the activity ceases and
the monitor clears the forward progress of the vehicle. Movement of equipment up or down
the beach during nighttime operations would be conducted from the off -beach access point to
the construction area and vice -versa (traveling from the off -beach access point to the
construction area).
10. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the equipment and dredge that will be used in
the project. The plan shall include a description of each light source that will be visible on or
from the beach and the measures implemented to minimize this lighting. The plan shall be
reviewed for approval by the Service.
11. Direct lighting of the beach and nearshore waters must be limited to the immediate
construction area during the nesting season and must comply with safety requirements.
Lighting on all equipment must be minimized through reduction, shielding, lowering, and
appropriate placement to avoid excessive illumination of the water's surface and nesting
beach while meeting all Coast Guard, Corps EM 385-1-1, and OSHA requirements. Light
intensity of lighting equipment must be reduced to the minimum standard required by OSHA
for General Construction areas, in order to not misdirect sea turtles. Shields must be affixed
to the light housing and be large enough to block light from all on -beach lamps from being
transmitted outside the construction area or to the adjacent sea turtle nesting beach (Figure 2-
2).
9

CROSS SECTION
Li�jt Soxrce
tops[*�D.
bottom
aeon B—i work Area eeadj
Figure 2-2. Beach lighting schematic.
BEACH LIGHTING
SCHEMATIC
12. Daily (before 9 am) nesting surveys and egg relocation must be conducted if any portion of
the sand placement occurs during the period from May 1 through November 15. If sand is
placed on the beach at night, a nighttime monitor must survey the beach area that is affected
that night, prior to the morning's normal nesting activity survey. No daytime movement of
equipment up or down the beach (outside of the active nighttime construction area described
in number 5, above) may commence until completion of the sea turtle nesting survey each
morning. If nests are constructed in the project area, the nests must be marked and either
avoided until completion of the project or relocated.
a) Nesting surveys must be initiated by May 1 and must continue through the end of the
project. If nests are constructed in areas where they may be affected by construction
activities, the eggs must be relocated to minimize sea turtle nest burial, crushing of eggs,
or nest excavation.
b) Nesting surveys and nest marking will only be conducted by personnel with prior
experience and training in these activities, and who are duly authorized to conduct such
activities through a valid permit issued by the Service or the NCWRC. Nesting surveys
must be conducted daily between sunrise and 9 am.
c) Only those nests that may be affected by construction or sand placement activities will be
relocated. Nest relocation must not occur upon completion of the project. For
demobilization, nests will be marked and avoided. Nests requiring relocation must be
moved no later than 9 am the morning following deposition to a nearby self -release beach
site in a secure setting where artificial lighting will not interfere with hatchling
orientation. Relocated nests must not be placed in organized groupings. Relocated nests
must be randomly staggered along the length and width of the beach in settings that are
10

not expected to experience daily inundation by high tides or known to routinely
experience severe erosion and egg loss, predation, or subject to artificial lighting. Nest
relocations in association with construction activities must cease when construction
activities no longer threaten nests.
d) Nests deposited within areas where construction activities have ceased or will not occur
for 65 days must be marked for avoidance and left in situ unless other factors threaten the
success of the nest. Nests must be marked with four stakes at a 10-foot distance around
the perimeter of the nest for the buffer zone. The turtle permit holder must install an on -
beach marker at the nest site and a secondary marker at a point as far landward as
possible to assure that future location of the nest will be possible should the on -beach
marker be lost. No activities that could result in impacts to the nest will occur within the
marked area. Nest sites must be inspected daily to assure nest markers remain in place
and the nest has not been disturbed by the project activity.
13. From May 1 through November 15, staging areas for construction equipment must be located
off the beach. Nighttime storage of construction equipment not in use must be off the beach
to minimize disturbance to sea turtle nesting and hatching activities. In addition, all
construction pipes placed on the beach must be located as far landward as possible without
compromising the integrity of the dune system. Pipes placed parallel to the dune must be 5 to
10 feet away from the toe of the dune if the width of the beach allows. If pipes are stored on
the beach, they must be placed in a manner that will minimize the impact to nesting habitat
and must not compromise the integrity of the dune systems.
14. Demobilization of equipment from the beach must be conducted only during daylight hours,
after the daily survey for sea turtle nests has been completed. Any nests that are identified
must be marked for avoidance as described in number 12.d. above and avoided during all
demobilization activities.
15. Visual surveys for escarpments along the Action Area must be made immediately after
completion of sand placement, and within 30 days prior to May 1 for two subsequent years
after any construction or sand placement event. Escarpments that interfere with sea turtle
nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for a distance of 100 feet must be leveled and the
beach profile must be reconfigured to minimize scarp formation by the dates listed above.
Any escarpment removal must be reported by location. If the sand placement activities are
completed during the early part of the sea turtle nesting and hatching season (May 1 through
May 30), escarpments must be leveled immediately, while protecting nests that have been
relocated or left in place. The Service must be contacted immediately if subsequent
reformation of escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in
height for a distance of 100 feet occurs during the nesting and hatching season to determine
the appropriate action to be taken. If it is determined that escarpment leveling is required
during the nesting or hatching season, the Service or NCWRC will provide a brief written
authorization within 30 days that describes methods to be used to reduce the likelihood of
impacting existing nests. An annual summary of escarpment surveys and actions taken must
be submitted to the Service's Raleigh Field Office.
16. Sand compaction must be monitored at least twice after each sand placement event. Sand
compaction must be monitored in the project area immediately after completion of any sand
placement event and one time after project completion between October 1 and May 1. Out -
II

year compaction monitoring and remediation are not required if the placed material no longer
remains on the dry beach. Within 7 days of completion of sand placement and prior to any
tilling (if needed), a field meeting shall be held with the Service, NCWRC and the Corps to
inspect the project area for compaction and determine whether tilling is needed.
a) If tilling is needed, the area must be tilled to a depth of 36 inches. All tilling activities
shall be completed prior to May 1 of any year.
b) Tilling must occur landward of the wrack line and avoid all vegetated areas that are 3
square feet of greater, with a 3 square feet buffer around all vegetation.
c) If tilling occurs during the shorebird nesting season (after April 1, shorebird surveys are
required prior to tilling per the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
d) A summary of the compaction assessments and the actions taken shall be included in the
annual report to NCDCM, the Corps and the Service's Raleigh Field Office.
e) These conditions will be evaluated and may be modified if necessary, to address and
identify sand compaction problems.
17. Two surveys must be conducted of all lighting visible from the beach placement area by the
Applicant or the Corps, using standard techniques for such a survey, in the year following
construction. The first survey must be conducted between May 1 and May 15, and a brief
summary provided to Service. The second survey must be conducted between July 15 and
August 1. A summary report of the surveys (including the following information:
methodology of the survey, a map showing the position of lights visible from the beach, a
description of each light source visible from the beach, recommendations for remediation,
and any actions taken) must be submitted to the Raleigh Field Office within 3 months after
the last survey is conducted. After the annual report is completed, a meeting must be set up
with the Applicant, County, the Corps, NCWRC, and the Service to discuss the survey report,
as well as any documented sea turtle disorientations in or adjacent to the project area. If the
project is completed during the nesting season and prior to May 1, the contractor may
conduct the lighting surveys during the year of construction. See APPENDIX for survey
instructions.
18. Beginning May 1st, in addition to daily (sunrise to 9:00 AM) monitors, the contractor
will add nightly (dusk till dawn) certified monitors to conduct beach surveillance during
construction to prevent unintentional harm to sea turtles or their nesting areas.
19. There will be no daytime movement of equipment up or down the beach for the day
(outside of the active construction area) until completion of the sea turtle nesting survey,
which will be performed by 9:00 AM each morning.
20. Will confine work activities within two work areas (totaling 2,000 if of shoreline)
between dusk and dawn of the following day until the daily sea turtle nesting survey has
been completed and the beach cleared for fill advancement. Additionally, pipeline will be
kept close to the dune and monitored as well.
21. If nesting turtles, hatchlings, nests, or eggs are seen in the project area:
a) Construction activities will cease immediately within 500 feet of the turtle.
b) All lights will be extinguished (except for those necessary for safety) until after
the female has finished laying eggs and returned to the water, and the designated
12

sea turtle monitor has marked for avoidance or relocated any nest(s) that may
have been laid.
c) The nests will be marked and either avoided until completion of the project or
relocated prior to commencement of construction for the day.
d) The contractor shall maintain a 50 ft buffer from a nest, or any eggs found. Work
inside the 50 ft buffer zone shall only resume upon receiving permission from
Wildlife Resources Commission staff.
e) If recently emerged hatchlings from an unmarked nest are observed, all work shall
immediately stop within 100 ft of the hatchlings. Work shall not resume within
100 ft of the emerged nest until authorized sea turtle volunteers can excavate the
nest and release any remaining hatchlings into the ocean.
f) If a nesting sea turtle is observed and the turtle successfully places a clutch of
eggs on the beach, work in the area shall not resume until the eggs can be
relocated to a safe area. If the turtle returns to the water without nesting, work
may resume in the affected area.
22. Lighting during the nesting season:
a) Lighting associated with the project will be minimized to reduce the possibility of
disrupting and/or misdirecting nesting and/or hatchling sea turtles.
b) Direct lighting of the beach and near -shore waters will be limited to the
immediate construction area during the nesting season and will comply with
safety requirements.
c) Lighting on all equipment will be minimized through reduction, shielding,
lowering, and appropriate placement to avoid excessive illumination of the
water's surface and nesting beach while meeting all USACE, USACE EM 385-1-
1, and OSHA requirements.
d) Shields will be affixed to the light housing and be large enough to block light
from all on -beach lamps from being transmitted outside the construction area or to
the adjacent sea turtle nesting beach.
Reporting Commitments:
In order to monitor the impacts of incidental take, the Corps must report the progress of the Action
and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement (50 CFR
§402.14(i)(3)). This section provides the specific instructions for such monitoring and reporting
(M&R). As necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility, the Corps must require any
permittee, to accomplish the M&R through enforceable terms that are added to the permit, contract,
or grant document. Such enforceable terms must include a requirement to immediately notify the
Corps and the Service if the amount or extent of incidental take specified in the ITS is exceeded
during Action implementation.
1. Sea turtle nesting surveys must be conducted within the project area between May 1 and
November 15 of each year, for at least two consecutive nesting seasons after completion of each sand
placement activity (2 years post -construction monitoring after initial construction and each
maintenance event). Acquisition of readily available sea turtle nesting data from qualified sources
(volunteer organizations, other agencies, etc.) is acceptable. However, in the event that data from
13

other sources cannot be acquired, the permittee will be responsible to collect the data. Data collected
by the permittee for each nest should include, at a minimum, the information in the table, below. This
information will be provided to the Service's Raleigh Field Office in the annual report, and will be
used to periodically assess the cumulative effects of these types of projects on sea turtle nesting and
hatchling production and monitor suitability of post construction beaches for nesting.
Parameter
Measurement
Variable
Number of False Crawls
Visual Assessment of all
Number/location of false crawls
false crawls
in nourished areas; any
interaction of turtles with
obstructions, such as sandbags
or scarps, should be noted.
Nests
Number
The number of sea turtle nests in
nourished areas should be noted.
If possible, the location of all
sea turtle nests should be
marked on a project map, and
approximate distance to scarps
or sandbags measured in meters.
Any abnormal cavity
morphologies should be
reported as well as whether
turtle touched sandbags or
scarps during nest excavation.
Nests
Lost Nests
The number of nests lost to
inundation or erosion or the
number with lost markers.
Nests
Relocated nests
The number of nests relocated
and a map of the relocation
area(s). The number of
successfully hatched eggs per
relocated nest.
Lighting Impacts
Disoriented sea turtles
The number of disoriented
hatchlin s and adults
2. A report describing any actions taken must be submitted to the Service's Raleigh Field Office
following completion of the proposed work for each year when a sand placement activity has
occurred. The report must include the following information:
a) Project location (latitude and longitude);
b) Project description (linear feet of beach, actual fill template, access points, and borrow areas);
c) Dates of actual construction activities;
14

d) Names and qualifications of personnel involved in sea turtle nesting surveys and relocation
activities (separate the nesting surveys for nourished and non -nourished areas);
e) Descriptions and locations of self -release beach sites; and
f) Sand compaction, escarpment formation, and lighting survey results.
Information should be submitted to the following address:
Pete Benjamin, Supervisor
Raleigh Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
[phone]
Proposed Conservation Measures for Demobilization Activities (May 16 — May 26, 2021)
1. Demobilization Work After May 1 Only Allowed During Daytime. Demobilization of
equipment from the beach must be conducted only during daylight hours, after the daily
survey for sea turtle nests has been completed. Any nests that are identified must be
marked for avoidance and avoided during all demobilization activities.
2. Vehicle Access: Access points for construction vehicles must be as close to the project
site as possible. Construction vehicle travel down the beach must be limited to the
maximum extent possible.
3. No Nest Relocations: Sea turtle nests must not be relocated for repair or replacement of
structures, shoreline debris removal, or relocation of structures. If work is conducted
between May 1 and November 15, the sea turtle surveyor must mark nests for avoidance.
4. Nest Avoidance: If a sea turtle nest(s) cannot be safely avoided during construction, all
activity within that portion of affected project area must be delayed until complete
hatching and emergence of the nest, and inventory of nest contents by authorized
volunteers.
5. Survey Coordination: During the sea turtle nesting season, vehicles and equipment must
not enter the beach until after sea turtle patrol has confirmed nesting/false crawls within
the designated work area. Daily coordination must be conducted between sea turtle
volunteers, the contractor, and NCWRC to ensure that the beach has been adequately
surveyed and nests marked, prior to beginning of work. Work should not be conducted at
night.
6. Nest Buffers: A buffer distance of 50 feet must be marked at all nests and false crawls
identified within the work area, in which no power equipment or vehicles must be used.
A buffer distance of 20 feet must be marked at all sea turtle nests and false crawls
identified within the work area, in which no hand tools can be used for digging.
7. Sighting of Nesting Sea Turtles: If any nesting turtles are sighted on the beach during
demobilization, all activities must cease immediately until the turtle has returned to the
water, and the sea turtle permit holder responsible for nest monitoring has marked for
avoidance or relocated any nest(s) that may have been laid.
8. Vehicle Access Corridors: If the vehicle access corridor is located between a marked
turtle nest and the ocean, starting no more than 50 days after the nest is laid, any tire ruts
15

or other depressions that are present in the corridor shall be levelled by the end of the
workday. Levelling the ruts and depressions will minimize impacts to emerging
hatchlings.
9. Level Excavations: From May 1 through November 15 to the maximum extent
practicable, excavations and temporary alteration of beach topography (outside of the
active construction zone) must be filled or levelled to the natural beach profile prior to
9:00 p.m. each day.
10. Reporting: A report describing the fate of sea turtle nests and hatchlings and any actions
taken, must be submitted to the Raleigh Field Office within 30 days of completion of the
project. Reports should be submitted to the following address:
Raleigh Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
[phone]
Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of an endangered or threatened species, initial
notification must be made to the Service's Law Enforcement Office below. Additional
notification must be made to the Service's Ecological Services Field Office identified above, and
to the NCWRC at [phone]. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured individuals
and in the preservation of specimens in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death
or injury.
Jason Keith
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
[phone], extension 34
2.3. Dune Vegetation Planting
The project includes planting of dune vegetation on the constructed dune crest and the landward
dune slope. Up to four miles of dune vegetation planting are anticipated to occur between May
and July 1, 2021.
Permit Special Conditions for Action ID SAW-2018-02230
The existing authorization for the project includes the following special conditions for dune
planting between May 1 and November 15:
1. Light vehicles, such as an ATV or UTV, may be driven or parked on the berm in dry sand or
in wet sand. Vehicles must not be driven on the dune at any time.
2. A pick-up truck (or similar vehicle) may be driven or parked below the normal high tide line
(or wrack line), in wet sand. For this project, that line is typically marked by shell deposits at
the top of the high tide swash zone.
3. Any sand ruts created from traversing or parking on the beach should be removed by the
responsible party.
16

4. The limits of the expected planting area for each day should be marked on the beach the night
before, to inform the sea turtle patrol of the limits of the day's work. Physical markings may
consist of a flagged stake at each end of the designated planting area.
5. Driving on beach or dune planting should begin only after sea turtle patrol has confirmed
nesting/false crawls within the designated work area. Daily coordination should be conducted
between sea turtle volunteers, the dune planting contractor, and NCWRC to ensure that the
beach has been adequately surveyed and nests marked, prior to beginning of work.
Coordinate with Maria Dunn ([e-mail]) or Matthew Godfrey
([e-mail]) at NCWRC to establish the procedures for each project. Work
should not be conducted at night.
6. By the end of each day, any sand ruts created from traversing or parking on the beach should
be removed by the responsible party.
7. An irrigation system should not be installed.
8. A buffer distance of 50 feet should be marked at all nests and false crawls identified within
the work area, in which no power equipment or vehicles should be used.
9. A buffer distance of 20 feet should be marked at all sea turtle nests and false crawls identified
within the work area, in which no hand planting should be completed.
10. If a nest(s) cannot be safely avoided during construction, all activity within the affected
project area should be delayed until complete hatching and emergence of the nest.
11. Nighttime storage of equipment or materials should be off the beach (landward of the dune
crest).
12. Existing native dune vegetation should be disturbed only to the minimum extent necessary.
13. Notification of completion should be provided to the Service and NCWRC, including the
location of the area(s) planted. Areas should be identified using street addresses, lat/longs, or
landmarks, as available. Notification by email is acceptable.
14. In the event a nest is disturbed or uncovered during planting activity, all work should cease,
and notifications made to the Service's Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (919-856-
4520, ext. 27) and to the NCWRC (252-241- 7367).
2.4. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
A BO evaluates the effects of a proposed Federal action. For purposes of consultation under ESA
§7, the effects of a Federal action on listed species or critical habitat include the direct and
indirect effects of the action, plus the effects of interrelated or interdependent actions. "Indirect
effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but still are
reasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no
independent utility apart from the action under consideration" (50 CFR §402.02).
In its request for consultation, the Corps did not describe, and the Service is not aware of, any
interrelated or interdependent actions to the Action. Therefore, this BO does not further address
the topic of interrelated or interdependent actions.
17

3. PIPING PLOVER
3.1. Status of Piping Plover
This section summarizes best available data about the biology and current condition of piping
plover (Charadrius melodus) throughout its range that are relevant to formulating an opinion
about the Action. On January 10, 1986, the piping plover was listed as endangered in the Great
Lakes watershed and threatened elsewhere within its range, including migratory routes outside of
the Great Lakes watershed and wintering grounds (USFWS 1985).
3.1.1. Description of Piping Plover
Three separate breeding populations have been identified, each with its own recovery criteria: the
northern Great Plains (threatened), the Great Lakes (endangered), and the Atlantic Coast
(threatened). Piping plovers that breed on the Atlantic Coast of the U.S. and Canada belong to
the subspecies C. m. melodus. The second subspecies, C. m. circumcinctus, is comprised of two
Distinct Population Segments (DPSs). One DPS breeds on the Northern Great Plains of the U.S.
and Canada, while the other breeds on the Great Lakes. Each of these three entities is
demographically independent. The Piping plover winters in coastal areas of the U.S. from North
Carolina to Texas, and along the coast of eastern Mexico and on Caribbean islands from
Barbados to Cuba and the Bahamas (Haig and Elliott -Smith 2004).
Piping plovers in the Action Area may include individuals from all three breeding populations.
Piping plover subspecies are phenotypically indistinguishable, and most studies in the
nonbreeding range report results without regard to breeding origin. Although a 2012 analysis
shows strong patterns in the wintering distribution of piping plovers from different breeding
populations (Gratto-Trevor et al. 2012), partitioning is not complete and major information gaps
persist. North Carolina is one of the only states where the piping plover's breeding and wintering
ranges overlap, and the birds are present year-round.
There is no designated piping plover critical habitat in the project area.
3.1.2. Life History of Piping Plover
The piping plover is a small, pale sand -colored shorebird, about seven inches long with a
wingspan of about 15 inches (Palmer 1967). Cryptic coloration is a primary defense mechanism
for piping plovers where nests, adults, and chicks all blend in with their typical beach
surroundings.
Piping plovers live an average of 5 years, although studies have documented birds as old as 11
(Wilcox 1959) and 15 years (Audubon 2015). Plovers are known to begin breeding as early as
one year of age (MacIvor 1990; Haig 1992). Piping plover breeding activity begins in mid -
March when birds begin returning to their nesting areas (Coutu et al. 1990; Cross 1990; Goldin
et al. 1990; MacIvor 1990; Hake 1993). Piping plovers generally fledge only a single brood per
season but may re -nest several times if previous nests are lost. The reduction in suitable nesting

habitat due to a number of factors is a major threat to the species, likely limiting reproductive
success and future recruitment into the population (USFWS 2009a).
Plovers depart their breeding grounds for their wintering grounds between July and late August,
but southward migration extends through November. More information about the three breeding
populations of piping plovers can be found in the following documents:
a. Piping Plover, Atlantic Coast Population: 1996 Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996a);
b. 2009 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation
(USFWS 2009a);
c. 2003 Recovery Plan for the Great Lakes Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) (USFWS
2003a);
d. Questions and Answers about the Northern Great Plains population of Piping Plover
(USFWS 2002).
e. 2016 Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Great Plains population of Piping
Plover (USFWS 2015).
Piping plovers migrate through and winter in coastal areas of the U.S. from North Carolina to
Texas and in portions of Mexico and the Caribbean. Data based on four rangewide mid -winter
(late January to early February) population surveys, conducted at 5-year intervals starting in
1991, show that total numbers have fluctuated over time, with some areas experiencing increases
and others decreases.
Piping plovers nest above the high tide line on coastal beaches; on sand flats at the ends of sand
spits and barrier islands; on gently sloping foredunes; in blowout areas behind primary dunes
(overwashes); in sparsely vegetated dunes; and in overwash areas cut into or between dunes.
The species requires broad, open, sand flats for feeding, and undisturbed flats with low dunes
and sparse dune grasses for nesting. Piping plovers from the federally endangered Great Lakes
population as well birds from the threatened populations of the Atlantic Coast and Northern
Great Plains overwinter on North Carolina beaches. Piping plovers arrive on their breeding
grounds in late March or early April. Following establishment of nesting territories and
courtship rituals, the pair forms a depression in the sand, where the female lays her eggs. By
early September both adults and young depart for their wintering areas. Breeding and wintering
plovers feed on exposed wet sand in swash zones; intertidal ocean beach; wrack lines; washover
passes; mud, sand, and algal flats; and shorelines of streams, ephemeral ponds, lagoons, and salt
marshes by probing for invertebrates at or just below the surface (Coutu et al. 1990; USFWS
1996a). They use beaches adjacent to foraging areas for roosting and preening. Small sand
dunes, debris, and sparse vegetation within adjacent beaches provide shelter from wind and
extreme temperatures.
Atlantic Coast plovers nest on coastal beaches, sand flats at the ends of sand spits and barrier
islands, gently sloped foredunes, sparsely vegetated dunes, and washover areas cut into or
between dunes. Plovers arrive on the breeding grounds from mid -March through mid -May and
remain for three to four months per year; the Atlantic Coast plover breeding activities begin in
March in North Carolina with courtship and territorial establishment (Coutu et al. 1990;
McConnaughey et al. 1990).
19

Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of Piping Plover
The International Piping Plover Breeding Census is conducted throughout the breeding grounds
every 5 years by the Great Lakes/Northern Great Plains Recovery Team of the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS). Although there are shortcomings in the census method, it is the largest known,
complete avian species census. The 2011 survey documented 2,391 breeding pairs, with a total
of 5,723 birds throughout Canada and the U.S. (Elliot -Smith et al. 2015).
Northern Great Plains Population
The Northern Great Plains plover breeds from Alberta to Manitoba, Canada and south to
Nebraska, although some nesting has occurred in Oklahoma (Boyd 1991). Currently the most
westerly breeding piping plovers in the U.S. occur in Montana and Colorado.
The decline of piping plovers on rivers in the Northern Great Plains has been largely attributed to
the loss of sandbar island habitat and forage base due to dam construction and operation. In the
2009 status review, the Service concluded that the Northern Great Plains breeding population
remains vulnerable, especially due to management of river systems throughout the breeding
range (USFWS 2009a). Many of the threats identified in the 1988 recovery plan, including those
affecting Northern Great Plains breeding population during the two-thirds of its annual cycle
spent in the wintering range, remain today, or have intensified.
Great Lakes Breeding, Population
The Great Lakes plovers once nested on Great Lakes beaches in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario. Great Lakes piping plovers
nest on wide, flat, open, sandy or cobble shoreline with very little grass or other vegetation.
Reproduction is adversely affected by human disturbance of nesting areas and predation by
foxes, gulls, crows, and other avian species. Shoreline development, such as the construction of
marinas, breakwaters, and other navigation structures, has adversely affected nesting and brood
rearing.
The Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003a) sets a population goal of at least 150 pairs (300 individuals),
for at least 5 consecutive years, with at least 100 breeding pairs (200 individuals) in Michigan
and 50 breeding pairs (100 individuals) distributed among sites in other Great Lakes states. The
Great Lakes breeding population, which has been traditionally represented as the number of
breeding pairs, has slowly increased after the completion of the recovery plan between 2003 and
2016(Cuthbert and Roche 2007; Cuthbert and Roche 2006; Westbrock et al. 2005; Stucker and
Cuthbert 2004; Stucker et al. 2003; Cuthbert and Saunders 2013). The Great Lakes piping
plover recovery plan documents the 2002 population at 51 breeding pairs (USFWS 2003a), and
in 2016, 75 breeding pairs were estimated (Cavaliers pers. comm. 2016a). The total of 75
breeding pairs represents 50% of the current recovery goal of 150 breeding pairs for the Great
Lakes breeding population. Productivity goals, as specified in the 2003 recovery plan, have been
met over the past 5 years. Analyses of banded piping plovers in the Great Lakes suggests that
after -hatch year (adult) survival rates are declining, although management of merlin predation on
the breeding grounds appears to have allowed the survival rate to stabilize (Roche et al. 2010;
20

Saunders pers. comm. 2016). It is the productivity rate, or recruitment rate, that has continued
to increase the overall population, despite considerable decreases in adult survival rates.
Continued population growth will require the long-term maintenance of productivity goals
concurrent with measures to sustain or improve important vital rates.
In the 2009 status review, the Service concluded that the Great Lakes breeding population
remains at considerable risk of extinction due to its small size, limited distribution, and
vulnerability to stochastic events, such as disease outbreak (USFWS 2009a). In addition, the
factors that led to the piping plover's 1986 listing remain present.
Atlantic Coast Population
The Atlantic Coast piping plover breeds on coastal beaches from Newfoundland and
southeastern Quebec to North Carolina. Historical population trends for the Atlantic Coast
piping plover have been reconstructed from scattered, largely qualitative records. Nineteenth-
century naturalists, such as Audubon and Wilson, described the piping plover as a common
summer resident on Atlantic Coast beaches (Haig and Oring 1987). However, by the beginning
of the 201h Century, egg collecting and uncontrolled hunting, primarily for the millinery trade,
had greatly reduced the population, and in some areas along the Atlantic Coast, the piping plover
was close to extirpation. Following passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (40 Stat.
775; 16 U.S.C. 703-712) in 1918, and changes in the fashion industry that no longer exploited
wild birds for feathers, piping plover numbers recovered to some extent (Haig and Oring 1985).
Available data suggest that the most recent population decline began in the late 1940s or early
1950s (Haig and Oring 1985). Reports of local or statewide declines between 1950 and 1985 are
numerous, and many are summarized by Cairns and McLaren (1980) and Haig and Oring (1985).
While Wilcox (1939) estimated more than 500 pairs of piping plovers on Long Island, New
York, the 1989 population estimate was 191 pairs (USFWS 1996a). There was little focus on
gathering quantitative data on piping plovers in Massachusetts through the late 1960s because
the species was commonly observed and presumed to be secure. However, numbers of piping
plover breeding pairs declined 50 to 100 percent at seven Massachusetts sites between the early
1970s and 1984 (Griffin and Melvin 1984). Piping plover surveys in the early years of the
recovery effort found that counts of these cryptically -colored birds sometimes went up with
increased census effort, suggesting that some historic counts of piping plovers by one or a few
observers may have underestimated the piping plover population. Thus, the magnitude of the
species decline may have been more severe than available numbers imply.
Substantial population growth, from approximately 790 pairs in 1986 to an estimated 1,870 pairs
in 2015, has decreased the Atlantic Coast piping plover's vulnerability to extinction since ESA
listing. Thus, considerable progress has been made towards the overall goal of 2,000 breeding
pairs. As discussed in the 1996 revised recovery plan, however, the overall security of the
Atlantic Coast piping plover is fundamentally dependent on even distribution of population
growth, as specified in subpopulation targets, to protect a sparsely -distributed species with strict
biological requirements from environmental variation (including catastrophes) and increase the
likelihood of interchange among subpopulations. Population growth has been tempered by
geographic and temporal variability. By far, the largest net population increase between 1989
and 2015 occurred in New England (445 percent). Net growth in the southern recovery unit
21

population was over 182 percent between 1989 and 2015, but the subpopulation target has not
yet been attained. Preliminary estimates indicate abundance in the New York -New Jersey
recovery unit experienced a net increase of 129 percent between 1989 and 2015. However, the
population declined sharply from a peak of 586 pairs in 2007 and has still not recovered, with
only 411 pairs in 2015. In Eastern Canada, where increases have often been quickly eroded in
subsequent years, the population posted a 25-percent decline between 1989 and 2015.
Productivity goals specified in the 1996 recovery plan must be revised to accommodate new
information about latitudinal variation in productivity needed to maintain a stationary population.
Population growth, particularly in the three U.S. recovery units, provides indirect evidence that
adequate productivity has occurred in at least some years. However, overall security of a 2,000
pair population will require long-term maintenance of these revised recovery -unit -specific
productivity goals concurrent with population numbers at or above abundance goals.
Twenty years of relatively steady population growth, driven by productivity gains, also
evidences the efficacy of the ongoing Atlantic Coast piping plover recovery program. However,
all of the major threats identified in the 1986 ESA listing and 1996 revised recovery plan remain
persistent and pervasive along the Atlantic Coast. Expensive labor-intensive management to
minimize the effects of these continuing threats, as specified in recovery plan tasks, are
implemented every year by a network of dedicated governmental and private cooperators.
Because threats to Atlantic Coast piping plovers persist (and in many cases have increased since
listing), reversal of gains in abundance and productivity would quickly follow diminishment of
current protection efforts. In the 2009 status review, the Service concluded that the Atlantic
Coast piping plover remains vulnerable to low numbers in the Southern and Eastern Canada
(and, to a lesser extent, the New York -New Jersey) Recovery Units (USFWS 2009a).
Furthermore, the factors that led to the piping plover's 1986 listing remain operative rangewide
(including in New England), and many of these threats have increased. Interruption of costly,
labor-intensive efforts to manage these threats would quickly lead to steep population declines.
Non -breeding Range
Piping plovers spend up to 10 months of their life cycle on their migration and winter grounds,
generally July 15 through as late as May 15. Piping plover migration routes and habitats overlap
breeding and wintering habitats, and, unless banded, migrants passing through a site usually are
indistinguishable from breeding or wintering piping plovers. Coastal migration stopovers by
banded piping plovers from the Great Lakes region have been documented in New Jersey,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia (Stucker et al. 2010).
Migrating birds from eastern Canada have been observed in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, and North Carolina (Amirault et al. 2005). Piping plovers banded in the Bahamas have
been sighted during migration in nine Atlantic Coast states and provinces between Florida and
Nova Scotia (Gratto-Trevor pers. comm. 2012a). In general, the distance between stopover
locations and the duration of stopovers throughout the coastal migration range remain poorly
understood (USFWS 2015).
Review of published records of piping plover sightings throughout North America by Pompei
and Cuthbert (2004) found more than 3,400 fall and spring stopover records at 1,196 sites.
22

Published reports indicated that piping plovers do not concentrate in large numbers at inland sites
and that they seem to stop opportunistically. In most cases, reports of birds at inland sites were
single individuals.
Piping plovers migrate through and winter in coastal areas of the U.S. from North Carolina to
Texas and in portions of Mexico and the Caribbean. Gratto-Trevor et al. (2009) reported that six
of 259 banded piping plovers observed more than once per winter moved across boundaries of
the seven U.S. regions. This species exhibits a high degree of intra- and inter -annual wintering
site fidelity (Noel and Chandler 2008; Cohen and Gratto-Trevor 2011; Gratto-Trevor et al. 2016;
Drake et al. 2001; Noel et al. 2005; Stucker and Cuthbert 2006), even when encountering a high
level of environmental disturbance (Gibson et al. 2017). Of 216 birds observed in different
years, only eight changed regions between years, and several of these shifts were associated with
late summer or early spring migration periods (Gratto-Trevor et al. 2009). In the years following
the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Gibson et al. (2017) found that, in spite of significant
environmental disturbance, most individuals returned to and persisted at the same wintering site.
Local movements are more common.
Five rangewide mid -winter (late January to early February) IPPCs, conducted at five-year
intervals starting in 1991, are summarized in Table 3-1. Total numbers have fluctuated over
time, with some areas experiencing increases and others decreases. Regional and local
fluctuations may reflect the quantity and quality of suitable foraging and roosting habitat, which
vary over time in response to natural coastal formation processes as well as anthropogenic
habitat changes (e.g., inlet relocation, dredging of shoals and spits). Fluctuations may also
represent localized weather conditions (especially wind) during surveys, or unequal survey
coverage. Changes in wintering numbers may also be influenced by growth or decline in the
particular breeding populations that concentrate their wintering distribution in a given area.
Mid -winter surveys may substantially underestimate the abundance of nonbreeding piping
plovers using a site or region during other months. In late September 2007, 104 piping plovers
were counted at the south end of Ocracoke Island, North Carolina (NPS 2007), where none were
seen during the 2006 International Piping Plover January Winter Census (Elliott -Smith et al.
2009). Noel et al. (2007) observed up to 100 piping plovers during peak migration at Little St.
Simons Island, Georgia, where approximately 40 piping plovers wintered in 2003-2005.
23

Table 3-1. Results of the 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, and 2011 International Piping Plover Winter
Censuses (Haig and Plissner 1993; Plissner and Haig 2000; Ferland and Haig 2002; Haig et al.
2005; Elliott -Smith et al. 2009; Elliott -Smith et al. 2015).
Location
1991
1996
2001
2006
2011
Virginia
nns ot surveyed
ns
ns
1
1
North Carolina
20
50
87
84
43
South Carolina
51
78
78
100
86
Georgia
37
124
111
212
63
Florida
551
375
416
454
306
-Atlantic
70
31
111
133
83
-Gulf
481
344
305
321
223
Alabama
12
31
30
29
38
Mississippi
59
27
18
78
88
Louisiana
750
398
511
226
86
Texas
1,904
1,333
1,042
2,090
2,145
Puerto Rico
0
0
6
2
2
U.S. Total
3,384
2,416
2,299
3,357
2,858
Mexico
27
16
ns
76
30
Bahamas
29
17
35
417
1,066
Cuba
11
66
55
89
19
Other Caribbean
Islands
0
0
0
28
ns
GRAND
TOTAL
3,451
2,515
2,389
3,884
3,973
Percent of Total
International
Piping Plover
Breeding
Census
62.9%
42.4%
40.2%
48.2%
69.4%
Reason for Listing
Piping plovers were listed principally because of habitat destruction and degradation, predation,
and human disturbance. Protection of the species under the Act reflects the species' precarious
status range wide. Hunting during the 19th and early 20th centuries likely led to initial declines
in the species; however, shooting piping plovers has been prohibited since 1918 pursuant to the
provisions of the MBTA. Other human activities, such as habitat loss and degradation,
disturbance from recreational pressure, contaminants, and predation are likely responsible for
continued declines. These factors include development and shoreline stabilization.
24

3.1.3. Conservation Needs of and Threats to Piping Plover
Recovery Criteria
Delisting of the three piping plover populations may be considered when the following criteria
are met:
Northern Great Plains Breeding Population (USFWS 1988, 1994)
1. Increase the number of birds in the U.S. Northern Great Plains states to 2,300 pairs (Service
1994).
2. Increase the number of birds in the prairie region of Canada to 2,500 adult piping plovers
(Service 1988).
3. Secure long-term protection of essential breeding and wintering habitat (Service 1994).
In 2016, the Service drafted new recovery criteria for the Northern Great Plains breeding
population. The new criteria are expected to be finalized in the near future.
Great Lakes Breeding Population (USFWS 2003a)
1. At least 150 pairs (300 individuals), for at least 5 consecutive years, with at least 100
breeding pairs (200 individuals) in Michigan and 50 breeding pairs (100 individuals)
distributed among sites in other Great Lakes states.
2. Five-year average fecundity within the range of 1.5-2.0 fledglings per pair, per year, across
the breeding distribution, and ten-year population projections indicate the population is stable
or continuing to grow above the recovery goal.
3. Protection and long-term maintenance of essential breeding and wintering habitat is ensured,
sufficient in quantity, quality, and distribution to support the recovery goal of 150 pairs (300
individuals).
4. Genetic diversity within the population is deemed adequate for population persistence and
can be maintained over the long-term.
5. Agreements and funding mechanisms are in place for long-term protection and management
activities in essential breeding and wintering habitat.
Atlantic Coast Breeding Population (USFWS 1996a)
Increase and maintain for 5 years a total of 2,000 breeding pairs, distributed among 4
recovery units.
Recovea Unit Minimum Subpopulation
Atlantic (eastern) Canada 400 pairs
New England 625 pairs
New York -New Jersey 575 pairs
Southern (DE -MD -VA -NC) 400 pairs
25

2. Verify the adequacy of a 2,000 pair population of piping plovers to maintain heterozygosity
and allelic diversity over the long term.
3. Achieve a 5-year average productivity of 1.5 fledged chicks per pair in each of the 4 recovery
units described in criterion 1, based on data from sites that collectively support at least 90%
of the recovery unit's population.
4. Institute long-term agreements to assure protection and management sufficient to maintain
the population targets and average productivity in each recovery unit.
5. Ensure long-term maintenance of wintering habitat, sufficient in quantity, quality, and
distribution to maintain survival rates for a 2,000-pair population.
Conservation Recommendations
Nonbreeding Plovers from All Three Breeding Populations USFWS 2012)
1. Maintain natural coastal processes that perpetuate wintering and coastal migration
habitat.
2. Protect wintering and migrating piping plovers and their habitat from human disturbance.
3. Monitor nonbreeding plovers and their habitat.
4. Protect nonbreeding plovers and their habitats from contamination and degradation from
oil or other chemical contaminants.
5. Assess predation as a potential limiting factor for piping plovers on wintering and
migration sites.
6. Improve application or regulatory tools.
7. Develop mechanisms to provide long-term protection of nonbreeding plovers and their
habitat.
8. Conduct scientific investigations to refine knowledge and inform conservation of
migrating and wintering piping plovers.
Atlantic and Gulf Coast studies highlighted the importance of inlets for nonbreeding piping
plovers. Almost 90% of observations of roosting piping plovers at ten coastal sites in southwest
Florida were on inlet shorelines (Lott et al. 2009b). In an evaluation of 361 International
Shorebird Survey sites from North Carolina to Florida (Harrington 2008), piping plovers were
among seven shorebird species found more often than expected (p = 0.0004; Wilcoxon Scores
test) at inlet versus non -inlet locations. Wintering plovers on the Atlantic Coast prefer wide
beaches in the vicinity of inlets (Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990b, Wilkinson and Spinks 1994).
At inlets, foraging plovers are associated with moist substrate features such as intertidal flats,
algal flats, and ephemeral pools (Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990a, Wilkinson and Spinks 1994,
Dinsmore et al. 1998).
Threats to Piuin2 Plovers
The three recovery plans stated that shoreline development throughout the wintering range poses
a threat to all populations of piping plovers. The plans further stated that beach maintenance and
nourishment, inlet dredging, and artificial structures, such as jetties, groins, and revetments,
could eliminate wintering areas and alter sedimentation patterns leading to the loss of nearby
habitat. Unregulated motorized and pedestrian recreational use, inlet and shoreline stabilization
26

projects, beach maintenance and nourishment, and pollution affect most winter and migration
areas. Data from studies at Hilton Head, Kiawah Island, and other locations in South Carolina
and Georgia demonstrate that impacts from poor winter habitat conditions can be seen the
following year on the breeding grounds (Saunders et al. 2014; Gibson et al. 2016). Piping
plovers wintering at areas with fewer anthropogenic disturbances had higher survival,
recruitment, and population growth rates than areas with greater disturbance.
Important components of ecologically sound barrier beach management include perpetuation of
natural dynamic coastal formation processes. Structural development along the shoreline or
manipulation of natural inlets upsets the dynamic processes and results in habitat loss or
degradation (Melvin et al. 1991). Throughout the range of migrating and wintering piping
plovers, inlet and shoreline stabilization, inlet dredging, beach maintenance and nourishment
activities, and seawall installations continue to constrain natural coastal processes. Dredging of
inlets can affect spit formation adjacent to inlets and directly remove or affect ebb and flood tidal
shoal formation. Jetties, which stabilize an island, cause island widening and subsequent growth
of vegetation on inlet shores. Seawalls restrict natural island movement and exacerbate erosion.
As discussed in more detail below, all these efforts result in loss of piping plover habitat.
Construction of this project during months when piping plovers are present also causes
disturbance that disrupts the birds' foraging efficiency and hinders their ability to build fat
reserves over the winter and in preparation for migration, as well as their recuperation from
migratory flights. In addition, up to 24 shorebird species migrate or winter along the Atlantic
Coast and almost 40 species of shorebirds are present during migration and wintering periods in
the Gulf of Mexico region (Helmers 1992). Continual degradation and loss of habitats used by
wintering and migrating shorebirds may cause an increase in intra-specific and inter -specific
competition for remaining food supplies and roosting habitats. The shrinking extent of shoreline
that supports natural coastal formation processes concentrates foraging and roosting
opportunities for all shorebird species and forces some individuals into suboptimal habitats.
Thus, intra- and inter -specific competition most likely exacerbates threats from habitat loss and
degradation.
21 biological opinions have been issued since 2014 within the Raleigh Field Office geographic
area for adverse impacts to piping plovers. The BOs include those for beach renourishment,
sandbag revetments, and terminal groin construction, all of which are included in the
Environmental Baseline for this BO. In each of these BOs, a surrogate (linear footage of
shoreline) was used to express the amount or extent of anticipated incidental take.
Loss, modification, and degradation of habitat
The wide, flat, sparsely vegetated barrier beaches, spits, sandbars, and bayside flats preferred by
piping plovers in the U.S. are formed and maintained by natural forces and are thus susceptible
to degradation caused by development and shoreline stabilization efforts. As described below,
barrier island and beachfront development, inlet and shoreline stabilization, inlet dredging, beach
maintenance and nourishment activities, seawall installations, and mechanical beach grooming
continue to alter natural coastal processes throughout the range of migrating and wintering
piping plovers. Dredging of inlets can affect spit formation adjacent to inlets, as well as ebb and
flood tidal shoal formation. Jetties stabilize inlets and cause island widening and subsequent
27

vegetation growth on the updrift inlet shores; they also cause island narrowing and/or erosion on
the downdrift inlet shores. Seawalls and revetments restrict natural island movement and
exacerbate erosion. Although dredge and fill projects that place sand on beaches and dunes may
restore lost or degraded habitat in some areas, in other areas these projects may degrade habitat
quality by altering the natural sediment composition, depressing the invertebrate prey base,
hindering habitat migration with sea level rise, and replacing the natural habitats of the dune-
beach-nearshore system with artificial geomorphology. Construction of any of these projects
during months when piping plovers are present also causes disturbance that disrupts the birds'
foraging and roosting behaviors. These threats are exacerbated by accelerating sea level rise,
which increases erosion and habitat loss where existing development and hardened stabilization
structures prevent the natural migration of the beach and/or barrier island.
Development and Construction
Development and associated construction threaten the piping plover in its migration and
wintering range by degrading, fragmenting, and eliminating habitat. Constructing buildings and
infrastructure adjacent to the beach can eliminate roosting and loafing habitat within the
development's footprint and degrade adjacent habitat by replacing sparsely vegetated dunes or
back -barrier beach areas with landscaping, pools, fences, etc. In addition, bayside development
can replace foraging habitat with finger canals, bulkheads, docks, and lawns. High -value plover
habitat becomes fragmented as lots are developed or coastal roads are built between oceanside
and bayside habitats. Development activities can include lowering or removing natural dunes to
improve views or grade building lots, planting vegetation to stabilize dunes, and erecting sand
fencing to establish or stabilize continuous dunes in developed areas; these activities can further
degrade, fragment, and eliminate sparsely vegetated and unvegetated habitats used by the piping
plover and other wildlife.
At present, there are approximately 2,119 miles of sandy beaches within the U.S. continental
wintering range of the piping plover (Rice 2012b). Approximately 40% (856 miles) of these
sandy beaches are developed, with mainland Mississippi (80%), Florida (57%), Alabama (55%),
South Carolina (51 %), and North Carolina (49%) comprising the most developed coasts (Rice
2012b). Developed beaches are highly vulnerable to further habitat loss because they cannot
migrate in response to sea level rise.
Dredging and Sand Mining
The dredging and mining of sediment from inlet complexes threatens the piping plover on its
wintering grounds through habitat loss and degradation. The maintenance of navigation
channels by dredging, especially deep shipping channels such as those in Alabama and
Mississippi can significantly alter the natural coastal processes on inlet shorelines of nearby
barrier islands, as described by Otvos (2006), Morton (2008), Otvos and Carter (2008), and
Stockdon et al. (2010). Cialone and Stauble (1998) describe the impacts of mining ebb shoals
within inlets as a source of beach fill material at eight locations and provide a recommended
monitoring protocol for future mining events; Dabees and Kraus (2008) also describe the impacts
of ebb shoal mining in southwest Florida.

Forty-four percent of the tidal inlets within the U.S. wintering range of the piping plover have
been or continue to be dredged, primarily for navigational purposes. States where more than
two-thirds of inlets have been dredged include Alabama (three of four), Mississippi (four of six),
North Carolina (16 of 20), and Texas (13 of 18), and 16 of 21 along the Florida Atlantic coast.
The dredging of navigation channels or relocation of inlet channels for erosion -control purposes
contributes to the cumulative effects of inlet habitat modification by removing or redistributing
the local and regional sediment supply; the maintenance dredging of deep shipping channels can
convert a natural inlet that normally bypasses sediment from one shoreline to the other into a
sediment sink, where sediment no longer bypasses the inlet.
Among the dredged inlets identified in Rice (2012a), dredging efforts began as early as the 1800s
and continue to the present, generating long-term and even permanent effects on inlet habitat; at
least 11 inlets were first dredged in the 19th century, with the Cape Fear River (North Carolina)
being dredged as early as 1826 and Mobile Pass (Alabama) in 1857. Dredging can occur on an
annual basis or every two to three years, resulting in continual perturbations and modifications to
inlet and adjacent shoreline habitat. The volumes of sediment removed can be major, with 2.2
million cubic yards (mcy) of sediment removed on average every 1.9 years from the Galveston
Bay Entrance (Texas) and 3.6 mcy of sediment removed from Sabine Pass (Texas) on average
every 1.4 years (USACE 1992).
Inlets associated with ports and other high -traffic areas typically have maintenance dredging
conducted annually, if not more often. At four shallow -draft inlets (Bogue, Topsail, Carolina
Beach, and Lockwoods Folly) the Corps has typically dredged the inlet on a quarterly basis and
maintained inlet crossings and connecting channels every 1-2 years (NCDENR, 2015). Local
governments have received authorization to also conduct maintenance dredging of these inlets on
the same general schedule, with beach disposal during the winter work window. Inlets that are
mined for Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) projects (conducted by the Corps or local
governments) are typically dredged on three-year intervals, with placement of the sand on the
adjacent shoreline. Dredging may remove intertidal shoals and unvegetated sandy habitat on
inlet shoulders. These types of activities are typically conducted during the winter work window
to avoid impacts to nesting sea turtles, but may have significant impacts to migrating and
overwintering piping plovers.
Inlet Stabilization and Relocation
Many navigable tidal inlets along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are stabilized with hard structures.
A description of the different types of stabilization structures typically constructed at or adjacent
to inlets —jetties, terminal groins, groins, seawalls, breakwaters and revetments — can be found in
the Manual for Coastal Hazard Mitigation (Herrington 2003) and in Living by the Rules of the
Sea (Bush et al. 1996).
The adverse direct and indirect impacts of hard stabilization structures at inlets and inlet
relocations can be significant. The impacts of jetties on inlet and adjacent shoreline habitat have
been described by Cleary and Marden (1999), Bush et al. (1996), Wamsley and Kraus (2005),
USFWS (2009a), Thomas et al. (2011), and many others. The relocation of inlets or the creation
of new inlets often leads to immediate widening of the new inlet and loss of adjacent habitat,
29

among other impacts, as described by Mason and Sorenson (1971), Masterson et al. (1973),
USACE (1992), Cleary and Marden (1999), Cleary and Fitzgerald (2003), Erickson et al. (2003),
Kraus et al. (2003), Wamsley and Kraus (2005), and Kraus (2007).
Rice (2012a) found that, as of 2011, an estimated 54% of 221 mainland or barrier island tidal
inlets in the U.S continental wintering range of the piping plover had been modified by some
form of hardened structure, dredging, relocation, mining, or artificial opening or closure. On the
Atlantic Coast, 43% of the inlets have been stabilized with hard structures, whereas 37% were
stabilized on the Gulf Coast. The Atlantic coast of Florida has 17 stabilized inlets adjacent to
each other, extending between the St. John's River in Duval County and Norris Cut in Miami -
Dade County, a distance of 341 miles. A shorebird would have to fly nearly 344 miles between
unstabilized inlets along this stretch of coast.
The state with the highest proportion of natural, unmodified inlets is Georgia (74%). The highest
number of adjacent unmodified, natural inlets is the 15 inlets found in Georgia between Little
Tybee Slough at Little Tybee Island Nature Preserve and the entrance to Altamaha Sound at the
south end of Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge, a distance of approximately 54 miles.
Another relatively long stretch of adjacent unstabilized inlets is in Louisiana, where 17 inlets
between a complex of breaches on the West Belle Pass barrier headland (in Lafourche Parish)
and Beach Prong (near the western boundary of the state Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge) have no
stabilization structures; one of these inlets (the Freshwater Bayou Canal), however, is dredged
(Rice 2012a).
Unstabilized inlets naturally migrate, reforming important habitat components over time,
particularly during a period of rising sea level. Inlet stabilization with rock jetties and
revetments alters the dynamics of longshore sediment transport and the natural movement and
formation of inlet habitats such as shoals, unvegetated spits and flats. Once a barrier island
becomes "stabilized" with hard structures at inlets, natural overwash and beach dynamics are
restricted, allowing encroachment of new vegetation on the bayside that replaces the unvegetated
(open) foraging and roosting habitats that plovers prefer. Rice (2012a) found that 40% (89 out of
221) of the inlets open in 2011 have been stabilized in some way, contributing to habitat loss and
degradation throughout the wintering range. Accelerated erosion may compound future habitat
loss, depending on the degree of sea level rise (Titus et al. 2009). Due to the complexity of
impacts associated with projects such as jetties and groins, Harrington (2008) noted the need for
a better understanding of potential effects of inlet -related projects, such as jetties, on bird
habitats.
Relocation of tidal inlets also can cause loss and/or degradation of piping plover habitat.
Although less permanent than construction of hard structures, the effects of inlet relocation can
persist for years. For example, December -January surveys documented a continuing decline in
wintering plover numbers from 20 birds pre -project (2005-2006) to three birds during the 2009 -
2011 seasons (SCDNR 2011). Subsequent decline in the wintering population on Kiawah is
strongly correlated with the decline in polychaete worm densities, suggesting that plovers may
have emigrated to other sites as foraging opportunities in these habitats became less profitable
(SCDNR 2011). At least eight inlets in the migration and wintering range have been relocated; a
30

new inlet was cut, and the old inlet was closed with fill. In other cases, inlets have been
relocated without the old channels being artificially filled.
The construction of jetties, groins, seawalls, and revetments at inlets leads to habitat loss and
both direct and indirect impacts to adjacent shorelines. Rice (2012a) found that these structures
result in long-term effects, with at least 13 inlets across six of the eight states having hard
structures initially constructed in the 191h century. The cumulative effects are ongoing and
increasing in intensity, with hard structures built as recently as 2011 and others proposed for
2012. With sea level rising and global climate change altering storm dynamics, pressure to
modify the remaining half of sandy tidal inlets in the range is likely to increase, notwithstanding
that this would be counterproductive to the climate change adaptation strategies recommended
by the USFWS (2010d), CCSP (2009), Williams (2013), Pilkey and Young (2009), and many
others.
Over the past decade or two, development of the North Carolina coast has accelerated. Of the 20
currently open inlets, 16 are modified by man in some manner (Rice 2016). All 16 are dredged,
and 7 have hardened structures. Brown's Inlet, Bear Inlet, New Old Drum Inlet, and Ophelia
Inlet are the only four that have not had some type of habitat modification.
Groins
In 2017, there are 34 groins along the North Carolina coast (Rice 2016). Groins pose an ongoing
threat to piping plover beach habitat within the continental wintering range. Groins are hard
structures built perpendicular to the shoreline, designed to trap sediment traveling in the littoral
drift and to slow erosion on a particular stretch of beach or near an inlet. "Leaky" groins, also
known as permeable or porous groins, are low -crested structures built like typical groins, but
which allow some fraction of the littoral drift or longshore sediment transport to pass through the
groin. They have been used as terminal groins near inlets or to hold beach fill in place for longer
durations. Although groins can be individual structures, they are often clustered along the
shoreline in "groin fields." Because they intentionally act as barriers to longshore sand transport,
groins cause downdrift erosion, which degrades and fragments sandy beach habitat for the piping
plover and other wildlife. The resulting beach typically becomes scalloped in shape, thereby
fragmenting plover habitat over time.
Groins and groin fields are found throughout the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and are
present at 28 of 221 sandy tidal inlets (Rice 2012a). In North Carolina, there are three currently
existing terminal groins: along Oregon Inlet, at Fort Macon along Beaufort Inlet in Carteret
County, and on Bald Head Island in New Hanover County. The terminal groin on Bald Head
Island was installed in 2015, but the other two (Oregon Inlet and Fort Macon) were installed
decades ago, and downdrift erosion has been severe at both, requiring frequent nourishment
(Pietrafesa 2012; Riggs et al 2009). The Fort Macon groin is fronted by a larger structure that
Rice (2016) refers to as jetty.
The Oregon Inlet and Fort Macon Groins are located on the updrift side of the island (similar to
the proposed location of the Figure Eight project), but accretion in these areas is not significant
due to scour. At Oregon Inlet, there is no sandy habitat on the inlet shoulder updrift of the groin
31

and revetment, and there has not been for decades. There are two degraded groin/jetty structures
in Dare County, adjacent to the old location of the Cape Hatteras lighthouse.
Although most groins were in place before the piping plover's 1986 ESA listing, new groins
continue to be installed, perpetuating the threat to migrating and wintering piping plovers. As
sea level rises at an accelerating rate, the threat of habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation
from groins and groin fields may increase as communities and beachfront property owners seek
additional ways to protect infrastructure and property.
Seawalls and Revetments
Seawalls and revetments are hard vertical structures built parallel to the beach in front of
buildings, roads, and other facilities. Although they are intended to protect human infrastructure
from erosion, these armoring structures often accelerate erosion by causing scouring both in front
of and downdrift from the structure, which can eliminate intertidal plover foraging and adjacent
roosting habitat. Physical characteristics that determine microhabitats and biological
communities can be altered after installation of a seawall or revetment, thereby depleting or
changing composition of benthic communities that serve as the prey base for piping plovers.
Dugan and Hubbard (2006) found in a California study that intertidal zones were narrower and
fewer in the presence of armoring, armored beaches had significantly less macrophyte wrack,
and shorebirds responded with significantly lower abundance (more than three times lower) and
species richness (2.3 times lower) than on adjacent unarmored beaches. As sea level rises,
seawalls will prevent the coastline from moving inland, causing loss of intertidal foraging habitat
(Galbraith et al. 2002; Defeo et al. 2009). Geotubes (long cylindrical bags made of high -strength
permeable fabric and filled with sand) are less permanent alternatives, but they prevent overwash
and thus the natural production of sparsely vegetated habitat.
Rice (2012b) found that at least 230 miles of beach habitat has been armored with hard erosion -
control structures. Data were not available for all areas, so this number is a minimum estimate of
the length of habitat that has been directly modified by armoring. Out of 221 inlets surveyed, 89
were stabilized with some form of hard structure, of which 24 had revetments or seawalls along
their shorelines.
Although North Carolina has prohibited the use of hard erosion -control structures or armoring
since 1985 (with the exception of the six terminal groins recently legislated), the "temporary"
installation of sandbag revetments is allowed. As a result, the precise length of armored sandy
beaches in North Carolina is unknown, but at least 350 sandbag revetments have been
constructed (Rice 2012b). South Carolina also limits the installation of some types of new
armoring but already has 24 miles (27% of the developed shoreline or 13% of the entire
shoreline) armored with some form of shore -parallel erosion -control structure (SC DHEC 2010).
The repair of existing armoring structures and installation of new structures continues to degrade,
destroy, and fragment beachfront plover habitat throughout its continental wintering range. As
sea level rises at an accelerating rate, the threat of habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation
from hard erosion -control structures is likely to increase as communities and property owners
seek to protect their beachfront development. As coastal roads become threatened by rising sea
32

level and increasing storm damage, additional lengths of beachfront habitat may be modified by
riprap, revetments, and seawalls.
Sand Placement Projects
Sand placement projects threaten the piping plover and its habitat by altering the natural,
dynamic coastal processes that create and maintain beach strand and bayside habitats, including
the habitat components that piping plovers rely upon. Although specific impacts vary depending
on a range of factors, so-called "soft stabilization" projects may directly degrade or destroy
roosting and foraging habitat in several ways. Beach habitat may be converted to an artificial
berm that is densely planted in grass, which can in turn reduce the availability of roosting habitat.
Over time, if the beach narrows due to erosion, additional roosting habitat between the berm and
the water can be lost. Berms can also prevent or reduce the natural overwash that creates and
maintains sparsely vegetated roosting habitats. The growth of vegetation resulting from
impeding the natural overwash can also reduce the availability of bayside intertidal feeding
habitats.
Overwash is an essential process, necessary to maintain the integrity of many barrier islands and
to create new habitat (Donnelly et al. 2006). In a study on the Outer Banks of North Carolina,
Smith et al. (2008) found that human "modifications to the barrier island, such as construction of
barrier dune ridges, planting of stabilizing vegetation, and urban development, can curtail or
even eliminate the natural, self-sustaining processes of overwash and inlet dynamics." They also
found that such modifications led to island narrowing from both oceanside and bayside erosion.
Lott et al. (2009b) found a strong negative correlation between ocean shoreline sand placement
projects and the presence of piping and snowy plovers in the Panhandle and southwest Gulf
Coast regions of Florida.
Sand placement projects threaten migration and wintering habitat of the piping plover in every
state throughout the range (Rice 2012b). At least 684.8 miles (32%) of sandy beach habitat in
the continental wintering range of the piping plover have received artificial sand placement via
dredge disposal activities, beach nourishment or restoration, dune restoration, emergency berms,
inlet bypassing, inlet closure and relocation, and road reconstruction projects, including over 91
miles in North Carolina. In most areas, sand placement projects are in developed areas or
adjacent to shoreline or inlet hard stabilization structures in order to address erosion, reduce
storm damages, or ameliorate sediment deficits caused by inlet dredging and stabilization
activities.
Both the number and the size of sand projects along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are increasing
(Trembanis et al. 1999), and these projects are increasingly being chosen as a means to combat
sea level rise and related beach erosion problems (Klein et al. 2001). Throughout the plover
migration and wintering range, the number of sand placement events has increased every decade
for which records are available, with at least 710 occurring between 1939 and 2007, and more
than 75% occurring since 1980 (Trembanis et al. 1999). The cumulative volume of sand placed
on East Coast beaches has risen exponentially since the 1920s (Trembanis et al. 1999). As a
result, sand placement projects increasingly pose threats to plover habitat.
Loss of Macroinvertebrate Prey Base due to Shoreline Stabilization
33

Wintering and migrating piping plovers depend on the availability and abundance of
macroinvertebrates as an important food item. Studies of invertebrate communities have found
that communities are richer (greater total abundance and biomass) on protected (bay or lagoon)
intertidal shorelines than on exposed ocean beach shorelines (Cohen et al. 2006; Defeo and
McLachlan 2011). Polychaete worms comprise the majority of the shorebird diet (Kalejta 1992;
Mercier and McNeil 1994; Tsipoura and Burger 1999; Verkuil et al. 2006); and of the piping
plover diet in particular (Hoopes 1993; Nicholls 1989; Zonick and Ryan 1996).
The quality and quantity of the macroinvertebrate prey base is threatened by shoreline
stabilization activities, including the approximately 685 miles of beaches that have received sand
placement of various types. The addition of dredged sediment can temporarily affect the benthic
fauna of intertidal systems. Invertebrates may be crushed or buried during project construction.
Although some benthic species can burrow through a thin layer of additional sediment (38-89 cm
for different species), thicker layers (i.e., >1 meter) are likely to smother these sensitive benthic
organisms (Greene 2002). Numerous studies of such effects indicate that the recovery of benthic
fauna after beach nourishment or sediment placement projects can take anywhere from six
months to two years, and possibly longer in extreme cases (Thrush et al. 1996; Peterson et al.
2000; Zajac and Whitlatch 2003; Bishop et al. 2006; Peterson et al. 2006).
Invertebrate communities may also be affected by changes in the physical environment resulting
from shoreline stabilization activities that alter the sediment composition or degree of exposure.
Sand placement projects bury the natural beach with up to millions of cubic yards of new
sediment and grade the new beach and intertidal zone with heavy equipment to conform to a
predetermined topographic profile. If the material used in a sand placement project does not
closely match the native material on the beach, the sediment incompatibility may result in
modifications to the macroinvertebrate community structure, because several species are
sensitive to grain size and composition (Rakocinski et al. 1996; Peterson et al. 2000; 2006;
Peterson and Bishop 2005; Colosio et al. 2007; Defeo et al. 2009).
Delayed recovery of the benthic prey base or changes in their communities due to physical
habitat changes may affect the quality of piping plover foraging habitat. The duration of the
impact can adversely affect piping plovers because of their high site fidelity. Although recovery
of invertebrate communities has been documented in many studies, sampling designs have
typically been inadequate and have only been able to detect large -magnitude changes (Schoeman
et al. 2000; Peterson and Bishop 2005). Therefore, uncertainty persists about the impacts of
various projects to invertebrate communities and how these impacts affect shorebirds,
particularly the piping plover.
Invasive Vegetation
The spread of invasive plants into suitable wintering piping plover habitat is a relatively recently
identified threat (USFWS 2009a). Such plants tend to reproduce and spread quickly and to
exhibit dense growth habits, often outcompeting native plants. Uncontrolled invasive plants can
shift habitat from open or sparsely vegetated sand to dense vegetation, resulting in the loss or
degradation of piping plover roosting habitat, which is especially important during high tides and
migration periods. The propensity of invasive species to spread, and their tenacity once
34

established, make them a persistent threat that is only partially countered by increasing
landowner awareness and willingness to undertake eradication activities.
Wrack Removal and Beach Cleaning
Wrack on beaches and baysides provides important foraging and roosting habitat for piping
plovers (Drake 1999; Smith 2007; Maddock et al. 2009; Lott et al. 2009b) and for many other
shorebirds. Because shorebird numbers are positively correlated both with wrack cover and the
biomass of their invertebrate prey that feed on wrack (Tarr and Tarr 1987; Hubbard and Dugan
2003; Dugan et al. 2003), beach grooming has been shown to decrease bird numbers (Defeo et
al. 2009).
It is increasingly common for beach -front communities to carry out "beach cleaning" and "beach
raking" activities. Although beach cleaning and raking machines effectively remove human -
made debris, these efforts also remove accumulated wrack, topographic depressions, emergent
foredunes and hummocks, and sparse vegetation nodes used by roosting and foraging piping
plovers (Nordstrom 2000; Dugan and Hubbard 2010). Removal of wrack also reduces or
eliminates natural sand -trapping, further destabilizing the beach. Furthermore, the sand adhering
to seaweed and trapped in the cracks and crevices of wrack also is lost to the beach when the
wrack is removed. Although the amount of sand lost during a single sweeping activity may be
small, over a period of years this loss could be significant (Neal et al. 2007).
Accelerating sea level rise and other climate change impacts
Accelerating sea level rise poses a threat to piping plovers during the migration and wintering
portions of their life cycle. Threats from sea level rise are tightly intertwined with artificial
coastal stabilization activities that modify and degrade habitat. If climate change increases the
frequency or magnitude of extreme temperatures, piping plover survival rates may be affected.
Other potential adverse and beneficial climate change -related effects (e.g., changes in the
composition or availability of prey, emergence of new diseases, fewer periods of severe cold
weather) are poorly understood but cannot be discounted.
Numerous studies have documented accelerating rise in sea levels worldwide (Rahmstorf et al.
2007; Douglas et al. 2001 as cited in Hopkinson et al. 2008; CCSP 2009; Pilkey and Young
2009; Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009). Predictions include a sea level rise of between 50 and 200
cm above 1990 levels by the year 2100 (Rahmstorf 2007; Pfeffer et al. 2008; Vermeer and
Rahmstorf 2009; Grinsted et al. 2010; Jevrejeva et al. 2010) and potential conversion of as much
as 33% of the world's coastal wetlands to open water by 2080 (IPCC 2007; CCSP 2008).
Potential effects of sea level rise on piping plover roosting and foraging habitats may vary
regionally due to subsidence or uplift, the geological character of the coast and nearshore, and
the influence of management measures such as beach nourishment, jetties, groins, and seawalls
(CCSP 2009; Galbraith et al. 2002; Gutierrez et al. 2011).
Low elevations and proximity to the coast make all nonbreeding piping plover foraging and
roosting habitats vulnerable to the effects of rising sea level. Areas with small tidal ranges are the
most vulnerable to loss of intertidal wetlands and flats (EPA 2009). Inundation of piping plover
35

habitat by rising seas could lead to permanent loss of habitat, especially if those shorelines are
armored with hardened structures (Brown and McLachlan 2002; Dugan and Hubbard 2006;
Defeo et al. 2009). Overwash and sand migration are impeded on the developed portions of
sandy ocean beaches (Smith et al. 2008) that comprise 40% of the U.S. nonbreeding range (Rice
2012b). As the sea level rises, the ocean -facing beaches erode and attempt to migrate inland.
Buildings and artificial sand dunes then prevent sand from washing back toward the lagoons
(i.e., bayside), and the lagoon side becomes increasingly submerged during extreme high tides
(Scavia et al. 2002). Barrier beach shorebird habitat and natural features that protect mainland
developments are both diminished as a result.
Modeling by Galbraith et al. (2002) for three sea level rise scenarios at five important U.S.
shorebird staging and wintering sites predicted aggregate loss of 20-70% of current intertidal
foraging habitat. The most severe losses were projected at sites where the coastline is unable to
move inland due to steep topography or seawalls. Of five study sites, the model predicted the
lowest loss of intertidal shorebird foraging habitat at Bolivar Flats, Texas (a designated piping
plover critical habitat unit) by 2050 because the habitat at that site will be able to migrate inland
in response to rising sea level. The potential for such barrier island migration with rising sea
level is most likely in the 42% of plover's U.S. nonbreeding range that is currently preserved
from development (Rice 2012b). Although habitat losses in some areas are likely to be offset by
gains in other locations, Galbraith et al. (2002) noted that time lags between these losses and the
creation of replacement habitat elsewhere may have serious adverse effects on shorebird
populations. Furthermore, even if piping plovers are able to move their wintering locations in
response to accelerated habitat changes, there could be adverse effects on the birds' survival
rates or subsequent productivity.
Storm Events
Storms are an integral part of the natural processes that form coastal habitats used by migrating
and wintering piping plovers, and positive effects of storm -induced overwash and vegetation
removal have been noted in portions of the wintering range. For example, biologists reported
piping plover use of newly created habitats at Gulf Islands National Seashore in Florida within
six months of overwash events that occurred during the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons
(Nicholas pers. comm. 2005). Hurricane Katrina created a new inlet and improved habitat
conditions on some areas of Dauphin Island, Alabama, but subsequent localized storms
contributed to habitat loss there (LeBlanc pers. comm. 2009) and the inlet was subsequently
closed with a rock dike as part of Deepwater Horizon oil spill response efforts (Rice 2012a).
Following Hurricane Ike in 2008, Arvin (2009) reported decreased numbers of piping plovers at
some heavily eroded Texas beaches in the center of the storm impact area and increases in plover
numbers at sites about 100 miles to the southwest. Piping plovers were observed later in the
season using tidal lagoons and pools that Hurricane Ike created behind the eroded beaches (Arvin
2009).
Storm -induced adverse effects include post -storm acceleration of human activities such as beach
nourishment, sand scraping, closure of new inlets, and berm and seawall construction. Such
stabilization activities can result in the loss and degradation of feeding and resting habitats. Land
managers sometimes face public pressure after big storm events to plant vegetation, install
36

sandfences, and bulldoze artificial "dunes." For example, national wildlife refuge managers
sometimes receive pressure from local communities to "restore" the beach and dunes following
blow -outs from storm surges that create the overwash foraging habitat preferred by plovers
(Hunter pers. comm. 2011). At least 64 inlets have been artificially closed, the vast majority of
them shortly after opening in storm events. Storms also can cause widespread deposition of
debris along beaches. Subsequent removal of this debris often requires large machinery that in
turn can cause extensive disturbance and adversely affect habitat elements such as wrack.
Challenges associated with management of public use can grow when storms increase access
(Gibson et. al. 2009; LeBlanc pers. comm. 2009).
Climate change studies indicate a trend toward increasing numbers and intensity of hurricane
events (Emanuel 2005; Webster et al. 2005). Combined with the predicted effects of sea level
rise, this trend indicates potential for increased cumulative impact of future storms on habitat.
Major storms can create or enhance piping plover habitat while causing localized losses
elsewhere in the wintering and migration range.
Severe Cold Weather
Several sources suggest the potential for adverse effects of severe winter cold on survival of
piping plovers. The Atlantic Coast piping plover recovery plan mentioned high mortality of
coastal birds and a drop from approximately 30-40 to 15 piping plovers following an intense
1989 snowstorm along the North Carolina coast (Fussell 1990). A preliminary analysis of
survival rates for Great Lakes piping plovers found that the highest variability in survival
occurred in spring and correlated positively with minimum daily temperature (weighted mean
based on proportion of the population wintering near five weather stations) during the preceding
winter (Roche pers. comm. 2010; 2012). Catlin (pers. comm. 2012b) reported that the average
mass of ten piping plovers captured in Georgia during unusually cold weather in December 2010
was 5.7 grams (g) less than the average for nine birds captured in October of the same year (46.6
g and 52.4 g, respectively; p = 0.003).
Disturbance from recreation activities
Increasing human disturbance is a major threat to piping plovers in their coastal migration and
wintering range (USFWS 2009a). Intense human disturbance in shorebird winter habitat can be
functionally equivalent to habitat loss if the disturbance prevents birds from using an area (Goss -
Custard et al. 1996). Nicholls and Baldassarre (1990a) found less people and off -road vehicles at
sites where nonbreeding piping plovers were present than at sites without piping plovers. Pfister
et al. (1992) implicate anthropogenic disturbance as a factor in the long-term decline of
migrating shorebirds at staging areas. Disturbance can cause shorebirds to spend less time
roosting or foraging and more time in alert postures or fleeing from the disturbances (Burger
1991; 1994; Elliott and Teas 1996; Lafferty 2001a, 2001b; Thomas et al. 2003). Shorebirds that
are repeatedly flushed in response to disturbance expend energy on costly short flights (Nudds
and Bryant 2000).
Shorebirds are more likely to flush from the presence of dogs than people, and breeding and
nonbreeding shorebirds react to dogs from farther distances than people (Lafferty 2001a, 2001b;
37

Lord et al. 2001; Thomas et al. 2003). Hoopes (1993) found that dogs flush breeding piping
plovers from further distances than people and that both the distance the plovers move and the
duration of their response is greater. Foraging shorebirds at a migratory stopover on Delaware
Bay, New Jersey responded most strongly to dogs compared with other disturbances; shorebirds
often failed to return within ten minutes after the dog left the beach (Burger et al. 2007). Dogs
off -leash were disproportionate sources of disturbance in several studies (Thomas et al. 2003;
Lafferty 2001b), but leashed dogs also disturbed shorebirds. Pedestrians walking with dogs
often go through flocks of foraging and roosting shorebirds; some even encourage their dogs to
chase birds.
Oil spills and other contaminants
Piping plovers may accumulate contaminants from point and non -point sources at migratory and
wintering sites. Depending on the type and degree of contact, contaminants can have lethal and
sub -lethal effects on birds, including behavioral impairment, deformities, and impaired
reproduction (Rand and Petrocelli 1985; Gilbertson et al. 1991; Hoffman et al. 1996).
Notwithstanding documented cases of lightly oiled piping plovers that have survived and
successfully reproduced (Amirault-Langlais et al. 2007), contaminants have both the potential to
cause direct toxicity to individual birds and to negatively impact their invertebrate prey base
(Chapman 1984; Rattner and Ackerson 2008). Piping plovers' extensive use of the intertidal
zone puts them in constant contact with coastal habitats likely to be contaminated by water -borne
spills. Negative impacts can also occur during rehabilitation of oiled birds. Frink et al. (1996)
describe how standard treatment protocols were modified to reflect the extreme susceptibility of
piping plovers to handling and other stressors.
Land -based Oil and Gas Exploration and Development
Various oil and gas exploration and development activities occur along the Gulf Coast.
Examples of conservation measures prescribed to avoid adverse effects on piping plovers and
their habitats include conditions on driving on beaches and tidal flats, restrictions on discharging
fresh water across unvegetated tidal flats, timing exploration activities during times when the
plovers are not present, and use of directional drilling from adjacent upland areas (USFWS
2008d; Firmin pers. comm. 2012). With the implementation of appropriate conditions, threats to
nonbreeding piping plovers from land -based oil and gas extraction are currently very low.
Wind Turbines
Wind turbines are a potential future threat to piping plovers in their coastal migration and
wintering range. Relatively small single turbines have been constructed along the beachfront in
at least a few locations (Caldwell pers. comm. 2012). Current risk to piping plovers from several
wind farms located on the mainland north and west of several bays in southern Texas is deemed
low during months of winter residency because the birds are not believed to traverse these areas
in their daily movements (Newstead pers. comm. 2012a). To date, no piping plovers have been
reported from post -construction carcass detection surveys at these sites (Clements pers. comm.
2012). However, Newstead (pers. comm. 2012a) has raised questions about collision risk during
migration departure, as large numbers of piping plovers have been observed in areas of the
Laguna Madre east of the wind farms during the late winter. Furthermore, there is concern that,
38

as sea level rises, the intertidal zone (and potential piping plover activity) may move closer to
these sites. Several offshore wind farm proposals in South Carolina are in various stages of early
scoping (Caldwell pers. comm. 2012).
Predation
The extent of predation on migrating or wintering piping plovers remains largely unknown and is
difficult to document. Avian and mammalian predators are common throughout the species'
wintering range. Human activities affect the types, numbers, and activity patterns of some
predators, thereby exacerbating natural predation on breeding piping plovers (USFWS 1996).
One incident involving a cat observed stalking piping plovers was reported in Texas (NY Times
2007). It has been estimated that free -roaming cats kill over one billion birds every year in the
U.S., representing one of the largest single sources of human -influenced mortality for small
native wildlife (Sax and Gaines 2008).
Predatory birds, including peregrine falcons, merlin, and harriers, are present in the nonbreeding
range. Newstead (pers. comm. 2012b) reported two cases of suspected avian depredation of
piping plovers in a Texas telemetry study, but he also noted that red tide may have compromised
the health of these plovers. It has been noted, however, that the behavioral response of
crouching when in the presence of avian predators may minimize avian predation on piping
plovers (Morrier and McNeil 1991; Drake 1999; Drake et al. 2001). Drake (1999) theorized that
this piping plover behavior enhances concealment associated with roosting in depressions and
debris in Texas.
Military operations
Five of the eleven coastal military bases located in the U.S. continental range of nonbreeding
piping plovers have consulted with the USFWS about potential effects of military activities on
plovers and their habitat (USFWS 2009a; USFWS 2010b). Formal consultation under section 7
of the ESA with Camp Lejeune, North Carolina in 2002 provided for year-round piping plover
surveys, but restrictions on activities on Onslow Beach only pertain to the plover breeding
season (Hammond pers. comm. 2012). Current threats to wintering and migrating piping plovers
posed by military activities appear minimal.
Disease
No instances of disease have been documented in piping plovers outside the breeding range. In
the southeastern U.S., the cause of death of one piping plover received from Texas was
emaciation (Acker pers. comm. 2009). Newstead (pers. comm. 2012b) reported circumstantial
evidence that red tide weakened piping plovers in the vicinity of the Laguna Madre and Padre
Island, Texas during the fall of 2011. The 2009 5-Year Review concluded that West Nile virus
and avian influenza remain minor threats to piping plovers on their wintering and migration
grounds.
39

3.1.4. Summary of Piping Plover Status
North Carolina is the only state where the piping plover's breeding and wintering ranges overlap
and the birds are present year-round. Piping plovers in the Action Area may include individuals
from all three breeding populations, although during May, individuals from the Atlantic Coast
breeding population are most likely to be present. Piping plovers migrate through and winter in
coastal areas of the U.S. from North Carolina to Texas and in portions of Mexico and the
Caribbean.
Since its 1986 listing under the ESA, the Atlantic Coast population estimate has increased 234%,
from approximately 790 pairs to an estimated 1,849 pairs in 2008, and the U.S. portion of the
population has almost tripled, from approximately 550 pairs to an estimated 1,596 pairs.
Habitat loss and degradation on winter and migration grounds from shoreline and inlet
stabilization efforts, both within and outside of designated critical habitat, remain a serious threat
to all piping plover populations. Modeling strongly suggests that the population is very sensitive
to adult and juvenile survival. Therefore, while there is a great deal of effort extended to
improve breeding success, to improve and maintain a higher population over time, it is also
necessary to ensure that the wintering habitat, where birds spend most of their time, is secure.
Important components of ecologically sound barrier beach management include perpetuation of
natural dynamic coastal formation processes. On the wintering grounds, the shoreline areas used
by wintering piping plovers are being developed, stabilized, or otherwise altered, making it
unsuitable. Even in areas where habitat conditions are appropriate, human disturbance on
beaches may negatively impact piping plovers' energy budget, as they may spend more time
being vigilant and less time in foraging and roosting behavior. In many cases, the disturbance is
severe enough, that piping plovers appear to avoid some areas altogether. Threats on the
wintering grounds may impact piping plovers' breeding success if they start migration or arrive
at the breeding grounds with a poor body condition.
A review of threats to piping plovers and their habitat in their migration and wintering range
shows a continuing loss and degradation of habitat due to sand placement projects, inlet
stabilization, sand mining, groins, seawalls and revetments, dredging of canal subdivisions,
invasive vegetation, and wrack removal. Shoreline stabilization projects can have lasting
impacts on coastal migration and winter habitat. Threats on the wintering grounds may impact
piping plovers' breeding success if they start migration or arrive at the breeding grounds with a
poor body condition. This cumulative habitat loss is, by itself, of major threat to piping plovers,
as well as the many other shorebird species competing with them for foraging resources and
roosting habitats in their nonbreeding range. However, artificial shoreline stabilization also
impedes the processes by which coastal habitats adapt to storms and accelerating sea level rise,
thus setting the stage for compounding future losses. Furthermore, inadequate management of
increasing numbers of beach recreationists reduces the functional suitability of coastal migration
and wintering habitat and increases pressure on piping plovers and other shorebirds depending
upon a shrinking habitat base. Experience during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill illustrates
how, in addition to the direct threat of contamination, spill response activities can result in short -
and long-term effects on habitat and disturb piping plovers and other shorebirds. If climate
change increases the frequency and magnitude of severe weather events, this may pose an
40

additional threat. The best available information indicates that other threats are currently low,
but vigilance is warranted, especially in light of the potential to exacerbate or compound effects
of very significant threats from habitat loss and degradation and from increasing human
disturbance.
3.2. Environmental Baseline for Piping Plover
This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to
the current status of the Piping Plover, its habitat, and ecosystem within the Action Area. The
environmental baseline is a "snapshot" of the species' health in the Action Area at the time of the
consultation and does not include the effects of the Action under review.
3.2.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of Piping Plover
The NCWRC conducted coast -wide surveys for breeding piping plovers in North Carolina
between June 1 and June 9 of 2010 through 2020. No breeding piping plovers were documented
on Oak Island or Bald Head Island (www.ncpaws.org, accessed April 9, 2021). On Oak Island,
the 2006 International Piping Plover Census surveys documented no wintering piping plovers,
and no breeding piping plovers (Elliott -Smith et al. 2009). However, surveys were conducted
only on one date during each season.
Data provided by the Town of Oak Island's consultant for the Eastern Channel dredging project
indicate as many as two piping plovers during the summer of 2001 on Oak Island, and as many
as three piping plovers in the Lockwoods Folly Inlet area in this same span of time (Oak Island
or Holden Beach east).
3.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs of and Threats to Piping Plover
The Action Area is quite heavily developed. Development began in the mid- to late- 1800s with
the construction of Fort Caswell. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) was constructed
in the mid-1930's. Oak Island began to develop in earnest in the 1950s and 1960s. The entire
length of the Action Area is presently lined with structures, and there is no significant length of
undeveloped shoreline. Recreational use in the Action Area is quite high from residents and
tourists.
A wide range of recent and on -going activities have altered the proposed Action Area and, to a
greater extent, the North Carolina coastline, and many more are proposed along the coastline for
the near future. Table 3-2 lists the most recent projects, within the past 5 years.
41

Table 3-2. Actions that have occurred in the Action Area in the last five years.
Year
Species Impacted
Project Type
Anticipated Take
2019
Loggerhead, green, Kemp's
Dredging of Wilmington
23,000 if of shoreline
ridley, hawksbill, and
Inner Ocean Bar and
leatherback sea turtle,
placement of sand on
piping plover, red knot,
Oak Island
seabeach amaranth
2017-2018
Loggerhead, green, Kemp's
Dune construction
N/A
(ongoing)
ridley, hawksbill, and
leatherback sea turtle,
piping plover, red knot,
seabeach amaranth
2015
Loggerhead, green,
Dredging of Eastern
3,148 of shoreline,
leatherback, hawksbill, and
Channel and placement
3.49 acres of piping
Kemp's ridley sea turtle,
of sand on western Oak
plover critical habitat
piping plover, red knot,
Island
seabeach amaranth
Loggerhead, green, Kemp's
Sandbag placement in
2501f of beach
2014
ridley, hawksbill, and
front of four properties.
shoreline
leatherback sea turtle,
piping plover, red knot,
seabeach amaranth
Regularly,
Loggerhead, green, Kemp's
AIWW dredging,
Unknown amount of
most
ridley, hawksbill, and
Lockwoods Folly Inlet
beach shoreline and
recently in
leatherback sea turtle,
dredging. Beach
inlet habitats
2014
piping plover, red knot,
nourishment may be
seabeach amaranth
associated.
Repeating
Loggerhead, green, Kemp's
Beach bulldozing
47,000 if of beach
activity,
ridley, hawksbill, and
shoreline
beginning
leatherback sea turtle,
in 2011
piping plover, red knot,
seabeach amaranth
Repeating
Loggerhead, green, Kemp's
Beach raking with
12,1001f of
activity,
ridley, hawksbill, and
Cherrington 5000 to
shoreline,
beginning
leatherback sea turtle,
remove rocks from
approximately 19.44
in 2010
piping plover, red knot,
beach
acres of beach
seabeach amaranth
habitat
Repeating
Loggerhead, green,
Corps' Wilmington
Up to 25,000 if of
Activity,
leatherback, hawksbill, and
Harbor Channel
shoreline
most
Kemp's ridley sea turtle,
deepening/dredging and
recently in
piping plover, red knot,
placement of sand on
2009
seabeach amaranth
Oak Island Beach and
Caswell Beach
42

Nourishment activities widen beaches, change their sedimentology and stratigraphy, alter coastal
processes, and often plug dune gaps and remove overwash areas.
Beach scraping can artificially steepen beaches, stabilize dune scarps, plug dune gaps, and
redistribute sediment distribution patterns. Artificial dune building, often a product of beach
scraping, removes low-lying overwash areas and dune gaps. As chronic erosion catches up to
structures throughout the Action Area, artificial dune systems are constructed and maintained to
protect beachfront structures either by sand fencing or fill placement. Beach scraping or
bulldozing has become more frequent on North Carolina beaches in the past 20 years, in
response to storms and the continuing retreat of the shoreline with rising sea level. These
activities primarily occur during the winter months. Artificial dune or berm systems have been
constructed and maintained in several areas. These dunes make the artificial dune ridge function
like a seawall that blocks natural beach retreat, evolution, and overwash. Beach scraping was
conducted on Oak Island in Fall of 2020, after Hurricane Isaias.
Beach raking: Man-made beach cleaning and raking machines effectively remove seaweed, fish,
glass, syringes, plastic, cans, cigarettes, shells, stone, wood, and virtually any unwanted debris
(Barber Beach Cleaning Equipment 2009). These efforts may remove accumulated wrack,
topographic depressions, and sparse vegetation nodes used by roosting and foraging piping
plovers. Removal of wrack also eliminates a beach's natural sand -trapping abilities, further
destabilizing the beach. In addition, sand adhering to seaweed and trapped in the cracks and
crevices of wrack is removed from the beach. Although the amount of sand lost due to single
sweeping actions may be small, it adds up considerably over a period of years (Nordstrom et al.
2006; Neal et al. 2007). Beach cleaning or grooming can result in abnormally broad unvegetated
zones that are inhospitable to dune formation or plant colonization, thereby enhancing the
likelihood of erosion (Defreo et al. 2009). The applicant conducted beach raking during winter
of 2021 prior to this project, to remove rock from previous nourishment efforts, but no plans for
raking to move trash have been proposed.
Pedestrian Use of the Beach: There are a number of potential sources of pedestrians and pets,
including those individuals originating from beachfront and nearby residences.
Shoreline stabilization: Sandbags on private properties and along roadways provide stabilization
to the shoreline of beaches in Caswell Beach and Oak Island, especially along East Beach Drive.
Sand fencing: There are many stretches of sand fencing along the shoreline on Oak Island. Sand
fencing captures windblown sand, bolstering dunes and altering the beach profile (Rice 2017).
When fences are installed seaward of houses, the sand fencing displaces the dune crest farther
seaward than would naturally occur (Nordstrom and McCluskey 1985). The installation of sand
fencing in overwash areas hastens the conversion of these flat, bare areas to elevated, vegetated
dune habitat. Sand fencing may impede the movement of unfledged chicks and sea turtles.
Between 2012 and early 2016, 62.69 miles (19%) of sandy beach habitat in North Carolina was
modified by sand fencing.
43

3.3. Effects of the Action on Piping Plover
This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Action on the Piping Plover, which
includes the direct and indirect effects of interrelated and interdependent actions. Direct effects
are caused by the Action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the
Action but are later in time and reasonably certain to occur.
3.3.1. Effects of Sand Placement and Dune Vegetation Planting on Piping Plover
The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect wintering and migrating piping plovers
and their habitat from all breeding populations that may use the Action Area. The Atlantic Coast
breeding population of piping plover is listed as threatened, while the Great Lakes breeding
population is listed as endangered. Potential effects to piping plover include direct loss of
foraging and roosting habitat in the Action Area and attraction of predators due to food waste
from the construction crew. Plovers face predation by avian and mammalian predators that are
present year-round on the wintering and nesting grounds. Although the piping plover is not
currently known to nest in the Action Area, the stabilization of the shoreline may also result in
less suitable nesting habitat for all shorebirds, including the piping plover. Planting and growth
of dune vegetation may affect piping plovers, including impacts from vehicle use on the beach
and changes in the physical characteristics of the beach.
Applicable Science and Response Pathways
Direct effects:
Heavy machinery and equipment (e.g., dredges, trucks and bulldozers operating in Action Area)
may adversely affect piping plovers in the Action Area by disturbance and disruption of normal
activities such as roosting and foraging, and possibly forcing birds to expend valuable energy
reserves to seek available habitat elsewhere. In addition, piping plovers may face increased
predation from avian and mammalian predators attracted to the Action Area by food waste from
the construction and planting crew.
Indirect effects:
The Service expects there may be morphological changes to adjacent piping plover habitat,
including roosting and foraging habitat. Activities that affect or alter the use of optimal habitat
or increase disturbance to the species may decrease the survival and recovery potential of the
piping plover.
Indirect effects include reducing the potential for the formation of optimal habitats. Overwash is
an essential process, necessary to maintain the integrity of many barrier islands and to create new
habitat (Donnelly et al. 2006). In a study on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, Smith et al.
(2008) found that human "modifications to the barrier island, such as construction of barrier
dune ridges, planting of stabilizing vegetation, and urban development, can curtail or even
eliminate the natural, self-sustaining processes of overwash and inlet dynamics." The proposed
project may limit overwash and the creation of optimal foraging and roosting habitat, and may
44

increase the attractiveness of these beaches for recreation increasing recreational pressures
within the Action Area. Recreational activities that potentially adversely affect plovers include
disturbance by unleashed pets and increased pedestrian use.
The Service anticipates potential adverse effects throughout the Action Area by limiting
proximity to roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat and degrading occupied foraging habitat.
Elliott and Teas (1996) found a significant difference in actions between piping plovers
encountering pedestrians and those not encountering pedestrians. Piping plover encountering
pedestrians spend proportionately more time in non -foraging behavior. This study suggests that
interactions with pedestrians on beaches cause birds to shift their activities from calorie
acquisition to calorie expenditure. In winter and migration sites, human disturbance continues to
decrease the amount of undisturbed habitat and appears to limit local piping plover abundance
(Zonick and Ryan 1996).
Disturbance also reduces the time migrating shorebirds spend foraging (Burger 1991). Pfister et
al. (1992) implicate disturbance as a factor in the long-term decline of migrating shorebirds at
staging areas. While piping plover migration patterns and needs remain poorly understood and
occupancy of a particular habitat may involve shorter periods relative to wintering, information
about the energetics of avian migration indicates that this might be a particularly critical time in
the species' life cycle.
Long-term and permanent impacts could preclude the creation of new habitat and increase
recreational disturbance. Short-term and temporary impacts to piping plovers could result from
project work disturbing roosting plovers and degrading currently occupied adjacent foraging
areas. The effects of the project construction include a long-term reduction in foraging habitat, a
long-term decreased rate of change that may preclude habitat creation. A decrease in the
survival of piping plovers on the migration and winter grounds due to the lack of optimal habitat
may contribute to decreased survival rates, decreased productivity on the breeding grounds, and
increased vulnerability to the three populations.
The addition of dredged sediment can temporarily affect the benthic fauna of intertidal systems.
Burial, crushing, and suffocation of invertebrate species will occur during the sand placement,
and will affect up to 20,7001f of shoreline. Although some benthic species can burrow through
a thin layer of additional sediment (38-89 cm for different species), thicker layers (i.e., >1 meter)
are likely to smother these sensitive benthic organisms (Greene 2002). Numerous studies of
such effects indicate that the recovery of benthic fauna after beach nourishment or sediment
placement projects can take anywhere from six months to two years, and possibly longer in
extreme cases (Thrush et al. 1996; Peterson et al. 2000; Zajac and Whitlatch 2003; Bishop et al.
2006; Peterson et al. 2006). Sand placement projects bury the natural beach with up to millions
of cubic yards of new sediment, and grade the new beach and intertidal zone with heavy
equipment to conform to a predetermined topographic profile. If the material used in a sand
placement project does not closely match the native material on the beach, the sediment
incompatibility may result in modifications to the macroinvertebrate community structure,
because several species are sensitive to grain size and composition (Rakocinski et al. 1996;
Peterson et al. 2000; 2006; Peterson and Bishop 2005; Colosio et al. 2007; Defeo et al. 2009).
45

Delayed recovery of the benthic prey base or changes in their communities due to physical
habitat changes may affect the quality of piping plover foraging habitat. The duration of the
impact can adversely affect piping plovers because of their high site fidelity. Although recovery
of invertebrate communities has been documented in many studies, sampling designs have
typically been inadequate and have only been able to detect large -magnitude changes (Schoeman
et al. 2000; Peterson and Bishop 2005). Therefore, uncertainty persists about the impacts of
various projects to invertebrate communities and how these impacts affect shorebirds,
particularly the piping plover.
Beneficial effects:
For some highly eroded beaches, sand placement will have a beneficial effect on the habitat's
ability to support wintering piping plovers. Narrow beaches that do not support a productive
wrack line may see an improvement in foraging habitat available to piping plovers following
sand placement. The addition of sand to the sediment budget may also increase a sand -starved
beach's likelihood of developing habitat features valued by piping plovers, including washover
fans and emergent nearshore sand bars.
Summary of Responses and Interpretation of Effects
Sand placement activities widen beaches, change their sedimentology and stratigraphy, alter
coastal processes, and often plug dune gaps and remove overwash areas.
The proposed placement of sand on 20,7001f of beach will occur within habitat for migrating
and wintering piping plovers and construction will occur during a portion of the nesting,
migration, and winter seasons. Piping plovers may be present year-round in the Action Area.
The sand placement and demobilization activities are one-time activities, expected to extend
from May 1 to May 26, 2021. Dune vegetation planting activities are expected to extend to the
end of June 2021. The Service expects the action will result in direct and indirect, long-term
effects to piping plovers. However, the Action Area has been developed for decades, with
regular nourishment activities and a high level of recreational activity. There are no optimal
habitats that will be affected. Therefore, piping plover presence in the Action Area is typically
low, and the severity of these effects to the three piping plover populations is expected to be
slight.
For this and other sand placement BOs, the Service typically uses a surrogate to estimate the
extent of take. The amount of take is directly proportional to the spatial/temporal extent of
occupied habitat that the Action affects, and exceeding this extent would represent a taking that
is not anticipated in this BO. It is difficult for the Service to estimate the exact number of piping
plovers that could be migrating through or wintering within the Action Area at any point in time
and place during and after project construction and maintenance events. Disturbance to suitable
habitat resulting from placement of sand would affect the ability of an undetermined number of
piping plovers to find suitable foraging and roosting habitat during construction and maintenance
for an unknown length of time after construction. Incidental take of piping plovers will be
difficult to detect for the following reasons:
01

(1) harassment to the level of harm may only be apparent on the breeding grounds the
following year; and
(2) dead plovers may be carried away by waves or predators.
However, the level of take of this species can be anticipated by the proposed activities because:
(1) piping plovers migrate through and winter in the Action Area;
(2) the placement of the constructed beach is expected to affect the coastal morphology
and prevent early successional stages, thereby precluding the maintenance and
creation of additional recovery habitat;
(3) increased levels of pedestrian disturbance may be expected; and
(4) a temporary reduction of food base will occur.
3.4. Cumulative Effects on Piping Plover
For purposes of consultation under ESA §7, cumulative effects are those caused by future state,
tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area. Future
Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered, because they require
separate consultation under §7 of the ESA. It is reasonable to expect continued shoreline
stabilization and beach renourishment projects in this area in the future since erosion and sea -
level rise increases would impact the existing beachfront development.
3.5. Conclusion for Piping Plover
In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections for the Piping
Plover (status, baseline, effects, and cumulative effects) relative to the purpose of a BO under
§7(a)(2) of the ESA, which is to determine whether a Federal action is likely to:
a) jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
b) result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
"Jeopardize the continued existence" means to engage in an action that reasonably would be
expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and
recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of
that species (50 CFR §402.02).
Status
North Carolina is the only state where the piping plover's breeding and wintering ranges overlap,
and the birds are present year-round. Piping plovers in the Action Area may include individuals
from all three breeding populations.
Baseline
Within the Action Area, there have been very few documented piping plovers during the winter,
migration, or breeding seasons.
47

Effects
Sand placement activities widen beaches, change their sedimentology and stratigraphy, alter
coastal processes, and often plug dune gaps and remove overwash areas.
The proposed placement of sand on 20,7001f of beach will occur within habitat for piping
plovers. Piping plovers may be present year-round in the Action Area. Sand nourishment and
demobilization under this authorization is expected to be a one-time event, extending from May
1 to May 26, 2021. The Service expects the action will result indirect and indirect, long-term
effects to piping plovers. However, the Action Area has been developed for decades, with
regular nourishment activities and a high level of recreational activity. There are no optimal
habitats that will be affected. Therefore, piping plover presence in the Action Area is typically
low, and the severity of these effects to the survival and recovery of the three piping plover
populations is not expected to be significant.
It is reasonable to expect continued shoreline stabilization and beach renourishment projects in
this area in the future since erosion and sea -level rise increases would impact the existing
beachfront development. These future projects are likely to require federal permits and
therefore, are not considered to be cumulative effects.
After reviewing the current status of the species, the environmental baseline for the Action Area,
the effects of the Action and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the
Action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the piping plover.
4. RED KNOT
4.1. Status of Red Knot
This section summarizes best available data about the biology and current condition of red knot
(Calidris canutus rufa) throughout its range that are relevant to formulating an opinion about the
Action. The Service published its decision to list the rufa red knot as threatened on December 11,
2014 (79 FR 73706).
4.1.1. Description of Red Knot
The red knot is a medium-sized shorebird about 9 to 11 inches (in) (23 to 28 centimeters (cm)) in
length. The red knot migrates annually between its breeding grounds in the Canadian Arctic and
several wintering regions, including the Southeast U.S. (Southeast), the Northeast Gulf of
Mexico, northern Brazil, and Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America. During both
the northbound (spring) and southbound (fall) migrations, red knots use key staging and stopover
areas to rest and feed. Red knots migrate through and overwinter in North Carolina. The term
"winter" is used to refer to the nonbreeding period of the red knot life cycle when the birds are
not undertaking migratory movements. Red knots are most common in North Carolina during the
migration season (mid -April through May and July to Mid -October), and may be present in the
state throughout the year (Fussell 1994; Potter et al. 1980). Wintering areas for the red knot

include the Atlantic coasts of Argentina and Chile, the north coast of Brazil, the Northwest Gulf
of Mexico from the Mexican State of Tamaulipas through Texas to Louisiana, and the Southeast
U.S. from Florida to North Carolina (Newstead et al. 2013; Niles et al. 2008). Smaller numbers
of knots winter in the Caribbean, and along the central Gulf coast, the mid -Atlantic, and the
Northeast U.S. Little information exists on where juvenile red knots spend the winter months
(USFWS and Conserve Wildlife Foundation 2012), and there may be at least partial segregation
of juvenile and adult red knots on the wintering grounds. There is no designation of critical
habitat for red knot.
4.1.2. Life History of Red Knot
Each year red knots make one of the longest distance migrations known in the animal kingdom,
traveling up to 19,000 miles (mi) (30,000 kilometers (km) annually between breeding grounds in
the Arctic Circle and wintering grounds. Red knots undertake long flights that may span
thousands of miles without stopping. As they prepare to depart on long migratory flights, they
undergo several physiological changes. Before takeoff, the birds accumulate and store large
amounts of fat to fuel migration and undergo substantial changes in metabolic rates. In addition,
leg muscles, gizzard (a muscular organ used for grinding food), stomach, intestines, and liver all
decrease in size, while pectoral (chest) muscles and heart increase in size. Due to these
physiological changes, red knots arriving from lengthy migrations are not able to feed maximally
until their digestive systems regenerate, a process that may take several days. Because stopovers
are time -constrained, red knots require stopovers rich in easily -digested food to achieve adequate
weight gain (Niles et al. 2008; van Gils et al. 2005a; van Gils et al. 2005b; Piersma et al. 1999)
that fuels the next migratory flight and, upon arrival in the Arctic, fuels a body transformation to
breeding condition (Morrison 2006). Red knots from different wintering areas appear to employ
different migration strategies, including differences in timing, routes, and stopover areas.
However, full segregation of migration strategies, routes, or stopover areas does not occur among
red knots from different wintering areas.
Major spring stopover areas along the Mid- and South Atlantic coast include Rio Gallegos,
Peninsula Valdes, and San Antonio Oeste (Patagonia, Argentina); Lagoa do Peixe (eastern
Brazil, State of Rio Grande do Sul); Maranhao (northern Brazil); the Virginia barrier islands
(U.S.); and Delaware Bay (Delaware and New Jersey, U.S.) (Cohen et al. 2009; Niles et al. 2008;
Gonzalez 2005). Important fall stopover sites include southwest Hudson Bay (including the
Nelson River delta), James Bay, the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, the Mingan
Archipelago, and the Bay of Fundy in Canada; the coasts of Massachusetts and New Jersey and
the mouth of the Altamaha River in Georgia, U.S.; the Caribbean (especially Puerto Rico and the
Lesser Antilles); and the northern coast of South America from Brazil to Guyana (Newstead et
al. 2013; Niles 2012; Niles et al. 2010; Schneider and Winn 2010; Niles et al. 2008; Antas and
Nascimento 1996; Morrison and Harrington 1992; Spaans 1978). However, large and small
groups of red knots, sometimes numbering in the thousands, may occur in suitable habitats all
along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from Argentina to Canada during migration (Niles et al.
2008).
Some red knots wintering in the Southeastern U.S. and the Caribbean migrate north along the
U.S. Atlantic coast before flying overland to central Canada from the mid -Atlantic, while others
49

migrate overland directly to the Arctic from the Southeastern U.S. coast (Niles et al. 2012).
These eastern red knots typically make a short stop at James Bay in Canada, but may also stop
briefly along the Great Lakes, perhaps in response to weather conditions (Niles et al. 2008;
Morrison and Harrington 1992). Red knots are restricted to the ocean coasts during winter, and
occur primarily along the coasts during migration. However, small numbers of rufa red knots are
reported annually across the interior U.S. (i.e., greater than 25 miles from the Gulf or Atlantic
Coasts) during spring and fall migration —these reported sightings are concentrated along the
Great Lakes, but multiple reports have been made from nearly every interior State (eBird.org
2012).
Long-distance migrant shorebirds are highly dependent on the continued existence of quality
habitat at a few key staging areas. These areas serve as stepping -stones between wintering and
breeding areas. Conditions or factors influencing shorebird populations on staging areas control
much of the remainder of the annual cycle and survival of the birds (Skagen 2006; International
Wader Study Group 2003). At some stages of migration, very high proportions of entire
populations may use a single migration staging site to prepare for long flights. Red knots show
some fidelity to particular migration staging areas between years (Duerr et al. 2011; Harrington
2001).
Habitats used by red knots in migration and wintering areas are similar in character, generally
coastal marine and estuarine habitats with large areas of exposed intertidal sediments. In North
America, red knots are commonly found along sandy, gravel, or cobble beaches, tidal mudflats,
salt marshes, shallow coastal impoundments and lagoons, and peat banks (Cohen et al. 2010;
Cohen et al. 2009; Niles et al. 2008; Harrington 2001; Truitt et al. 2001). The supra -tidal (above
the high tide) sandy habitats of inlets provide important areas for roosting, especially at higher
tides when intertidal habitats are inundated (Harrington 2008).
The red knot is a specialized molluscivore, eating hard -shelled mollusks, sometimes
supplemented with easily accessed softer invertebrate prey, such as shrimp- and crab -like
organisms, marine worms, and horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) eggs (Piersma and van Gils
2011; Harrington 2001). Mollusk prey are swallowed whole and crushed in the gizzard (Piersma
and van Gils 2011). Foraging activity is largely dictated by tidal conditions, as red knots rarely
wade in water more than 0.8 to 1.2 in (2 to 3 cm) deep (Harrington 2001). Due to bill
morphology, the red knot is limited to foraging on only shallow -buried prey, within the top 0.8 to
1.2 in (2 to 3 cm) of sediment (Gerasimov 2009; Zwarts and Blomert 1992).
The primary prey of the rufa red knot in non -breeding habitats include blue mussel (Mytilus
edulis) spat (juveniles); Donax and Darina clams; snails (Littorina spp.), and other mollusks,
with polychaete worms, insect larvae, and crustaceans also eaten in some locations. A prominent
departure from typical prey items occurs each spring when red knots feed on the eggs of
horseshoe crabs, particularly during the key migration stopover within the Delaware Bay of New
Jersey and Delaware. Delaware Bay serves as the principal spring migration staging area for the
red knot because of the availability of horseshoe crab eggs (Clark et al. 2009; Harrington 2001;
Harrington 1996; Morrison and Harrington 1992), which provide a superabundant source of
easily digestible food. Red knots also prey on horseshoe crab eggs when available in other
states.
50

Red knots and other shorebirds that are long-distance migrants must take advantage of seasonally
abundant food resources at intermediate stopovers to build up fat reserves for the next non-stop,
long-distance flight (Clark et al. 1993). Although foraging red knots can be found widely
distributed in small numbers within suitable habitats during the migration period, birds tend to
concentrate in those areas where abundant food resources are consistently available from year to
year.
4.1.3. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of Red Knot
The Service has determined that the rufa red knot is threatened due to loss of both breeding and
nonbreeding habitat; potential for disruption of natural predator cycles on the breeding grounds;
reduced prey availability throughout the nonbreeding range; and increasing frequency and
severity of asynchronies ("mismatches") in the timing of the birds' annual migratory cycle
relative to favorable food and weather conditions.
In the U.S., red knot populations declined sharply in the late 1800s and early 1900s due to
excessive sport and market hunting, followed by hunting restrictions and signs of population
recovery by the mid- 1900s (Urner and Storer 1949; Stone 1937; Bent 1927). However, it is
unclear whether the red knot population fully recovered its historical numbers (Harrington 2001)
following the period of unregulated hunting. More recently, long-term survey data from two key
areas (Tierra del Fuego wintering area and Delaware Bay spring stopover site) both show a
roughly 75 percent decline in red knot numbers since the 1980s (Dey et al. 2011; Clark et al.
2009; Morrison et al. 2004; Morrison and Ross 1989; Kochenberger 1983; Dunne et al. 1982;
Wander and Dunne 1982).
For many portions of the knot's range, available survey data remain patchy. Prior to the 1980s,
numerous natural history accounts are available, but provide mainly qualitative or localized
population estimates. No population information exists for the breeding range because, in
breeding habitats, red knots are thinly distributed across a huge and remote area of the Arctic.
Despite some localized survey efforts, (e.g., Niles et al. 2008), there are no regional or
comprehensive estimates of breeding abundance, density, or productivity (Niles et al. 2008).
Based on resightings of birds banded in South Carolina and Georgia from 1999 to 2002, the
Southeast wintering population was estimated at 11,700 f 1,000 (standard error) red knots.
Although there appears to have been a gradual shift by some of the southeastern knots from the
Florida Gulf coast to the Atlantic coasts of Georgia and South Carolina, population estimates for
the Southeast region in the 2000s were at about the same level as during the 1980s (Harrington
2005a). Based on recent modeling using resightings of marked birds staging in Georgia in fall,
as well as other evidence, the Southeast wintering group may number as high as 20,000 (B.
Harrington pers. comm. November 12, 2012), but field survey data are not available to
corroborate this estimate.
Beginning in 2006, coordinated red knot surveys have been conducted from Florida to Delaware
Bay during 2 consecutive days from May 20 to 24 (Table 4-1). This period is thought to
represent the peak of the red knot migration. There has been variability in methods, observers,
and areas covered. From 2006 to 2010, there was no change in counts that could not be
51

attributed to varying geographic survey coverage (Dey et al. 2011); thus, we do not consider any
apparent trends in these data before 2010.
Table 4-1. Red knot counts along the Atlantic coast of the U.S., May 20 to 24, 2006 to
2012 (A. Dey pers. comm. October 12, 2012; Dey et al. 2011).
2006
200
2009
2010
21
New Jerse
7,860
4,445
10,045
16,229
8,945
7,737
23,525
Delaware
820
2,950
5,350
5,530
5,067
3,433
Maryland
663
78
5
83
139
Virginia
5,783
5,939
7,802
3,261
8,214
6,236
8,482
North
Carolina
235
304
1,137
1,466
1,113
1,868
2,832
South
Carolina
125
180
10
1,220
315
542
Georgia
796
2,155
1,487
260
3,071
1,466
Florida
1
1 868
1 800
1 41
1
1 10
Total
15,494
1 15,918
1 27,532
1 21,844
1 25,328
1 24,377
1 40,429
Because red knot numbers peak earlier in the Southeast than in the mid -Atlantic (M. Bimbi pers.
comm. June 27, 2013), the late -May coast -wide survey data likely reflect the movement of some
birds north along the coast, and may miss other birds that depart for Canada from the Southeast
along an interior (overland) route prior to the survey window. Thus, greater numbers of red
knots may utilize Southeastern stopovers than suggested by the data in Table 4-1.
Range -Wide Trends:
Wintering areas for the red knot include the Atlantic coasts of Argentina and Chile, the north
coast of Brazil, the Northwest Gulf of Mexico from the Mexican State of Tamaulipas through
Texas to Louisiana, and the Southeast U.S. from Florida to North Carolina (Newstead et al.
2013; L. Patrick pers. comm. August 31, 2012; Niles et al. 2008). Smaller numbers of knots
winter in the Caribbean, and along the central Gulf coast (Alabama, Mississippi), the mid -
Atlantic, and the Northeast U.S. Calidris canutus is also known to winter in Central America
and northwest South America, but it is not yet clear if all these birds are the rufa subspecies.
In some years, more red knots have been counted during a coordinated spring migration survey
than can be accounted for at known wintering sites, suggesting there are unknown wintering
areas. Indeed, geolocators have started revealing previously little-known wintering areas,
particularly in the Caribbean (Niles et al. 2012; L. Niles pers. comm. January 8, 2013).
The core of the Southeast wintering area (i.e., that portion of this large region supporting the
majority of birds) is thought to shift from year to year among Florida, Georgia, and South
Carolina (Niles et al. 2008). However, the geographic limits of this wintering region are poorly
defined. Although only small numbers are known, wintering knots extend along the Atlantic
coast as far north as Virginia (L. Patrick pers. comm. August 31, 2012; Niles et al. 2006),
52

Maryland (Burger et al. 2012), and New Jersey (BandedBirds.org 2012; H. Hanlon pers. Comm.
November 22, 2012; A. Dey pers. comm. November 19, 2012). Still smaller numbers of red
knots have been reported between December and February from Long Island, New York,
through Massachusetts and as far north as Nova Scotia, Canada (eBird.org 2012).
4.1.4. Conservation Needs of and Threats to Red Knot
A Recovery Plan for the red knot has not yet been completed. It will be developed, pursuant to
Subsection 4(f) of the ESA, in the near future.
Threats to the Red Knot
Within the nonbreeding portion of the range, red knot habitat is primarily threatened by the
highly interrelated effects of sea level rise, shoreline stabilization, and coastal development.
Lesser threats to nonbreeding habitat include agriculture and aquaculture, invasive vegetation,
and beach maintenance activities. Within the breeding portion of the range, the primary threat to
red knot habitat is from climate change. With arctic warming, vegetation conditions in the
breeding grounds are expected to change, causing the zone of nesting habitat to shift and perhaps
contract. Arctic freshwater systems —foraging areas for red knots during the nesting season
are particularly sensitive to climate change.
Climate Change & Sea Level Rise
The natural history of Arctic -breeding shorebirds makes this group of species particularly
vulnerable to global climate change (Meltofte et al. 2007; Piersma and Lindstrom 2004; Rehfisch
and Crick 2003; Piersma and Baker 2000; Zockler and Lysenko 2000; Lindstrom and Agrell
1999). Relatively low genetic diversity, which is thought to be a consequence of survival
through past climate -driven population bottlenecks, may put shorebirds at more risk from
human -induced climate variation than other avian taxa (Meltofte et al. 2007); low genetic
diversity may result in reduced adaptive capacity as well as increased risks when population
sizes drop to low levels.
In the short term, red knots may benefit if warmer temperatures result in fewer years of delayed
horseshoe crab spawning in Delaware Bay (Smith and Michaels 2006) or fewer occurrences of
late snow melt in the breeding grounds (Meltofte et al. 2007). However, there are indications
that changes in the abundance and quality of red knot prey are already underway (Escudero et al.
2012; Jones et al. 2010), and prey species face ongoing climate -related threats from warmer
temperatures (Jones et al. 2010; Philippart et al. 2003; Rehfisch and Crick 2003), ocean
acidification (National Research Council (NRC) 2010; Fabry et al. 2008), and possibly increased
prevalence of disease and parasites (Ward and Lafferty 2004). In addition, red knots face
imminent threats from loss of habitat caused by sea level rise (NRC 2010; Galbraith et al. 2002;
Titus 1990), and increasing asynchronies ("mismatches") between the timing of their annual
breeding, migration, and wintering cycles and the windows of peak food availability on which
the birds depend (Smith et al. 2011; McGowan et al. 2011; Meltofte et al. 2007; van Gils et al.
2005a; Baker et al. 2004).
53

With arctic warming, vegetation conditions in the red knot's breeding grounds are expected to
change, causing the zone of nesting habitat to shift and perhaps contract, but this process may
take decades to unfold (Feng et al. 2012; Meltofte et al. 2007; Kaplan et al. 2003). Ecological
shifts in the Arctic may appear sooner. High uncertainty exists about when and how changing
interactions among vegetation, predators, competitors, prey, parasites, and pathogens may affect
the red knot, but the impacts are potentially profound (Fraser et al. 2013; Schmidt et al. 2012;
Meltofte et al. 2007; Ims and Fuglei 2005).
For most of the year, red knots live in or immediately adjacent to intertidal areas. These habitats
are naturally dynamic, as shorelines are continually reshaped by tides, currents, wind, and
storms. Coastal habitats are susceptible to both abrupt (storm -related) and long-term (sea level
rise) changes. Outside of the breeding grounds, red knots rely entirely on these coastal areas to
fulfill their roosting and foraging needs, making the birds vulnerable to the effects of habitat loss
from rising sea levels. Because conditions in coastal habitats are also critical for building up
nutrient and energy stores for the long migration to the breeding grounds, sea level rise affecting
conditions on staging areas also has the potential to impact the red knot's ability to breed
successfully in the Arctic (Meltofte et al. 2007).
According to the NRC (2010), the rate of global sea level rise has increased from about 0.02 in
(0.6 mm) per year in the late 19th century to approximately 0.07 in (1.8 mm) per year in the last
half of the 20th century. The rate of increase has accelerated, and over the past 15 years has been
in excess of 0.12 in (3 mm) per year. In 2007, the IPCC estimated that sea level would "likely"
rise by an additional 0.6 to 1.9 feet (ft) (0.18 to 0.59 meters (m)) by 2100 (NRC 2010). This
projection was based largely on the observed rates of change in ice sheets and projected future
thermal expansion of the oceans but did not include the possibility of changes in ice sheet
dynamics (e.g., rates and patterns of ice sheet growth versus loss). Scientists are working to
improve how ice dynamics can be resolved in climate models. Recent research suggests that sea
levels could potentially rise another 2.5 to 6.5 ft (0.8 to 2 m) by 2100, which is several times
larger than the 2007 IPCC estimates (NRC 2010; Pfeffer et al. 2008). However, projected rates
of sea level rise estimates remain rather uncertain, due mainly to limits in scientific
understanding of glacier and ice sheet dynamics (NRC 2010; Pfeffer et al. 2008). The amount of
sea level change varies regionally because of different rates of settling (subsidence) or uplift of
the land, and because of differences in ocean circulation (NRC 2010). In the last century, for
example, sea level rise along the U.S. mid- Atlantic and Gulf coasts exceeded the global average
by 5 to 6 in (13 to 15 cm) because coastal lands in these areas are subsiding (USEPA 2013).
Land subsidence also occurs in some areas of the Northeast, at current rates of 0.02 to 0.04 in
(0.5 to I mm) per year across this region (Ashton et al. 2007); primarily the result of slow,
natural geologic processes (NOAA 2013). Due to regional differences, a 2-ft (0.6-m) rise in
global sea level by the end of this century would result in a relative sea level rise of 2.3 ft (0.7 m)
at New York City, 2.9 ft (0.9 m) at Hampton Roads, Virginia, and 3.5 ft (I.1 m) at Galveston,
Texas (U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) 2009).
Data from along the U.S. Atlantic coast suggest a relationship between rates of sea level rise and
long-term erosion rates; thus, long-term coastal erosion rates may increase as sea level rises
(Florida Oceans and Coastal Council 2010). However, even if such a correlation is borne out,
54

predicting the effect of sea level rise on beaches is more complex. Even if wetland or upland
coastal lands are lost, sandy or muddy intertidal habitats can often migrate or reform.
Red knot migration and wintering habitats in the U.S. generally consist of sandy beaches that are
dynamic and subject to seasonal erosion and accretion. Sea level rise and shoreline erosion have
reduced availability of intertidal habitat used for red knot foraging, and in some areas, roosting
sites have also been affected (Niles et al. 2008). With moderately rising sea levels, red knot
habitats in many portions of the U.S. would be expected to migrate or reform rather than be lost,
except where they are constrained by coastal development or shoreline stabilization (Titus et al.
2009). However, if the sea rises more rapidly than the rate with which a particular coastal system
can keep pace, it could fundamentally change the state of the coast (CCSP 2009).
Climate change is also resulting in asynchronies during the annual cycle of the red knot. The
successful annual migration and breeding of red knots is highly dependent on the timing of
departures and arrivals to coincide with favorable food and weather conditions. The frequency
and severity of asynchronies is likely to increase with climate change. In addition, stochastic
encounters with unfavorable conditions are more likely to result in population -level effects for
red knots now than when population sizes were larger, as reduced numbers may have reduced the
resiliency of this subspecies to rebound from impacts.
Shoreline stabilization
Structural development along the shoreline and manipulation of natural inlets upset the naturally
dynamic coastal processes and result in loss or degradation of beach habitat (Melvin et al. 1991).
As beaches narrow, the reduced habitat can directly lower the diversity and abundance of biota
(life forms), especially in the upper intertidal zone. Shorebirds may be impacted both by reduced
habitat area for roosting and foraging, and by declining intertidal prey resources, as has been
documented in California (Defeo et al. 2009; Dugan and Hubbard 2006). In Delaware Bay, hard
structures also cause or accelerate loss of horseshoe crab spawning habitat (CCSP 2009; Botton
et al. in Shuster et al. 2003; Botton et al. 1988), and shorebird habitat has been, and may continue
to be, lost where bulkheads have been built (Clark in Farrell and Martin 1997). In addition to
directly eliminating red knot habitat, hard structures interfere with the creation of new shorebird
habitats by interrupting the natural processes of overwash and inlet formation. Where hard
stabilization is installed, the eventual loss of the beach and its associated habitats is virtually
assured (Rice 2009), absent beach nourishment, which may also impact red knots. Where they
are maintained, hard structures are likely to significantly increase the amount of red knot habitat
lost as sea levels continue to rise.
In a few isolated locations, however, hard structures may enhance red knot habitat, or may
provide artificial habitat. In Delaware Bay, for example, Botton et al. (1994) found that, in the
same manner as natural shoreline discontinuities like creek mouths, jetties and other artificial
obstructions can act to concentrate drifting horseshoe crab eggs and thereby attract shorebirds.
Sand Placement
Where shorebird habitat has been severely reduced or eliminated by hard stabilization structures,
beach nourishment may be the only means available to replace any habitat for as long as the hard
55

structures are maintained (Nordstrom and Mauriello 2001), although such habitat will persist
only with regular nourishment episodes (typically on the order of every 2 to 6 years). In
Delaware Bay, beach nourishment has been recommended to prevent loss of spawning habitat
for horseshoe crabs (Kalasz 2008; Carter et al. in Guilfoyle et al. 2007; Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 1998), and is being pursued as a means of restoring shorebird
habitat in Delaware Bay following Hurricane Sandy (Niles et al. 2013; USACE 2012). Beach
nourishment was part of a 2009 project to maintain important shorebird foraging habitat at
Mispillion Harbor, Delaware (Kalasz pers. comm. March 29, 2013; Siok and Wilson 2011).
However, red knots may be directly disturbed if beach nourishment takes place while the birds
are present. In addition to causing disturbance during construction, beach nourishment often
increases recreational use of the widened beaches that, without careful management, can increase
disturbance of red knots. Beach nourishment can also temporarily depress, and sometimes
permanently alter, the invertebrate prey base on which shorebirds depend. In addition to
disturbing the birds and impacting the prey base, beach nourishment can affect the quality and
quantity of red knot habitat (M. Bimbi pers. comm. November 1, 2012; Greene 2002).
The artificial beach created by nourishment may provide only suboptimal habitat for red knots,
as a steeper beach profile is created when sand is stacked on the beach during the nourishment
process. In some cases, nourishment is accompanied by the planting of dense beach grasses,
which can directly degrade habitat, as red knots require sparse vegetation to avoid predation. By
precluding overwash and Aeolian transport, especially where large artificial dunes are
constructed, beach nourishment can also lead to further erosion on the bayside and promote
bayside vegetation growth, both of which can degrade the red knot's preferred foraging and
roosting habitats (sparsely vegetated flats in or adjacent to intertidal areas). Preclusion of
overwash also impedes the formation of new red knot habitats. Beach nourishment can also
encourage further development, bringing further habitat impacts, reducing future alternative
management options such as a retreat from the coast, and perpetuating the developed and
stabilized conditions that may ultimately lead to inundation where beaches are prevented from
migrating (M. Bimbi pers. comm. November 1, 2012; Greene 2002).
The quantity and quality of red knot prey may also be affected by the placement of sediment for
beach nourishment or disposal of dredged material. Invertebrates may be crushed or buried
during project construction. Although some benthic species can burrow through a thin layer of
additional sediment, thicker layers (over 35 in (90 cm)) smother the benthic fauna (Greene
2002). By means of this vertical burrowing, recolonization from adjacent areas, or both, the
benthic faunal communities typically recover. Recovery can take as little as 2 weeks or as long
as 2 years, but usually averages 2 to 7 months (Greene 2002; Peterson and Manning 2001).
Dredging/sand mining
Many inlets in the U.S. range of the red knot are routinely dredged and sometimes relocated. In
addition, nearshore areas are routinely dredged ("mined") to obtain sand for beach nourishment.
Regardless of the purpose, inlet and nearshore dredging can affect red knot habitats. Dredging
often involves removal of sediment from sand bars, shoals, and inlets in the nearshore zone,
directly impacting optimal red knot roosting and foraging habitats (Harrington in Guilfoyle et al.
2007; Winn and Harrington in Guilfoyle et al. 2006). These ephemeral habitats are even more
56

valuable to red knots because they tend to receive less recreational use than the main beach
strand. In addition to causing this direct habitat loss, the dredging of sand bars and shoals can
preclude the creation and maintenance of red knot habitats by removing sand sources that would
otherwise act as natural breakwaters and weld onto the shore over time (Hayes and Michel 2008;
Morton 2003). Further, removing these sand features can cause or worsen localized erosion by
altering depth contours and changing wave refraction (Hayes and Michel 2008), potentially
degrading other nearby red knot habitats indirectly because inlet dynamics exert a strong
influence on the adjacent shorelines. Studying barrier islands in Virginia and North Carolina,
Fenster and Dolan (1996) found that inlet influences extend 3.4 to 8.1 mi (5.4 to 13.0 km), and
that inlets dominate shoreline changes for up to 2.7 mi (4.3 km). Changing the location of
dominant channels at inlets can create profound alterations to the adjacent shoreline (Nordstrom
2000).
Reduced food availability
Commercial harvest of horseshoe crabs has been implicated as a causal factor in the decline of
the rufa red knot, by decreasing the availability of horseshoe crab eggs in the Delaware Bay
stopover (Niles et al. 2008). Notwithstanding the importance of the horseshoe crab and Delaware
Bay, other lines of evidence suggest that the rufa red knot also faces threats to its food resources
throughout its range.
During most of the year, bivalves and other mollusks are the primary prey for the red knot.
Mollusks in general are at risk from climate change -induced ocean acidification (Fabry et al.
2008). Oceans become more acidic as carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere dissolves in
the ocean. The pH (percent hydrogen, a measure of acidity or alkalinity) level of the oceans has
decreased by approximately 0.1 pH units since preindustrial times, which is equivalent to a 25
percent increase in acidity. By 2100, the pH level of the oceans is projected to decrease by an
additional 0.3 to 0.4 units under the highest emissions scenarios (NRC 2010). As ocean
acidification increases, the availability of calcium carbonate declines. Calcium carbonate is a key
building block for the shells of many marine organisms, including bivalves and other mollusks
(USEPA 2012; NRC 2010). Vulnerability to ocean acidification has been shown in bivalve
species similar to those favored by red knots, including mussels (Gaylord et al. 2011; Bibby et al.
2008) and clams (Green et al. 2009). Reduced calcification rates and calcium metabolism are
also expected to affect several mollusks and crustaceans that inhabit sandy beaches (Defeo et al.
2009), the primary nonbreeding habitat for red knots. Relevant to Tierra del Fuego -wintering
knots, bivalves have also shown vulnerability to ocean acidification in Antarctic waters, which
are predicted to be affected due to naturally low carbonate saturation levels in cold waters
(Cummings et al. 2011).
Blue mussel spat is an important prey item for red knots in Virginia (Karpanty et al. 2012). The
southern limit of adult blue mussels has contracted from North Carolina to Delaware since 1960
due to increasing air and water temperatures (Jones et al. 2010). Larvae have continued to recruit
to southern locales (including Virginia) via currents, but those recruits die early in the summer
due to water and air temperatures in excess of lethal physiological limits. Failure to recolonize
southern regions will occur when reproducing populations at higher latitudes are beyond
57

dispersal distance (Jones et al. 2010). Thus, this key prey resource may soon disappear from the
red knot's Virginia spring stopover habitats (Karpanty et al. 2012).
Reduced food availability at the Delaware Bay stopover site due to commercial harvest and
subsequent population decline of the horseshoe crab is considered a primary causal factor in the
decline of the rufa subspecies in the 2000s (Escudero et al. 2012; McGowan et al. 2011; CAFF
2010; Niles et al. 2008; COSEWIC 2007; Gonzalez et al. 2006; Baker et al. 2004; Morrison
et al. 2004), although other possible causes or contributing factors have been postulated (Fraser
et al. 2013; Schwarzer et al. 2012; Escudero et al. 2012; Espoz et al. 2008; Niles et al. 2008).
Due to harvest restrictions and other conservation actions, horseshoe crab populations showed
some signs of recovery in the early 2000s, with apparent signs of red knot stabilization (survey
counts, rates of weight gain) occurring a few years later. Since about 2005, however, horseshoe
crab population growth has stagnated for unknown reasons. Under the current management
framework (known as Adaptive Resource Management, or ARM), the present horseshoe crab
harvest is not considered a threat to the red knot because harvest levels are tied to red knot
populations via scientific modeling.
Hunting
Legal and illegal sport and market hunting in the mid -Atlantic and Northeast U.S. substantially
reduced red knot populations in the 1800s, and we do not know if the subspecies ever fully
recovered its former abundance or distribution. Neither legal nor illegal hunting are currently a
threat to red knots in the U.S., but both occur in the Caribbean and parts of South America.
Threats to the red knot from overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes exist in parts of the Caribbean and South America. Specifically, legal and
illegal hunting does occur. We expect mortality of individual knots from hunting to continue into
the future, but at stable or decreasing levels due to the recent international attention to shorebird
hunting.
Predation
In wintering and migration areas, the most common predators of red knots are peregrine falcons
(Falco peregrinus), harriers (Circus spp.), accipiters (Family Accipitridae), merlins (F.
columbarius), shorteared owls (Asio flammeus), and greater black -backed gulls (Larus marinus)
(Niles et al. 2008). Other large predators are anecdotally known to prey on shorebirds (Breese
2010). In migration areas like Delaware Bay, terrestrial predators such as red foxes (Vulpes
vulpes) and feral cats (Felis catus) may be a threat to red knots by causing disturbance, but direct
mortality from these predators may be low (Niles et al. 2008).
Although little information is available from the breeding grounds, the long-tailed jaeger
(Stercorarius longicaudus) is prominently mentioned as a predator of red knot chicks in most
accounts. Other avian predators include parasitic Jaeger (S. parasiticus), pomarine jaeger (S.
pomarinus), herring gull and glaucous gulls, gyrfalcon (Falcon rusticolus), peregrine falcon, and
snowy owl (Bubo scandiacus). Mammalian predators include arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) and
sometimes arctic wolves (Canis lupus arctos) (Niles et al. 2008; COSEWIC 2007).

Recreational disturbance
In some wintering and stopover areas, red knots and recreational users (e.g., pedestrians, ORVs,
dog walkers, boaters) are concentrated on the same beaches (Niles et al. 2008; Tarr 2008).
Recreational activities affect red knots both directly and indirectly. These activities can cause
habitat damage (Schlacher and Thompson 2008; Anders and Leatherman 1987), cause shorebirds
to abandon otherwise preferred habitats, and negatively affect the birds' energy balances. Effects
to red knots from vehicle and pedestrian disturbance can also occur during construction of
shoreline stabilization projects including beach nourishment. Red knots can also be disturbed by
motorized and nonmotorized boats, fishing, kite surfing, aircraft, and research activities (Niles et
al. 2008; Peters and Otis, 2007; Harrington 2005b; Meyer et al. 1999; Burger 1986) and by beach
raking or cleaning.
21 biological opinions have been issued since 2014 within the Raleigh Field Office geographic
area for adverse impacts to red knots. The BOs include those for beach renourishment, sandbag
revetments, and terminal groin construction, all of which are included in the Environmental
Baseline for this BO. In each of these BOs, a surrogate (linear footage of shoreline) was used to
express the amount or extent of anticipated incidental take.
4.1.5. Summary of Red Knot Status
The Service has determined that the rufa red knot is threatened due to loss of both breeding and
nonbreeding habitat; potential for disruption of natural predator cycles on the breeding grounds;
reduced prey availability throughout the nonbreeding range; and increasing frequency and
severity of asynchronies ("mismatches") in the timing of the birds' annual migratory cycle
relative to favorable food and weather conditions. Based on recent modeling using resightings of
marked birds staging in Georgia in fall, as well as other evidence, the Southeast wintering group
may number as high as 20,000 (B. Harrington pers. comm. November 12, 2012), but field survey
data are not available to corroborate this estimate.
Long-distance migrant shorebirds such as the red knot are highly dependent on the continued
existence of quality habitat at a few key staging areas. These areas serve as stepping stones
between wintering and breeding areas. Conditions or factors influencing shorebird populations
on staging areas control much of the remainder of the annual cycle and survival of the birds
(Skagen 2006; International Wader Study Group 2003).
Within the nonbreeding portion of the range, red knot habitat is primarily threatened by the
highly interrelated effects of sea level rise, shoreline stabilization, and coastal development.
Lesser threats to nonbreeding habitat include agriculture and aquaculture, invasive vegetation,
and beach maintenance activities. Within the breeding portion of the range, the primary threat to
red knot habitat is from climate change. With arctic warming, vegetation conditions in the
breeding grounds are expected to change, causing the zone of nesting habitat to shift and perhaps
contract. Arctic freshwater systems —foraging areas for red knots during the nesting season
are particularly sensitive to climate change.
59

4.2. Environmental Baseline for Red Knot
This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to
the current status of the Red Knot, its habitat, and ecosystem within the Action Area. The
environmental baseline is a "snapshot" of the species' health in the Action Area at the time of the
consultation and does not include the effects of the Action under review.
4.2.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of Red Knot
Migrating and overwintering hatch -year and adult red knots utilize the Action Area. Red knots
may be present any month of the year, although they are less likely to be present during the
height of the breeding season (July). Spring migration peaks in North Carolina in May -June,
while fall migration peaks between mid -August and early September, though many individuals
stay until November, and small flocks may stay for the entire winter (nc.audubon.org).
Data from NCWRC (ncpaws.org, accessed December 21, 2017) indicate that 22 red knots were
documented in May 2011, and 18 were documented in February of the same year. Another 18
red knots were observed in May 2009 at one of the inlets on Oak Island (unspecified), and 30
were recorded on Oak Island in January 2006.
4.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs of and Threats to Red Knot
The Action Area is quite heavily developed. Development began in the mid- to late- 1800s with
the construction of Fort Caswell. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) was constructed
in the mid-1930's. Oak Island began to develop in earnest in the 1950s and 1960s. The entire
length of the Action Area is presently lined with structures, and there is no significant length of
undeveloped shoreline. Recreational use in the Action Area is quite high from residents and
tourists.
A wide range of recent and on -going beach disturbance activities have altered the proposed
Action Area and, to a greater extent, the North Carolina coastline, and many more are proposed
along the coastline for the near future. Table 3-2 lists the most recent projects, within the past 5
years. Activities include nourishment, beach scraping, beach raking, pedestrian use, shoreline
stabilization, and sand fencing. These activities are discussed more fully in Section 3.2.2.
4.3. Effects of the Action on Red Knot
This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Action on the Red Knot, which
includes the direct and indirect effects of interrelated and interdependent actions. Direct effects
are caused by the Action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the
Action but are later in time and reasonably certain to occur.
4.3.1. Effects of Sand Placement and Dune Vegetation Planting on Red Knot
The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect wintering and migrating red knots and
their habitat. Potential effects to red knots include direct loss of foraging and roosting habitat in
:'S11

the Action Area due to dredging of intertidal habitats, degradation of foraging habitat and
destruction of the prey base from sand disposal, and attraction of predators due to food waste
from the construction and planting crew. Like the piping plover, red knots face predation by
avian and mammalian predators that are present year-round on the migration and wintering
grounds. Planting and growth of vegetation may affect red knots, including impacts from vehicle
use on the beach and changes in the physical characteristics of the beach.
Applicable Science and Response Pathways
Placement of sand will occur within and adjacent to red knot roosting and foraging habitat along
20,7001f of oceanfront shoreline. The timing of project construction could directly and
indirectly impact migrating and wintering red knots. The effects of the project construction
include a temporary reduction in foraging habitat, a long term decreased rate of change that may
preclude habitat creation and increased recreational disturbance. A decrease in the survival of
red knots on the migration and winter grounds due to the lack of optimal habitat may contribute
to decreased survival rates, decreased productivity on the breeding grounds, and increased
vulnerability to the population.
The sand placement and demobilization activity is a one-time activity and is expected to extend
from May 1 to May 26, 2021. Dune vegetation planting activities are expected to extend to the
end of June 2021. Thus, the direct effects would be expected to be short-term in duration.
Indirect effects from the activity may continue to impact migrating and wintering red knots in
subsequent seasons after sand placement. Disturbance from construction activities will be short
term, lasting up to two years. Recreational disturbance may increase after project completion
and have long-term impacts.
In addition to causing disturbance during construction, beach nourishment often increases
recreational use of the widened beaches that, without careful management, can increase
disturbance of red knots. Beach nourishment can also temporarily depress, and sometimes
permanently alter, the invertebrate prey base on which shorebirds depend. In addition to
disturbing the birds and impacting the prey base, beach nourishment can affect the quality and
quantity of red knot habitat (M. Bimbi pers. comm. November 1, 2012; Greene 2002). The
artificial beach created by nourishment may provide only suboptimal habitat for red knots, as a
steeper beach profile is created when sand is stacked on the beach during the nourishment
process. In some cases, nourishment is accompanied by the planting of dense beach grasses,
which can degrade habitat, as red knots require sparse vegetation to avoid predation. By
precluding overwash and Aeolian transport, especially where large artificial dunes are
constructed, beach nourishment can also lead to further erosion on the bayside and promote
bayside vegetation growth, both of which can degrade the red knot's preferred foraging and
roosting habitats (sparsely vegetated flats in or adjacent to intertidal areas). Preclusion of
overwash also impedes the formation of new red knot habitats. Beach nourishment can also
encourage further development, bringing further habitat impacts, reducing future alternative
management options such as a retreat from the coast, and perpetuating the developed and
stabilized conditions that may ultimately lead to inundation where beaches are prevented from
migrating (M. Bimbi pers. comm. November 1, 2012; Greene 2002).
M

The quantity and quality of red knot prey may also be affected by the placement of sediment for
beach nourishment or disposal of dredged material. Invertebrates may be crushed or buried
during project construction. Although some benthic species can burrow through a thin layer of
additional sediment, thicker layers (over 35 in (90 cm)) smother the benthic fauna (Greene
2002). By means of this vertical burrowing, recolonization from adjacent areas, or both, the
benthic faunal communities typically recover. Recovery can take as little as 2 weeks or as long
as 2 years, but usually averages 2 to 7 months (Greene 2002; Peterson and Manning 2001).
Although many studies have concluded that invertebrate communities recovered following sand
placement, study methods have often been insufficient to detect even large changes (e.g., in
abundance or species composition), due to high natural variability and small sample sizes
(Peterson and Bishop 2005). Therefore, uncertainty remains about the effects of sand placement
on invertebrate communities, and how these impacts may affect red knots.
Bene icial effects: For some highly eroded beaches, sand placement may have a beneficial effect
on the habitat's ability to support wintering or migrating red knots. The addition of sand to the
sediment budget may increase a sand -starved beach's likelihood of developing habitat features
valued by red knots.
Direct effects: Direct effects are those direct or immediate effects of a project on the species or
its habitat. The construction window will extend into one or more red knot migration and winter
seasons. Heavy machinery and equipment (e.g., trucks and bulldozers operating on Action Area
beaches, the placement of the dredge pipeline along the beach, and sand disposal) may adversely
affect migrating and wintering red knots in the Action Area by disturbance and disruption of
normal activities such as roosting and foraging, and possibly forcing birds to expend valuable
energy reserves to seek available habitat elsewhere.
Burial and suffocation of invertebrate species will occur during each sand placement activity.
Impacts will affect up to 20,7001f of shoreline. Timeframes projected for benthic recruitment
and re-establishment following beach nourishment are between 6 months to 2 years. Depending
on actual recovery rates, impacts will occur even if nourishment activities occur outside the red
knot migration and wintering seasons.
Indirect effects: The proposed project includes beach renourishment along up to 20,7001f of
shoreline. Indirect effects include reducing the potential for the formation of optimal habitats
(coastal marine and estuarine habitats with large areas of exposed intertidal sediments). The
proposed project may limit the creation of optimal foraging and roosting habitat and may
increase the attractiveness of these beaches for recreation increasing recreational pressures
within the Action Area. Recreational activities that potentially adversely affect red knots include
disturbance by unleashed pets and increased pedestrian use.
Summary of Responses and Interpretation of Effects
The proposed placement of sand on 20,7001f of beach will occur within habitat that is used by
migrating and wintering red knots. Since red knots can be present on these beaches almost year-
round, construction is likely to occur while this species is utilizing these beaches and associated
habitats. The sand placement and demobilization activities are one-time activities, expected to
62

extend from May 1 to May 26, 2021. Dune vegetation planting activities are expected to extend
to the end of June 2021. The Service expects the action will result in direct and indirect, long-
term effects to red knot. Short-term and temporary impacts to red knot activities could result
from project work occurring on the beach that flushes birds from roosting or foraging habitat.
Long-term impacts could include a hindrance in the ability of migrating or wintering red knots to
recuperate from their migratory flight from their breeding grounds, survive on their wintering
areas, or to build fat reserves in preparation for migration. Long-term impacts may also result
from changes in the physical characteristics of the beach from the placement of the sand.
However, the Action Area has been developed for decades, with regular nourishment activities
and a high level of recreational activity. There are no optimal habitats that will be affected.
Therefore, the severity of these effects to the red knot population is expected to be slight.
For this and other sand placement BOs, the Service typically uses a surrogate to estimate the
extent of take. The amount of take is directly proportional to the spatial/temporal extent of
occupied habitat that the Action affects and exceeding this extent would represent a taking that is
not anticipated in this BO. It is difficult for the Service to estimate the exact number of red knots
that could be migrating through or wintering within the Action Area at any one point in time and
place during project construction. Disturbance to suitable habitat resulting from both
construction and sand placement activities within the Action Area would affect the ability of an
undetermined number of red knots to find suitable foraging and roosting habitat during any given
year.
The Service anticipates that directly and indirectly an unspecified number of red knots along
20,7001f of shoreline, all at some point, potentially usable by red knots, could be taken in the
form of harm and harassment as a result of this proposed action. The amount of take is directly
proportional to the spatial/temporal extent of occupied habitat that the Action affects, and
exceeding this extent would represent a taking that is not anticipated in this BO. Incidental take
of red knots will be difficult to detect for the following reasons:
(1) harassment to the level of harm may only be apparent on the breeding grounds the
following year; and
(2) dead red knots may be carried away by waves or predators.
The level of take of this species can be anticipated by the proposed activities because:
(1) red knots migrate through and winter in the Action Area;
(2) the placement of the constructed beach is expected to affect the coastal morphology
and prevent early successional stages, thereby precluding the maintenance and
creation of additional recovery habitat;
(3) increased levels of pedestrian disturbance may be expected; and
(4) a temporary reduction of food base will occur.
C '13c

4.4. Cumulative Effects on Red Knot
For purposes of consultation under ESA §7, cumulative effects are those caused by future state,
tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area. Future
Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered, because they require
separate consultation under §7 of the ESA. It is reasonable to expect continued dredging,
shoreline stabilization, and beach renourishment projects in this area in the future since erosion
and sea -level rise increases would impact the existing beachfront development.
4.5. Conclusion for Red Knot
In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections for the Red Knot
(status, baseline, effects, and cumulative effects) relative to the purpose of a BO under §7(a)(2)
of the ESA, which is to determine whether a Federal action is likely to:
1. jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
2. result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
"Jeopardize the continued existence" means to engage in an action that reasonably would be
expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and
recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of
that species (50 CFR §402.02).
Status
The Service has determined that the rufa red knot is threatened due to loss of both breeding and
nonbreeding habitat; potential for disruption of natural predator cycles on the breeding grounds;
reduced prey availability throughout the nonbreeding range; and increasing frequency and
severity of asynchronies ("mismatches") in the timing of the birds' annual migratory cycle
relative to favorable food and weather conditions.
Based on recent modeling using resightings of marked birds staging in Georgia in fall, as well as
other evidence, the Southeast wintering group may number as high as 20,000 (B. Harrington
pers. comm. November 12, 2012.
Baseline
Within the Action Area, there have been a few observations of moderate numbers of red knots,
but large numbers do not appear to be present.
Effects
The proposed placement of sand on 20,7001f of beach will occur within habitat that is used by
migrating and wintering red knots. Since red knots can be present on these beaches almost year-
round, construction is likely to occur while this species is utilizing these beaches and associated
habitats. The sand placement and demobilization activities are one-time activities, expected to
M

extend from May I to May 26, 2021. Dune vegetation planting activities are expected to extend
to the end of June 2021. The Service expects the action will result in direct and indirect, long-
term effects to red knots. Short-term and temporary impacts to red knot activities could result
from project work occurring on the beach that flushes birds from roosting or foraging habitat.
Long-term impacts could include a hindrance in the ability of migrating or wintering red knots to
recuperate from their migratory flight from their breeding grounds, survive on their wintering
areas, or to build fat reserves in preparation for migration. Long-term impacts may also result
from changes in the physical characteristics of the beach from the placement of the sand.
However, the Action Area has been developed for decades, with regular nourishment activities
and a high level of recreational activity. There are no optimal habitats that will be affected.
Therefore, the severity of these effects to the red knot population is expected to be slight.
Cumulative Effects
It is reasonable to expect continued shoreline stabilization and beach renourishment projects in
this area in the future since erosion and sea -level rise increases would impact the existing
beachfront development. These future projects are likely to require federal permits and
therefore, are not considered to be cumulative effects.
After reviewing the current status of the species, the environmental baseline for the Action Area,
the effects of the Action and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the
Action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the red knot.
5. LOGGERHEAD, GREEN, LEATHERBACK, HAWKSBILL, AND
KEMP'S RIDLEY SEA TURTLES
5.1. Status of Sea Turtle Species
This section summarizes best available data about the biology and current condition of five sea
turtle species throughout its range that are relevant to formulating an opinion about the Action:
loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea),
hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), and Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii).
5.1.1. Description of Sea Turtle Species
Loggerhead sea turtle
The loggerhead sea turtle, which occurs throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, was federally listed worldwide as a threatened species on
July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800). On September 22, 2011, the loggerhead sea turtle's listing under
the Act was revised from a single threatened species to nine distinct population segments (DPS)
listed as either threatened or endangered. The nine DPSs and their statuses are:
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS — threatened
Northeast Atlantic Ocean — endangered
W

Mediterranean Sea DPS — endangered
South Atlantic Ocean DPS — threatened
North Pacific Ocean DPS
— endangered
South Pacific Ocean DPS
— endangered
North Indian Ocean DPS
— endangered
Southwest Indian Ocean —
threatened
Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean
DPS — threatened
The loggerhead sea turtle grows to an average weight of about 200 pounds and is characterized
by a large head with blunt jaws. Adults and subadults have a reddish -brown carapace. Scales on
the top of the head and top of the flippers are also reddish -brown with yellow on the borders.
Hatchlings are a dull brown color (National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2009a). The
loggerhead feeds on mollusks, crustaceans, fish, and other marine animals.
The Action Area is located within designated critical habitat unit LOGG-T-NC-07 for nesting
loggerhead sea turtles. Designated critical habitat will be discussed in Section 6.0, below.
Green Sea Turtle
The green sea turtle was federally listed on July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800). Breeding populations
of the green turtle in Florida and along the Pacific Coast of Mexico are listed as endangered; all
other populations are listed as threatened. The green sea turtle has a worldwide distribution in
tropical and subtropical waters. The green sea turtle grows to a maximum size of about 4 feet
and a weight of 440 pounds. It has a heart -shaped shell, small head, and single -clawed flippers.
The carapace is smooth and colored gray, green, brown, and black. Hatchlings are black on top
and white on the bottom (NMFS 2009b). Hatchling green turtles eat a variety of plants and
animals, but adults feed almost exclusively on seagrasses and marine algae. There is no
designated critical habitat in North Carolina.
Leatherback sea turtle
The leatherback sea turtle was federally listed as an endangered species on June 2, 1970 (35 FR
8491). Leatherbacks have the widest distribution of the sea turtles with nonbreeding animals
recorded as far north as the British Isles and the Maritime Provinces of Canada and as far south
as Argentina and the Cape of Good Hope (Pritchard 1992). Foraging leatherback excursions
have been documented into higher -latitude subpolar waters. They have evolved physiological
and anatomical adaptations (Frair et al. 1972; Greer et al. 1973) that allow them to exploit waters
far colder than any other sea turtle species would be capable of surviving.
The adult leatherback can reach 4 to 8 feet in length and weigh 500 to 2,000 pounds. The
carapace is distinguished by a rubber -like texture, about 1.6 inches thick, made primarily of
tough, oil -saturated connective tissue. Hatchlings are dorsally mostly black and are covered with
tiny scales; the flippers are edged in white, and rows of white scales appear as stripes along the
length of the back (NMFS 2009c). Jellyfish are the main staple of its diet, but it is also known to
feed on sea urchins, squid, crustaceans, tunicates, fish, blue-green algae, and floating seaweed.
:T

This is the largest, deepest diving of all sea turtle species. There is no designated critical habitat
in North Carolina.
Hawksbill Sea Turtle
The hawksbill sea turtle was Federally listed as endangered on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). The
hawksbill is found in tropical and subtropical seas of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.
The species is widely distributed in the Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean. Data
collected in the Wider Caribbean reported that hawksbills typically weigh around 176 pounds or
less; hatchlings average about 1.6 inches straight length and range in weight from 0.5 to 0.7
ounces. The carapace is heart shaped in young turtles and becomes more elongated or egg -
shaped with maturity. The top scutes are often richly patterned with irregularly radiating streaks
of brown or black on an amber background. The head is elongated and tapers sharply to a point.
The lower jaw is V-shaped (NMFS 2009d). There is no designated critical habitat in North
Carolina.
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle was federally listed as endangered on December 2, 1970 (35 FR
18320). The Kemp's ridley, along with the flatback sea turtle (Natator depressus), has the most
geographically restricted distribution of any sea turtle species. The range of the Kemp's ridley
includes the Gulf coasts of Mexico and the U.S., and the Atlantic coast of North America as far
north as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
Adult Kemp's ridleys and olive ridleys are the smallest sea turtles in the world. The weight of an
adult Kemp's ridley is generally between 70 to 108 pounds with a carapace measuring
approximately 24 to 26 inches in length (Heppell et al. 2005). The carapace is almost as wide as
it is long. The species' coloration changes significantly during development from the grey -black
dorsum and plastron of hatchlings, a grey -black dorsum with a yellowish -white plastron as post -
pelagic juveniles and then to the lighter grey -olive carapace and cream -white or yellowish
plastron of adults. Their diet consists mainly of swimming crabs, but may also include fish,
jellyfish, and an array of mollusks. No critical habitat has been designated for the Kemp's ridley
sea turtle.
5.1.2. Life History of Sea Turtle Species
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Loggerheads are long-lived, slow -growing animals that use multiple habitats across entire ocean
basins throughout their life history. This complex life history encompasses terrestrial, nearshore,
and open ocean habitats. The three basic ecosystems in which loggerheads live are the:
Terrestrial zone (supralittoral) - the nesting beach where both oviposition (egg laying)
and embryonic development and hatching occur.
2. Neritic zone - the inshore marine environment (from the surface to the sea floor) where
67

water depths do not exceed 656 feet. The neritic zone generally includes the continental
shelf, but in areas where the continental shelf is very narrow or nonexistent, the neritic
zone conventionally extends to areas where water depths are less than 656 feet.
3. Oceanic zone - the vast open ocean environment (from the surface to the sea floor) where
water depths are greater than 656 feet.
Maximum intrinsic growth rates of sea turtles are limited by the extremely long duration of the
juvenile stage and fecundity. Loggerheads require high survival rates in the juvenile and adult
stages, common constraints critical to maintaining long-lived, slow -growing species, to achieve
positive or stable long-term population growth (Congdon et al. 1993; Heppell 1998; Crouse
1999; Heppell et al. 1999; 2003; Musick 1999).
Numbers of nests and nesting females are often highly variable from year to year due to a
number of factors including environmental stochasticity, periodicity in ocean conditions,
anthropogenic effects, and density -dependent and density -independent factors affecting survival,
somatic growth, and reproduction (Meylan 1982; Hays 2000; Chaloupka 2001; Solow et al.
2002). Despite these sources of variation, and because female turtles exhibit strong nest site
fidelity, a nesting beach survey can provide a valuable assessment of changes in the adult female
population, provided that the study is sufficiently long and effort and methods are standardized
(Meylan 1982; Gerrodette and Brandon 2000; Reina et al. 2002).
Loggerheads nest on ocean beaches and occasionally on estuarine shorelines with suitable sand.
Nests are typically laid between the high tide line and the dune front (Routs 1968; Witherington
1986; Hailman and Elowson 1992). Wood and Bjorndal (2000) evaluated four environmental
factors (slope, temperature, moisture, and salinity) and found that slope had the greatest
influence on loggerhead nest -site selection on a beach in Florida. Loggerheads appear to prefer
relatively narrow, steeply sloped, coarse -grained beaches, although nearshore contours may also
play a role in nesting beach site selection (Provancha and Ehrhart 1987).
The warmer the sand surrounding the egg chamber, the faster the embryos develop (Mrosovsky
and Yntema 1980). Sand temperatures prevailing during the middle third of the incubation
period also determine the sex of hatchling sea turtles (Mrosovsky and Yntema 1980). Incubation
temperatures near the upper end of the tolerable range produce only female hatchlings while
incubation temperatures near the lower end of the tolerable range produce only male hatchlings.
Loggerhead hatchlings pip and escape from their eggs over a 1- to 3-day interval and move
upward and out of the nest over a 2- to 4-day interval (Christens 1990). The time from pipping
to emergence ranges from 4 to 7 days with an average of 4.1 days (Godfrey and Mrosovsky
1997). Hatchlings emerge from their nests en masse almost exclusively at night, and presumably
using decreasing sand temperature as a cue (Hendrickson 1958; Mrosovsky 1968; Witherington
et al. 1990). Moran et al. (1999) concluded that a lowering of sand temperatures below a critical
threshold, which most typically occurs after nightfall, is the most probable trigger for hatchling
emergence from a nest. After an initial emergence, there may be secondary emergences on
subsequent nights (Carr and Ogren 1960; Witherington 1986; Ernest and Martin 1993; Houghton
and Hays 2001).
68

Hatchlings use a progression of orientation cues to guide their movement from the nest to the
marine environments where they spend their early years (Lohmann and Lohmann 2003).
Hatchlings first use light cues to find the ocean. On naturally lighted beaches without artificial
lighting, ambient light from the open sky creates a relatively bright horizon compared to the dark
silhouette of the dune and vegetation landward of the nest. This contrast guides the hatchlings to
the ocean (Daniel and Smith 1947; Limpus 1971; Salmon et al. 1992; Witherington and Martin
1996; Witherington 1997; Stewart and Wyneken 2004).
The loggerhead may be found hundreds of miles out to sea, as well as in inshore areas such as
bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large rivers. Coral reefs,
rocky places, and shipwrecks are often used as feeding areas. Within the Northwest Atlantic, the
majority of nesting activity occurs from April through September, with a peak in June and July
(Williams -Walls et al. 1983; Dodd 1988; Weishampel et al. 2006). Nesting occurs within the
Northwest Atlantic along the coasts of North America, Central America, northern South
America, the Antilles, Bahamas, and Bermuda, but is concentrated in the southeastern U.S. and
on the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico on open beaches or along narrow bays having suitable sand
(Sternberg 1981; Ehrhart 1989; Ehrhart et al. 2003; NMFS and USFWS 2008).
Green Sea Turtle
Green sea turtles deposit from one to nine clutches within a nesting season, but the overall
average is about 3.3 nests. The interval between nesting events within a season varies around a
mean of about 13 days (Hirth 1997). Mean clutch size varies widely among populations. Clutch
size varies from 75 to 200 eggs with incubation requiring 48 to 70 days, depending on incubation
temperatures. Only occasionally do females produce clutches in successive years. Usually two
or more years intervene between breeding seasons (NMFS and USFWS 1991). Age at sexual
maturity is believed to be 20 to 50 years (Hirth 1997).
Major green turtle nesting colonies in the Atlantic occur on Ascension Island, Aves Island, Costa
Rica, and Surinam. Within the U.S., green turtles nest in small numbers in the U.S. Virgin
Islands and Puerto Rico, and in larger numbers along the east coast of Florida, particularly in
Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties (NMFS and
USFWS 1991). Nests have been documented, in smaller numbers, north of these Counties, from
Volusia through Nassau Counties in Florida, as well as in Georgia, South Carolina, North
Carolina, and as far north as Delaware in 2011. In 2015, 41 green sea turtle nests were
documented in North Carolina. Nests have been documented in smaller numbers south of
Broward County in Miami -Dade. Nesting also has been documented along the Gulf coast of
Florida from Escambia County through Franklin County in northwest Florida and from Pinellas
County through Monroe County in southwest Florida (FWC/FWRI 2010b).
Green sea turtles are generally found in fairly shallow waters (except when migrating) inside
reefs, bays, and inlets. The green turtle is attracted to lagoons and shoals with an abundance of
marine grass and algae. Open beaches with a sloping platform and minimal disturbance are
required for nesting.
:'Ss

Leatherback Sea Turtle
Leatherbacks nest an average of five to seven times within a nesting season, with an observed
maximum of 11 nests (NMFS and USFWS 1992). The interval between nesting events within a
season is about 9 to 10 days. Clutch size averages 80 to 85 yolked eggs, with the addition of
usually a few dozen smaller, yolkless eggs, mostly laid toward the end of the clutch (Pritchard
1992). Nesting migration intervals of 2 to 3 years were observed in leatherbacks nesting on the
Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (McDonald and Dutton
1996). Leatherbacks are believed to reach sexual maturity in 13 to 16 years (Dutton et al. 2005;
Jones et al. 2011).
Leatherback turtle nesting grounds are distributed worldwide in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian
Oceans on beaches in the tropics and subtropics. The Pacific Coast of Mexico historically
supported the world's largest known concentration of nesting leatherbacks. The leatherback
turtle regularly nests in the U.S. Caribbean in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Along the
U.S. Atlantic coast, most nesting occurs in Florida (NMFS and USFWS 1992). Nesting has also
been reported in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina (Rabon et al. 2003) and in Texas
(Shaver 2008). Adult females require sandy nesting beaches backed with vegetation and sloped
sufficiently so the distance to dry sand is limited. Their preferred beaches have proximity to
deep water and generally rough seas.
Hawksbill Sea Turtle
Hawksbills nest on average about 4.5 times per season at intervals of approximately 14 days
(Corliss et al. 1989). In Florida and the U.S. Caribbean, clutch size is approximately 140 eggs,
although several records exist of over 200 eggs per nest (NMFS and USFWS 1993). On the basis
of limited information, nesting migration intervals of two to three years appear to predominate.
Hawksbills are recruited into the reef environment at about 14 inches in length and are believed
to begin breeding about 30 years later. However, the time required to reach 14 inches in length is
unknown and growth rates vary geographically. As a result, actual age at sexual maturity is
unknown.
Within the continental U.S., hawksbill sea turtle nesting is rare, and nests are only known from
Florida and North Carolina. Nesting in Florida is restricted to the southeastern coast of Florida
(Volusia through Miami -Dade Counties) and the Florida Keys (Monroe County) (Meylan 1992;
Meylan et al. 1995). Two nests have been recorded in North Carolina, both in 2015. Both nests,
located on the Seashore, were originally thought to be loggerhead nests, but discovered to be
hawksbill nests after DNA testing of eggshells. Hawksbill tracks are difficult to differentiate
from those of loggerheads and may not be recognized by surveyors. Therefore, surveys in
Florida and elsewhere in the southeastern U.S. likely underestimate actual hawksbill nesting
numbers (Meylan et al. 1995). In the U.S. Caribbean, hawksbill nesting occurs on beaches
throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (NMFS and USFWS 1993).
F-El

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
Nesting occurs primarily from April into July. Nesting often occurs in synchronized
emergences, known as "arribadas" or "arribazones," which may be triggered by high wind
speeds, especially north winds, and changes in barometric pressure (Jimenez et al. 2005).
Nesting occurs primarily during daylight hours. Clutch size averages 100 eggs and eggs
typically take 45 to 58 days to hatch depending on incubation conditions, especially temperatures
(Marquez-Millan 1994, Rostal 2007).
Females lay an average of 2.5 clutches within a season (TEWG 1998) and inter -nesting interval
generally ranges from 14 to 28 days (Miller 1997; Donna Shaver, Padre Island National
Seashore, personal communication, 2007 as cited in NMFS et al. 2011). The mean remigration
interval for adult females is 2 years, although intervals of 1 and 3 years are not uncommon
(Marquez et al. 1982; TEWG 1998, 2000). Males may not be reproductively active on an annual
basis (Wibbels et al. 1991). Age at sexual maturity is believed to be between 10 to 17 years
(Snover et al. 2007).
The Kemp's ridley has a restricted distribution. Nesting is essentially limited to the beaches of
the western Gulf of Mexico, primarily in Tamaulipas, Mexico (NMFS et al. 2011). Nesting also
occurs in Veracruz and a few historical records exist for Campeche, Mexico (Marquez-Millan
1994). Nesting also occurs regularly in Texas and infrequently in a few other U.S. states.
However, historic nesting records in the U.S. are limited to south Texas (Werler 1951, Carr
1961, Hildebrand 1963).
Most Kemp's ridley nests located in the U.S. have been found in south Texas, especially Padre
Island (Shaver and Caillouet 1998; Shaver 2002, 2005). Nests have been recorded elsewhere in
Texas (Shaver 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008), and in Florida (Johnson et al. 1999, Foote and
Mueller 2002, Hegna et al. 2006, FWC/FWRI 2010b), Alabama (J. Phillips, Service, personal
communication, 2007 cited in NMFS et al. 2011; J. Isaacs, Service, personal communication,
2008 cited in NMFS et al. 2011), Georgia (Williams et al. 2006), South Carolina (Anonymous
1992), and North Carolina (Marquez et al. 1996), but these events are less frequent. Kemp's
ridleys inhabit the Gulf of Mexico and the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, as far north as the Grand
Banks (Watson et al. 2004) and Nova Scotia (Bleakney 1955). They occur near the Azores and
eastern north Atlantic (Deraniyagala 1938, Brongersma 1972, Fontaine et al. 1989, Bolten and
Martins 1990) and Mediterranean (Pritchard and Marquez 1973, Brongersma and Carr 1983,
Tomas and Raga 2007, Insacco and Spadola 2010).
Juvenile Kemp's ridleys spend on average 2 years in the oceanic zone (NMFS SEFSC
unpublished preliminary analysis, July 2004, as cited in NMFS et al. 2011) where they likely live
and feed among floating algal communities. They remain here until they reach about 7.9 inches
in length (approximately 2 years of age), at which size they enter coastal shallow water habitats
(Ogren 1989); however, the time spent in the oceanic zone may vary from 1 to 4 years or perhaps
more (Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG) 2000, Baker and Higgins 2003, Dodge et al.
2003).
71

5.1.3. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of Sea Turtle Species
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
The loggerhead occurs throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and
Indian Oceans (Dodd 1988). However, the majority of loggerhead nesting is at the western rims
of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. The most recent reviews show that only two loggerhead
nesting beaches have greater than 10,000 females nesting per year (Baldwin et al. 2003; Ehrhart
et al. 2003; Kamezaki et al. 2003; Limpus and Limpus 2003; Margaritoulis et al. 2003):
Peninsular Florida (U.S.) and Masirah (Oman). Those beaches with 1,000 to 9,999 females
nesting each year are Georgia through North Carolina (U.S.), Quintana Roo and Yucatan
(Mexico), Cape Verde Islands (Cape Verde, eastern Atlantic off Africa), and Western Australia
(Australia).
The major nesting concentrations in the U.S. are found in South Florida. However, loggerheads
nest from Texas to Virginia. Since 2000, the annual number of loggerhead nests in NC has
fluctuated between 333 in 2004 to 1,260 in 2013 (Godfrey, unpublished data). Total estimated
nesting in the U.S. has fluctuated between 49,000 and 90,000 nests per year from 1999-2010
(NMFS and USFWS 2008; FWC/FWRI 2010a). Adult loggerheads are known to make
considerable migrations between foraging areas and nesting beaches (Schroeder et al. 2003;
Foley et al. 2008). During non -nesting years, adult females from U.S. beaches are distributed in
waters off the eastern U.S. and throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Bahamas, Greater Antilles, and
Yucatan.
Range -wide Trend: Five recovery units have been identified in the Northwest Atlantic based on
genetic differences and a combination of geographic distribution of nesting densities, geographic
separation, and geopolitical boundaries (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Recovery units are subunits
of a listed species that are geographically or otherwise identifiable and essential to the recovery
of the species. Recovery units are individually necessary to conserve genetic robustness,
demographic robustness, important life history stages, or some other feature necessary for long-
term sustainability of the species. The five recovery units identified in the Northwest Atlantic
are:
Northern Recovery Unit (NRU) - defined as loggerheads originating from nesting
beaches from the Florida -Georgia border through southern Virginia (the northern extent
of the nesting range);
2. Peninsula Florida Recovery Unit (PFRU) - defined as loggerheads originating from
nesting beaches from the Florida -Georgia border through Pinellas County on the west
coast of Florida, excluding the islands west of Key West, Florida;
3. Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit (DTRU) - defined as loggerheads originating from nesting
beaches throughout the islands located west of Key West, Florida;
72

4. Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (NGMRU) - defined as loggerheads originating
from nesting beaches from Franklin County on the northwest Gulf coast of Florida
through Texas; and
5. Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit (GCRU) - composed of loggerheads originating from
all other nesting assemblages within the Greater Caribbean (Mexico through French
Guiana, The Bahamas, Lesser Antilles, and Greater Antilles).
The mtDNA analyses show that there is limited exchange of females among these recovery units
(Ehrhart 1989; Foote et al. 2000; NMFS 2001; Hawkes et al. 2005). Male -mediated gene flow
appears to be keeping the subpopulations genetically similar on a nuclear DNA level (Francisco -
Pearce 2001).
Historically, the literature has suggested that the northern U.S. nesting beaches (NRU and
NGMRU) produce a relatively high percentage of males and the more southern nesting beaches
(PFRU, DTRU, and GCRU) a relatively high percentage of females (e.g., Hanson et al. 1998;
NMFS 2001; Mrosovsky and Provancha 1989). The NRU and NGMRU were believed to play
an important role in providing males to mate with females from the more female -dominated
subpopulations to the south. However, in 2002 and 2003, researchers studied loggerhead sex
ratios for two of the U.S. nesting subpopulations, the northern and southern subpopulations
(NGU and PFRU, respectively) (Blair 2005; Wyneken et al. 2005). The study produced
interesting results. In 2002, the northern beaches produced more females and the southern
beaches produced more males than previously believed. However, the opposite was true in 2003
with the northern beaches producing more males and the southern beaches producing more
females in keeping with prior literature. Wyneken et al. (2005) speculated that the 2002 result
may have been anomalous; however, the study did point out the potential for males to be
produced on the southern beaches. Although this study revealed that more males may be
produced on Southern Recovery Unit beaches than previously believed, the Service maintains
that the NRU and NGMRU play an important role in the production of males to mate with
females from the more Southern Recovery Units.
The NRU is the second largest loggerhead recovery unit within the NWA DPS. Annual nest
totals from northern beaches averaged 5,446 nests from 2006 to 2011, a period of near -complete
surveys of NRU nesting beaches, representing approximately 1,328 nesting females per year (4.1
nests per female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984) (NMFS and USFWS 2008). In 2008, nesting in
Georgia reached what was a new record at that time (1,646 nests), with a downturn in 2009,
followed by yet another record in 2011 (1,987 nests). South Carolina had the two highest years
of nesting in the 2000s in 2009 (2,183 nests) and 2010 (3,141 nests). The previous high for that
11-year span was 1,433 nests in 2003. North Carolina had 1,252 nests in 2015. The Georgia,
South Carolina, and North Carolina nesting data come from the seaturtle.org Sea Turtle Nest
Monitoring System, which is populated with data input by the State agencies. The loggerhead
nesting trend from daily beach surveys was declining significantly at 1.3 percent annually from
1983 to 2007 (NMFS and USFWS, 2008). Overall, there is strong statistical data to suggest the
NRU has experienced a long-term decline (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Currently, however,
nesting for the NRU is showing possible signs of stabilizing (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011).
73

Recovery Criteria (only the Demographic Recovery Criteria are presented below; for the Listing
Factor Recovery Criteria, see NMFS and USFWS 2008)
Number of Nests and Number of Nesting Females
a. Northern Recovery Unit
i. There is statistical confidence (95 percent) that the annual rate of increase
over a generation time of 50 years is 2 percent or greater resulting in a total
annual number of nests of 14,000 or greater for this recovery unit
(approximate distribution of nests is North Carolina =14 percent [2,000 nests],
South Carolina =66 percent [9,200 nests], and Georgia =20 percent [2,800
nests]); and
ii. This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases
in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and
remigration interval).
b. Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit
i. There is statistical confidence (95 percent) that the annual rate of increase
over a generation time of 50 years is statistically detectable (one percent)
resulting in a total annual number of nests of 106,100 or greater for this
recovery unit; and
ii. This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases
in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and
remigration interval).
c. Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit
i. There is statistical confidence (95 percent) that the annual rate of increase
over a generation time of 50 years is three percent or greater resulting in a
total annual number of nests of 1,100 or greater for this recovery unit; and
ii. This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases
in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and
remigration interval).
d. Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit
i. There is statistical confidence (95 percent) that the annual rate of increase
over a generation time of 50 years is three percent or greater resulting in a
total annual number of nests of 4,000 or greater for this recovery unit
(approximate distribution of nests (2002-2007) is Florida-- 92 percent [3,700
nests] and Alabama =8 percent [300 nests]); and
ii. This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases
in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and
remigration interval).
e. Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit
i. The total annual number of nests at a minimum of three nesting assemblages,
averaging greater than 100 nests annually (e.g., Yucatan, Mexico; Cay Sal
Bank, Bahamas) has increased over a generation time of 50 years; and
ii. This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases
in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and
remigration interval).
74

2. Trends in Abundance on Foraging Grounds
A network of in -water sites, both oceanic and neritic across the foraging range is
established and monitoring is implemented to measure abundance. There is
statistical confidence (95 percent) that a composite estimate of relative abundance
from these sites is increasing for at least one generation.
3. Trends in Neritic Strandings Relative to In -water Abundance
Stranding trends are not increasing at a rate greater than the trends in in -water
relative abundance for similar age classes for at least one generation.
Green Sea Turtle
There are an estimated 150,000 females that nest each year in 46 sites throughout the world
(NMFS and Service 2007a). In the U.S. Atlantic, the majority of nesting occurs along the coast
of eastern central Florida, with an average of 10,377 each year from 2008 to 2012 (Witherington
pers. comm. 2013). Years of coordinated conservation efforts, including protection of nesting
beaches, reduction of bycatch in fisheries, and prohibitions on the direct harvest of sea turtles,
have led to increasing numbers of turtles nesting in Florida and along the Pacific coast of
Mexico. On April 6, 2016, NMFS and the Service reclassified the status of the two segments
that include those breeding populations (North Atlantic Ocean DPS and East Pacific Ocean DPS)
from endangered to threatened (81 FR 20058). In North Carolina, between 4 and 44 green sea
turtle nests are laid annually (Godfrey, unpublished data). In the U.S. Pacific, over 90 percent of
nesting throughout the Hawaiian archipelago occurs at the French Frigate Shoals, where about
200 to 700 females nest each year (NMFS and Service 1998a). Elsewhere in the U.S. Pacific,
nesting takes place at scattered locations in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Guam,
and American Samoa. In the western Pacific, the largest green turtle nesting aggregation in the
world occurs on Raine Island, Australia, where thousands of females nest nightly in an average
nesting season (Limpus et al. 1993). In the Indian Ocean, major nesting beaches occur in Oman
where 30,000 females are reported to nest annually (Ross and Barwani 1995).
Range -wide Trend: The North Atlantic Ocean DPS currently exhibits high nesting abundance,
with an estimated total nester abundance of 167,424 females at 73 nesting sites. More than
100,000 females nest at Tortuguero, Costa Rica, and more than 10,000 females nest at Quintana
Roo, Mexico. Nesting data indicate long-term increases at all major nesting sites. There is little
genetic substructure within the DPS, and turtles from multiple nesting beaches share common
foraging areas. Nesting is geographically widespread and occurs at a diversity of mainland and
insular sites (81 FR 20058). Annual nest totals documented as part of the Florida SNBS program
from 1989-2010 have ranged from 435 nests laid in 1993 to 13,225 in 2010. Nesting occurs in
26 counties with a peak along the east coast, from Volusia through Broward Counties. Although
the SNBS program provides information on distribution and total abundance statewide, it cannot
be used to assess trends because of variable survey effort. Therefore, green turtle nesting trends
are best assessed using standardized nest counts made at INBS sites surveyed with constant
effort overtime (1989-2010). Green sea turtle nesting in Florida is increasing based on 22 years
(1989-2010) of INBS data from throughout the state ((FWC/FWRI 2010b). The increase in
nesting in Florida is likely a result of several factors, including: (1) a Florida statute enacted in
the early 1970s that prohibited the killing of green turtles in Florida; (2) the species listing under
75

the ESA afforded complete protection to eggs, juveniles, and adults in all U.S. waters; (3) the
passage of Florida's constitutional net ban amendment in 1994 and its subsequent enactment,
making it illegal to use any gillnets or other entangling nets in State waters; (4) the likelihood
that the majority of Florida green turtles reside within Florida waters where they are fully
protected; (5) the protections afforded Florida green turtles while they inhabit the waters of other
nations that have enacted strong sea turtle conservation measures (e.g., Bermuda); and (6) the
listing of the species on Appendix I of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which stopped international trade and reduced incentives for
illegal trade from the U.S (NMFS and Service 2007a).
Recovery Criteria
The U.S. Atlantic population of green sea turtles can be considered for delisting if, over a period
of 25 years, the following conditions are met:
1. The level of nesting in Florida has increased to an average of 5,000 nests per year for at
least six years. Nesting data must be based on standardized surveys;
2. At least 25 percent (65 miles) of all available nesting beaches (260 miles) is in public
ownership and encompasses at least 50 percent of the nesting activity;
3. A reduction in stage class mortality is reflected in higher counts of individuals on
foraging grounds; and
4. All priority one tasks identified in the recovery plan have been successfully implemented.
Leatherback Sea Turtle
A dramatic drop in nesting numbers has been recorded on major nesting beaches in the Pacific.
Spotila et al. (2000) have highlighted the dramatic decline and possible future extirpation of
leatherbacks in the Pacific.
The East Pacific and Malaysia leatherback populations have collapsed. Spotila et al. (1996)
estimated that only 34,500 females nested annually worldwide in 1995, which is a dramatic
decline from the 115,000 estimated in 1980 (Pritchard 1982). In the eastern Pacific, the major
nesting beaches occur in Costa Rica and Mexico. At Playa Grande, Costa Rica, considered the
most important nesting beach in the eastern Pacific, numbers have dropped from 1,367
leatherbacks in 1988-1989 to an average of 188 females nesting between 2000-2001 and 2003-
2004. In Pacific Mexico, 1982 aerial surveys of adult female leatherbacks indicated this area had
become the most important leatherback nesting beach in the world. Tens of thousands of nests
were laid on the beaches in 1980s, but during the 2003-2004 seasons a total of 120 nests were
recorded. In the western Pacific, the major nesting beaches lie in Papua New Guinea, Papua,
Indonesia, and the Solomon Islands. These are some of the last remaining significant nesting
assemblages in the Pacific. Compiled nesting data estimated approximately 5,000 to 9,200 nests
annually with 75 percent of the nests being laid in Papua, Indonesia.
However, the most recent population size estimate for the North Atlantic alone is a range of
34,000 to 94,000 adult leatherbacks (TEWG 2007). During recent years in Florida, the total
number of leatherback nests counted as part of the SNBS program ranged from 540 to 1,797
76

from 2006-2010 (FWC/FWRI 2010a). Assuming a clutch frequency (number of
nests/female/season) of 4.2 in Florida (Stewart 2007), these nests were produced by a range of
128 to 428 females in a given year. Nesting in North Carolina is sporadic. In 2010, two nests
were reported in North Carolina, five were reported in 2012, and none were reported in 2013-
2015. In North Carolina between the year 2000 and 2013, as many as 9 nests were laid per year
(Godfrey, unpublished data).
Range -wide Trend: Pritchard (1982) estimated 115,000 nesting females worldwide, of which 60
percent nested along the Pacific coast of Mexico. Declines in leatherback nesting have occurred
over the last two decades along the Pacific coasts of Mexico and Costa Rica. The Mexican
leatherback nesting population, once considered to be the world's largest leatherback nesting
population (historically estimated to be 65 percent of the worldwide population), is now less than
1 percent of its estimated size in 1980. Spotila et al. (1996) estimated the number of leatherback
sea turtles nesting on 28 beaches throughout the world from the literature and from
communications with investigators studying those beaches. The estimated worldwide population
of leatherbacks in 1995 was about 34,500 females on these beaches with a lower limit of about
26,200, and an upper limit of about 42,900. This is less than one-third the 1980 estimate of
115,000. Leatherbacks are rare in the Indian Ocean and in very low numbers in the western
Pacific Ocean. The most recent population size estimate for the North Atlantic is a range of
34,000 to 94,000 adult leatherbacks (TEWG 2007). The largest population is in the western
Atlantic. Using an age -based demographic model, Spotila et al. (1996) determined that
leatherback populations in the Indian Ocean and western Pacific Ocean cannot withstand even
moderate levels of adult mortality and that the Atlantic populations are being exploited at a rate
that cannot be sustained. They concluded that leatherbacks are on the road to extinction and
further population declines can be expected unless action is taken to reduce adult mortality and
increase survival of eggs and hatchlings.
Recovery Criteria
The U.S. Atlantic population of leatherbacks can be considered for delisting if the following
conditions are met:
1. The adult female population increases over the next 25 years, as evidenced by a
statistically significant trend in the number of nests at Culebra, Puerto Rico, St.
Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, and along the east coast of Florida;
2. Nesting habitat encompassing at least 75 percent of nesting activity in U.S. Virgin
Islands, Puerto Rico, and Florida is in public ownership; and
3. All priority one tasks identified in the recovery plan have been successfully
implemented.
Hawksbill Sea Turtle
About 15,000 females are estimated to nest each year throughout the world with the Caribbean
accounting for 20 to 30 percent of the world's hawksbill population. Only five regional
populations remain with more than 1,000 females nesting annually (Seychelles, Mexico,
Indonesia, and two in Australia) (Meylan and Donnelly 1999). Mexico is now the most important
77

region for hawksbills in the Caribbean with about 3,000 nests per year (Meylan 1999). In the
U.S. Pacific, hawksbills nest only on main island beaches in Hawaii, primarily along the east
coast of the island of Hawaii. Hawksbill nesting has also been documented in American Samoa
and Guam (NMFS and USFWS 1998b).
The hawksbill sea turtle has experienced global population declines of 80 percent or more during
the past century and continued declines are projected (Meylan and Donnelly 1999). Most
populations are declining, depleted, or remnants of larger aggregations. Hawksbills were
previously abundant, as evidenced by high -density nesting at a few remaining sites and by trade
statistics.
Recovery Criteria
The U.S. Atlantic population of hawksbills can be considered for delisting if, over a period of 25
years, the following conditions are met:
1. The adult female population is increasing, as evidenced by a statistically significant
trend in the annual number of nests on at least five index beaches, including Mona
Island and Buck Island Reef National Monument;
2. Habitat for at least 50 percent of the nesting activity that occurs in the U.S. Virgin
Islands and Puerto Rico is protected in perpetuity;
3. Numbers of adults, subadults, and juveniles are increasing, as evidenced by a
statistically significant trend on at least five key foraging areas within Puerto Rico,
U.S. Virgin Islands, and Florida; and
4. All priority one tasks identified in the recovery plan have been successfully
implemented.
The Recovery Plan for the Hawksbill Turtle in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico
was signed in 1993 (NMFS and USFWS 1993), and the Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific
Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle was signed in 1998 (NMFS and USFWS 1998b).
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
Most Kemp's ridleys nest on the beaches of the western Gulf of Mexico, primarily in
Tamaulipas, Mexico. Nesting also occurs in Veracruz and Campeche, Mexico, although a small
number of Kemp's ridleys nest consistently along the Texas coast (NMFS et al. 2011). In
addition, rare nesting events have been reported in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina,
and North Carolina. Historical information indicates that tens of thousands of ridleys nested near
Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, during the late 1940s (Hildebrand 1963). The Kemp's ridley population
experienced a devastating decline between the late 1940s and the mid-1980s. The total number
of nests per nesting season at Rancho Nuevo remained below 1,000 throughout the 1980s, but
gradually began to increase in the 1990s. In 2009, 16,273 nests were documented along the 18.6
miles of coastline patrolled at Rancho Nuevo, and the total number of nests documented for all
the monitored beaches in Mexico was 21,144 (USFWS 2010). In 2011, a total of 20,570 nests
were documented in Mexico, 81 percent of these nests were documented in the Rancho Nuevo

beach (Burchfield and Pena 2011). In addition, 153 and 199 nests were recorded during 2010
and 2011, respectively, in the U.S., primarily in Texas.
Nesting aggregations of Kemp's ridleys at Rancho Nuevo were discovered in 1947, and the adult
female population was estimated to be 40,000 or more individuals based on a film by Andres
Herrera (Hildebrand 1963, Carr 1963). Within approximately 3 decades, the population had
declined to 924 nests and reached the lowest recorded nest count of 702 nests in 1985. Since the
mid- 1980s, the number of nests observed at Rancho Nuevo and nearby beaches has increased 15
percent per year (Heppell et al. 2005), allowing cautious optimism that the population is on its
way to recovery. This increase in nesting can be attributed to full protection of nesting females
and their nests in Mexico resulting from a bi-national effort between Mexico and the U.S. to
prevent the extinction of the Kemp's ridley, the requirement to use Turtle Excluder Devices
(TEDs) in shrimp trawls both in the U.S. and Mexico, and decreased shrimping effort (NMFS et
al. 2011, Heppell et al. 2005).
Recovery Criteria (only the Demo�phic Recovery Criteria are presented below; for the Listing
Factor Recovery Criteria, see NMFS et al. 2011)
The recovery goal is to conserve and protect the Kemp's ridley sea turtle so that protections
under the ESA are no longer necessary and the species can be removed from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Biological recovery criteria form the basis from which to
gauge whether the species should be reclassified to threatened (i.e., downlisted) or delisted,
whereas the listing factor criteria ensure that the threats affecting the species are controlled or
eliminated.
Downlisting Criteria
1. A population of at least 10,000 nesting females in a season (as estimated by clutch
frequency per female per season) distributed at the primary nesting beaches (Rancho
Nuevo, Tepehuajes, and Playa Dos) in Mexico is attained. Methodology and capacity
to implement and ensure accurate nesting female counts have been developed.
2. Recruitment of at least 300,000 hatchlings to the marine environment per season at
the three primary nesting beaches (Rancho Nuevo, Tepehuajes, and Playa Dos) in
Mexico is attained to ensure a minimum level of known production through in situ
incubation, incubation in corrals, or a combination of both.
Delisting Criteria
1. An average population of at least 40,000 nesting females per season (as measured by
clutch frequency per female per season and annual nest counts) over a 6-year period
distributed among nesting beaches in Mexico and the U.S. is attained. Methodology
and capacity to ensure accurate nesting female counts have been developed and
implemented.
2. Ensure average annual recruitment of hatchlings over a 6-year period from in situ
nests and beach corrals is sufficient to maintain a population of at least 40,000 nesting
females per nesting season distributed among nesting beaches in Mexico and the U.S
79

into the future. This criterion may rely on massive synchronous nesting events (i.e.,
arribadas) that will swamp predators as well as rely on supplemental protection in
corrals and facilities.
5.1.4. Conservation Needs of and Threats to Sea Turtle Species (All Five Species)
Reason for Listing: There are many threats to sea turtles, including nest destruction from natural
events, such as tidal surges and hurricanes, or eggs lost to predation by raccoons, foxes, ghost -
crabs, and other animals. However, human activity has significantly contributed to the decline of
sea turtle populations along the Atlantic Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico (NRC 1990). These
factors include the modification, degradation, or loss of nesting habitat by coastal development,
artificial lighting, beach driving, and marine pollution and debris. Furthermore, the overharvest
of eggs for food, intentional killing of adults and immature turtles for their shells and skin, and
accidental drowning in commercial fishing gear are primarily responsible for the worldwide
decline in sea turtle populations.
Threats to Sea Turtle Species
Coastal Development
Loss of sea turtle nesting habitat related to coastal development has had the greatest impact on
nesting sea turtles. Beachfront development not only causes the loss of suitable nesting habitat,
but can result in the disruption of powerful coastal processes accelerating erosion and
interrupting the natural shoreline migration (National Research Council 1990b). This may in
turn cause the need to protect upland structures and infrastructure by armoring, groin placement,
beach emergency berm construction and repair, and beach nourishment, all of which cause
changes in, additional loss of, or impact to the remaining sea turtle habitat.
Hurricanes and Storms
Hurricanes and other large storms were probably responsible for maintaining coastal beach
habitat upon which sea turtles depend through repeated cycles of destruction, alteration, and
recovery of beach and dune habitat. Hurricanes and large storms generally produce damaging
winds, storm tides and surges, and rain, which can result in severe erosion of the beach and dune
systems. Overwash and blowouts are common on barrier islands.
Hurricanes and other storms can result in the direct loss of sea turtle nests, either by erosion or
washing away of the nests by wave action and inundation or "drowning" of the eggs or pre -
emergent hatchlings within the nest, or indirectly by causing the loss of nesting habitat.
Depending on their frequency, storms can affect sea turtles on either a short-term basis (nests lost
for one season and/or temporary loss of nesting habitat) or long term, if frequent (habitat unable
to recover). The manner in which hurricanes affect sea turtle nesting also depends on their
characteristics (winds, storm surge, rainfall), the time of year (within or outside of the nesting
season), and where the northeast edge of the hurricane crosses land.
:1

Because of the limited remaining nesting habitat in a natural state with no immediate
development landward of the sandy beach, frequent or successive severe weather events could
threaten the ability of certain sea turtle populations to survive and recover. Sea turtles evolved
under natural coastal environmental events such as hurricanes. The extensive amount of
predevelopment coastal beach and dune habitat allowed sea turtles to survive even the most
severe hurricane events. It is only within the last 20 to 30 years that the combination of habitat
loss to beachfront development and destruction of remaining habitat by hurricanes has increased
the threat to sea turtle survival and recovery. On developed beaches, typically little space
remains for sandy beaches to become reestablished after periodic storms. While the beach itself
moves landward during such storms, reconstruction or persistence of structures at their pre -storm
locations can result in a loss of nesting habitat.
Erosion
A critically eroded area is a segment of shoreline where natural processes or human activity have
caused or contributed to erosion and recession of the beach or dune system to such a degree that
upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources are
threatened or lost. It is important to note that for erosion to be considered critical there must be
an existing threat to or loss of one of those four specific interests listed.
Beachfront Lighting
Artificial lights along a beach can deter females from coming ashore to nest or misdirect females
trying to return to the surf after a nesting event. A significant reduction in sea turtle nesting
activity has been documented on beaches illuminated with artificial lights (Witherington 1992).
Artificial beachfront lighting may also cause disorientation (loss of bearings) and misorientation
(incorrect orientation) of sea turtle hatchlings. Visual signs are the primary sea -finding
mechanism for hatchlings (Mrosovsky and Carr 1967; Mrosovsky and Shettleworth 1968;
Dickerson and Nelson 1989; Witherington and Bjorndal 1991). Artificial beachfront lighting is a
documented cause of hatchling disorientation and misorientation on nesting beaches (Philibosian
1976; Mann 1977; Witherington and Martin 1996). The emergence from the nest and crawl to
the sea is one of the most critical periods of a sea turtle's life. Hatchlings that do not make it to
the sea quickly become food for ghost crabs, birds, and other predators, or become dehydrated
and may never reach the sea. In addition, research has documented significant reduction in sea
turtle nesting activity on beaches illuminated with artificial lights (Witherington 1992). During
the 2010 sea turtle nesting season in Florida, over 47,000 turtle hatchlings were documented as
being disoriented (FWC/FWRI 2011).
Predation
Predation of sea turtle eggs and hatchlings by native and introduced species occurs on almost all
nesting beaches. Predation by a variety of predators can considerably decrease sea turtle nest
hatching success. The most common predators in the southeastern U.S. are ghost crabs
(Ocypode quadrata), raccoons (Procyon lotor), feral hogs (Sus scrofa), foxes (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus and Vulpes vulpes), coyotes (Canis latrans), armadillos (Dasypus
novemcinctus), and fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) (Dodd 1988; Stancyk 1995). In the absence of
81

nest protection programs in a number of locations throughout the southeast U.S., raccoons may
depredate up to 96 percent of all nests deposited on a beach (Davis and Whiting 1977; Hopkins
and Murphy 1980; Stancyk et al. 1980; Talbert et al. 1980; Schroeder 1981; Labisky et al. 1986).
Beach Driving
The operation of motor vehicles on the beach affects sea turtle nesting by interrupting or striking
a female turtle on the beach, headlights disorienting or misorienting emergent hatchlings,
vehicles running over hatchlings attempting to reach the ocean, and vehicle tracks traversing the
beach that interfere with hatchlings crawling to the ocean. Hatchlings appear to become diverted
not because they cannot physically climb out of the rut (Hughes and Caine 1994), but because
the sides of the track cast a shadow and the hatchlings lose their line of sight to the ocean horizon
(Mann 1977). The extended period of travel required to negotiate tire tracks and ruts may
increase the susceptibility of hatchlings to dehydration and depredation during migration to the
ocean (Hosier et al. 1981). Driving on the beach can cause sand compaction which may result in
adverse impacts on nest site selection, digging behavior, clutch viability, and emergence by
hatchlings, decreasing nest success and directly killing pre -emergent hatchlings (Mann 1977;
Nelson and Dickerson 1987; Nelson 1988).
The physical changes and loss of plant cover caused by vehicles on dunes can lead to various
degrees of instability, and therefore encourage dune migration. As vehicles move either up or
down a slope, sand is displaced downward, lowering the trail. Since the vehicles also inhibit
plant growth, and open the area to wind erosion, dunes may become unstable, and begin to
migrate. Unvegetated sand dunes may continue to migrate across stable areas as long as vehicle
traffic continues. Vehicular traffic through dune breaches or low dunes on an eroding beach may
cause an accelerated rate of overwash and beach erosion (Godfrey et al. 1978). If driving is
required, the area where the least amount of impact occurs is the beach between the low and high
tide water lines. Vegetation on the dunes can quickly reestablish provided the mechanical
impact is removed.
Climate Change
The varying and dynamic elements of climate science are inherently long term, complex, and
interrelated. Regardless of the underlying causes of climate change, glacial melting and
expansion of warming oceans are causing sea level rise, although its extent or rate cannot as yet
be predicted with certainty. At present, the science is not exact enough to precisely predict when
and where climate impacts will occur. Although we may know the direction of change, it may
not be possible to predict its precise timing or magnitude. These impacts may take place
gradually or episodically in major leaps.
Climate change is evident from observations of increases in average global air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising sea level, according to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (IPCC 2007a). The IPCC Report (2007a)
describes changes in natural ecosystems with potential widespread effects on many organisms,
including marine mammals and migratory birds. The potential for rapid climate change poses a
significant challenge for fish and wildlife conservation. Species' abundance and distribution are
82

dynamic, relative to a variety of factors, including climate. As climate changes, the abundance
and distribution of fish and wildlife will also change. Highly specialized or endemic species are
likely to be most susceptible to the stresses of changing climate. Based on these findings and
other similar studies, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) requires agencies under its
direction to consider potential climate change effects as part of their long-range planning
activities (Service 2007).
Along developed coastlines, and especially in areas where shoreline protection structures have
been constructed to limit shoreline movement, rising sea levels will cause severe effects on
nesting females and their eggs. Erosion control structures can result in the permanent loss of dry
nesting beach or deter nesting females from reaching suitable nesting sites (National Research
Council 1990a). Nesting females may deposit eggs seaward of the erosion control structures
potentially subjecting them to repeated tidal inundation or washout by waves and tidal action.
Based on the present level of available information concerning the effects of global climate
change on the status of sea turtles and their designated critical habitat, the Service acknowledges
the potential for changes to occur in the Action Area, but presently has no basis to evaluate if or
how these changes are affecting sea turtles. Nor does our present knowledge allow the Service
to project what the future effects from global climate change may be or the magnitude of these
potential effects.
Recreational Beach Use
Human presence on or adjacent to the beach at night during the nesting season, particularly
recreational activities, can reduce the quality of nesting habitat by deterring or disturbing and
causing nesting turtles to avoid otherwise suitable habitat. In addition, human foot traffic can
make a beach less suitable for nesting and hatchling emergence by increasing sand compaction
and creating obstacles to hatchlings attempting to reach the ocean (Hosier et al. 1981).
The use and storage of lounge chairs, cabanas, umbrellas, catamarans, and other types of
recreational equipment on the beach at night can also make otherwise suitable nesting habitat
unsuitable by hampering or deterring nesting by adult females and trapping or impeding
hatchlings during their nest to sea migration. The documentation of non -nesting emergences
(also referred to as false crawls) at these obstacles is becoming increasingly common as more
recreational beach equipment is left on the beach at night. Sobel (2002) describes nesting turtles
being deterred by wooden lounge chairs that prevented access to the upper beach.
Sand Placement
Nourishment activities widen beaches, change their sedimentology and stratigraphy, alter coastal
processes, and often plug dune gaps and remove overwash areas. Sand placement projects may
result in changes in sand density (compaction), beach shear resistance (hardness), beach moisture
content, beach slope, sand color, sand grain size, sand grain shape, and sand grain mineral
content if the placed sand is dissimilar from the original beach sand (Nelson and Dickerson
1988a). These changes could result in adverse impacts on sea turtle nest site selection, digging
behavior, clutch viability, and hatchling emergence (Nelson and Dickerson 1987; Nelson 1988).
83

Beach nourishment projects create an elevated, wider, and unnatural flat slope berm. Sea turtles
nest closer to the water the first few years after nourishment because of the altered profile (and
perhaps unnatural sediment grain size distribution) (Ernest and Martin 1999; Trindell 2005)
Beach compaction and unnatural beach profiles resulting from beach nourishment activities
could negatively impact sea turtles regardless of the timing of projects. Sand compaction may
increase the length of time required for female sea turtles to excavate nests and cause increased
physiological stress to the animals (Nelson and Dickerson 1988b). The placement of rocky
material may have similar effects. These impacts can be minimized by using suitable sand.
A change in sediment color on a beach could change the natural incubation temperatures of sea
turtle nests in an area, which, in turn, could alter natural sex ratios. To provide the most suitable
sediment for nesting sea turtles, the color of the nourished sediments should resemble the natural
beach sand in the area. Natural reworking of sediments and bleaching from exposure to the sun
would help to lighten dark nourishment sediments; however, the timeframe for sediment mixing
and bleaching to occur could be critical to a successful sea turtle nesting season.
Sand fencing
Sand fencing captures windblown sand, bolstering dunes and altering the beach profile (Rice
2017). When fences are installed seaward of houses, the sand fencing displaces the dune crest
farther seaward than would naturally occur (Nordstrom and McCluskey 1985). The installation
of sand fencing in overwash areas hastens the conversion of these flat, bare areas to elevated,
vegetated dune habitat. Sand fencing may impede the movement of unfledged chicks and sea
turtles. Between 2012 and early 2016, 62.69 miles (19%) of sandy beach habitat in North
Carolina was modified by sand fencing.
In -water and Shoreline Alterations
Many navigable mainland or barrier island tidal inlets along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
coasts are stabilized with jetties or groins. Jetties are built perpendicular to the shoreline and
extend through the entire nearshore zone and past the breaker zone to prevent or decrease sand
deposition in the channel (Kaufman and Pilkey 1979). Groins are also shore -perpendicular
structures that are designed to trap sand that would otherwise be transported by longshore
currents and can cause downdrift erosion (Kaufman and Pilkey 1979).
These in -water structures have profound effects on adjacent beaches (Kaufman and Pilkey 1979).
Jetties and groins placed to stabilize a beach or inlet prevent normal sand transport, resulting in
accretion of sand on updrift beaches and acceleration of beach erosion downdrift of the structures
(Komar 1983; Pilkey et al. 1984). Witherington et al. (2005) found a significant negative
relationship between loggerhead nesting density and distance from the nearest of 17 ocean inlets
on the Atlantic coast of Florida. The effect of inlets in lowering nesting density was observed
both updrift and downdrift of the inlets, leading researchers to propose that beach instability
from both erosion and accretion may discourage sea turtle nesting.

Following construction, the presence of groins and jetties may interfere with nesting turtle access
to the beach, result in a change in beach profile and width (downdrift erosion, loss of sandy
berms, and escarpment formation), trap hatchlings, and concentrate predatory fishes, resulting in
higher probabilities of hatchling predation. In addition to decreasing nesting habitat suitability,
construction or repair of groins and jetties during the nesting season may result in the destruction
of nests, disturbance of females attempting to nest, and disorientation of emerging hatchlings
from project lighting.
Some individuals in a population are more "valuable" than others in terms of the number of
offspring they are expected to produce. An individual's potential for contributing offspring to
future generations is its reproductive value. Because of delayed sexual maturity, reproductive
longevity, and low survivorship in early life stages, nesting females are of high value to a
population. The loss of a nesting female in a small recovery unit would represent a significant
loss to the recovery unit. The reproductive value for a nesting female has been estimated to be
approximately 253 times greater than an egg or a hatchling (NMFS and USFWS 2008).
With regard to indirect loss of eggs and hatchlings, on most beaches, nesting success typically
declines for the first year or two following sand placement, even though more nesting habitat is
available for turtles (Trindell et al. 1998; Ernest and Martin 1999; Herren 1999). Reduced
nesting success on constructed beaches has been attributed to increased sand compaction,
escarpment formation, and changes in beach profile (Nelson et al. 1987; Crain et al. 1995;
Lutcavage et al. 1997; Steinitz et al. 1998; Ernest and Martin 1999; Rumbold et al. 2001). In
addition, even though constructed beaches are wider, nests deposited there may experience
higher rates of wash out than those on relatively narrow, steeply sloped beaches (Ernest and
Martin 1999). This occurs because nests on constructed beaches are more broadly distributed
than those on natural beaches, where they tend to be clustered near the base of the dune. Nests
laid closest to the waterline on constructed beaches may be lost during the first year or two
following construction as the beach undergoes an equilibration process during which seaward
portions of the beach are lost to erosion. As a result, the project may be anticipated to result in
decreased nesting and loss of nests that are laid within the Action Area for two subsequent
nesting seasons following the completion of the proposed sand placement. However, it is
unknown whether nests that would have been laid in an Action Area during the two subsequent
nesting seasons had the project not occurred are actually lost from the population, or if nesting is
simply displaced to adjacent beaches. Regardless, eggs and hatchlings have a low reproductive
value; each egg or hatchling has been estimated to have only 0.004 percent of the value of a
nesting female (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Thus, even if the majority of the eggs and hatchlings
that would have been produced on the project beach are not realized for up to 2 years following
project completion, the Service would not expect this loss to have a significant effect on the
recovery and survival of the species, for the following reasons: 1) some nesting is likely just
displaced to adjacent non -project beaches, 2) not all eggs will produce hatchlings, and 3)
destruction and/or failure of nests will not always result from a sand placement project. A
variety of natural and unknown factors negatively affect incubating egg clutches, including tidal
inundation, storm events, and predation, accretion of sand, and erosional processes. The loss of
all life stages of sea turtles including eggs are considered "take" and minimization measures are
required to avoid and minimize all life stages. During project construction, predators of eggs and
nestlings may be attracted to the Action Area due to food waste from the construction crew.

In the U.S., consultations with the Service have included military missions and operations, beach
nourishment and other shoreline protection projects, and actions related to protection of coastal
development on sandy beaches along the coast. Most of the Service's section 7 consultations for
sea turtle impacts involve beach nourishment projects. The Act does not require entities
conducting projects with no Federal nexus to apply for a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. This is a
voluntary process and is applicant driven. Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits are scientific permits that
include activities that would enhance the survival and conservation of a listed species. Those
permits are not listed as they are expected to benefit the species and are not expected to
contribute to the cumulative take assessment.
5.2. Environmental Baseline for Sea Turtle Species
This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to
the current status of the Sea Turtle Species, its habitat, and ecosystem within the Action Area.
The environmental baseline is a "snapshot" of the species' health in the Action Area at the time
of the consultation and does not include the effects of the Action under review.
5.2.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of Sea Turtle Species
See Table 5-2 for data on observed sea turtle nests along Oak Island. Data was provided in the
BA for the Eastern Channel Project, and by www.seaturtle.org (accessed April 14, 2021).
Table 5-2. Number of loggerhead sea turtle nests observed on Oak Island between 2005 and
2020.
Year
Oak Island
2005
60
2006
76
2007
50
2008
52
2009
56
2010
56
2011
63
2012
79
2013
93
2014
31
2015
101
2016
115
2017
90
2018
51
2019
172
2020
96
The loggerhead sea turtle nesting and hatching season for North Carolina beaches extends from
May 1 through November 15. Incubation ranges from about 45 to 95 days. Between 2009 and
86

2017, annual loggerhead nests ranged from a low of 31 in 2014 to a high of 115 in 2016.
Generally, despite the low number in 2014, the annual number of nests has increased over the
past 12 years.
The green sea turtle nesting and hatching season North Carolina Beaches extends from May 15
through November 15. Incubation ranges from about 45 to 75 days. One (1) green sea turtle
nest was documented on Oak Island in 2010. Green sea turtle nests have also been documented
on Holden Beach to the west (www.seaturtle.org, accessed January 3, 2018).
The leatherback sea turtle nesting and hatching season on North Carolina Beaches extends from
April 15 through November 15. Incubation ranges from about 55 to 75 days. No leatherback sea
turtles have been documented on Oak Island since 2005, but one nest was documented on Bald
Head Island in 2010 and one nest on Holden Beach in 2010 (www.seaturtle.org, accessed
January 3, 2018).
The hawksbill sea turtle nesting and hatching season has not been determined on North Carolina
beaches, but is assumed to be similar to other species. Two hawksbill nests were reported in
2015 at Cape Hatteras National Seashore south of Hatteras; the first records of hawksbill sea
turtle nests in the state of North Carolina, and also the first outside the state of Florida. One nest
successfully hatched (hatching success of 64.5%); the other was destroyed by high surf from
storms. The nest that successfully hatched had an incubation period of 59 days. It is currently
unclear whether or not the hawksbill sea turtle may nest in the Action Area. However, suitable
nesting habitat is present throughout the Action Area.
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle nesting and hatchling season on North Carolina Beaches appears to
be similar to other species. Incubation ranges from 45 to 58 days. No Kemp's ridley sea turtle
nests have been documented on Oak Island since 2005. However, suitable nesting habitat is
present throughout the Action Area. Kemp's ridley sea turtles are known to occasionally nest
throughout the state, and a Kemp's ridley stranded in April 2014 near the Holden Beach pier
(http://www.hbturtlewatch.org/news/news-detail.php?2014-04-30-17-30-12-101).
5.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs of and Threats to Sea Turtle Species
The Action Area is quite heavily developed. Development began in the mid- to late- 1800s with
the construction of Fort Caswell. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) was constructed
in the mid-1930's. Oak Island began to develop in earnest in the 1950s and 1960s. The entire
length of the Action Area is presently lined with structures, and there is no significant length of
undeveloped shoreline. Recreational use in the Action Area is quite high from residents and
tourists.
A wide range of recent and on -going beach disturbance activities have altered the proposed
Action Area and, to a greater extent, the North Carolina coastline, and many more are proposed
along the coastline for the near future. Table 3-2 lists the most recent projects, within the past 5
years. 20 biological opinions have been issued since 2014 within the Raleigh Field Office
geographic area for adverse impacts to sea turtle species. The BOs include those for beach
renourishment, sandbag revetments, and terminal groin construction, all of which are included in
87

the Environmental Baseline for this BO. In each of these BOs, a surrogate (linear footage of
shoreline) was used to express the amount or extent of anticipated incidental take.
Nourishment activities widen beaches, change their sedimentology and stratigraphy, alter coastal
processes, and often plug dune gaps and remove overwash areas. A dune reconstruction project
using upland borrow material is currently ongoing. The Service remains concerned about the
potential color and compaction issues that may be caused by material currently (winter of 2018)
being placed on the dune. The material appears to be finer and darker than the existing beach
sediment. The sediment dredged and placed from this project will be placed on top of and
adjacent to the dune reconstruction sediments. However, the potential impacts to sea turtles from
the mixture of finer and darker sediments with the sediments from this project are unclear.
Beach scraping can artificially steepen beaches, stabilize dune scarps, plug dune gaps, and
redistribute sediment distribution patterns. Artificial dune building, often a product of beach
scraping, removes low-lying overwash areas and dune gaps. As chronic erosion catches up to
structures throughout the Action Area, artificial dune systems are constructed and maintained to
protect beachfront structures either by sand fencing or fill placement. Beach scraping or
bulldozing has become more frequent on North Carolina beaches in the past 20 years, in
response to storms and the continuing retreat of the shoreline with rising sea level. These
activities primarily occur during the winter months. Artificial dune or berm systems have been
constructed and maintained in several areas. These dunes make the artificial dune ridge function
like a seawall that blocks natural beach retreat, evolution, and overwash.
Beach raking: Man-made beach cleaning and raking machines effectively remove seaweed, fish,
glass, syringes, plastic, cans, cigarettes, shells, stone, wood, and virtually any unwanted debris
(Barber Beach Cleaning Equipment 2009). Removal of wrack eliminates a beach's natural sand -
trapping abilities, further destabilizing the beach. In addition, sand adhering to seaweed and
trapped in the cracks and crevices of wrack is removed from the beach. Although the amount of
sand lost due to single sweeping actions may be small, it adds up considerably over a period of
years (Nordstrom et al. 2006; Neal et al. 2007). Beach cleaning or grooming can result in
abnormally broad unvegetated zones that are inhospitable to dune formation or plant
colonization, thereby enhancing the likelihood of erosion (Defreo et al. 2009). The applicant
conducted beach raking during winter of 2021 prior to this project, to remove rock from previous
nourishment efforts, but no plans for raking to move trash have been proposed.
Pedestrian Use of the Beach: There are a number of potential sources of pedestrians and pets,
including those individuals originating from beachfront and nearby residences.
Shoreline stabilization: Sandbags on private properties and along roadways provide stabilization
to the shoreline of beaches in Caswell Beach and Oak Island, especially along East Beach Drive.
Sand fencing: There are many stretches of sand fencing along the shoreline on Oak Island. Sand
fencing captures windblown sand, bolstering dunes and altering the beach profile (Rice 2017).
When fences are installed seaward of houses, the sand fencing displaces the dune crest farther
seaward than would naturally occur (Nordstrom and McCluskey 1985). The installation of sand
fencing in overwash areas hastens the conversion of these flat, bare areas to elevated, vegetated
88

dune habitat. Sand fencing may impede the movement of unfledged chicks and sea turtles.
Between 2012 and early 2016, 62.69 miles (19%) of sandy beach habitat in North Carolina was
modified by sand fencing
5.3. Effects of the Action on Sea Turtle Species
This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Action on the Sea Turtle Species,
which includes the direct and indirect effects of interrelated and interdependent actions. Direct
effects are caused by the Action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused
by the Action but are later in time and reasonably certain to occur.
5.3.1. Effects of Sand Placement and Dune Planting on Sea Turtle Species
Applicable Science and Pathways of Response
Direct Effects: Potential adverse effects during the project construction phase include
disturbance of existing nests, which may have been missed by surveyors and thus not marked for
avoidance, disturbance of females attempting to nest, and disorientation of emerging hatchlings.
In addition, heavy equipment will be required to re -distribute the sand to the original natural
beach template. This equipment will have to traverse the beach portion of the Action Area,
which could result in harm to nesting sea turtles, their nests, and emerging hatchlings. the
Planting vegetation may affect sea turtles through impacts from vehicle use on the beach during
the nesting season.
Placement of sand on a beach in and of itself may not provide suitable nesting habitat for sea
turtles. Although sand placement activities may increase the potential nesting area, significant
negative impacts to sea turtles may result if protective measures are not incorporated during
project construction. Sand placement activities during the nesting season can cause increased
loss of eggs and hatchlings and, along with other mortality sources, may significantly impact the
long-term survival of the species. For instance, projects conducted during the nesting and
hatching season could result in the loss of sea turtles through disruption of adult nesting activity
and by burial or crushing of nests or hatchlings. While a nest monitoring and egg relocation
program would reduce these impacts, nests may be inadvertently missed (when crawls are
obscured by rainfall, wind, or tides) or misidentified as false crawls during daily patrols. In
addition, nests may be destroyed by operations at night prior to beach patrols being performed.
Even under the best of conditions, about 7 percent of the nests can be misidentified as false
crawls by experienced sea turtle nest surveyors (Schroeder 1994).
a. Equipment during construction
The use of heavy machinery on beaches during a construction project may also have
adverse effects on sea turtles. Equipment left on the nesting beach overnight can create
barriers to nesting females emerging from the surf and crawling up the beach, causing a
higher incidence of false crawls and unnecessary energy expenditure.
:'

The operation of motor vehicles or equipment on the beach to complete the project work
at night affects sea turtle nesting by: interrupting or colliding with a nesting turtle on the
beach, headlights disorienting or misorienting emergent hatchlings, vehicles running over
hatchlings attempting to reach the ocean, and vehicle ruts on the beach interfering with
hatchlings crawling to the ocean. Apparently, hatchlings become diverted not because
they cannot physically climb out of a rut (Hughes and Caine 1994), but because the sides
of the track cast a shadow and the hatchlings lose their line of sight to the ocean horizon
(Mann 1977). The extended period of travel required to negotiate tire ruts may increase
the susceptibility of hatchlings to dehydration and depredation during migration to the
ocean (Hosier et al. 1981). Driving directly above or over incubating egg clutches or on
the beach can cause sand compaction, which may result in adverse impacts on nest site
selection, digging behavior, clutch viability, and emergence by hatchlings, as well as
directly kill pre -emergent hatchlings (Mann 1977; Nelson and Dickerson 1987; Nelson
1988).
The physical changes and loss of plant cover caused by vehicles on vegetated areas or
dunes can lead to various degrees of instability and cause dune migration. As vehicles
move over the sand, sand is displaced downward, lowering the substrate. Since the
vehicles also inhibit plant growth, and open the area to wind erosion, the beach and dunes
may become unstable. Vehicular traffic on the beach or through dune breaches or low
dunes may cause acceleration of overwash and erosion (Godfrey et al. 1978). Driving
along the beachfront should be between the low and high tide water lines. To minimize
the impacts to the beach, dunes, and dune vegetation, transport and access to the
construction sites should be from the road to the maximum extent possible. However, if
vehicular access to the beach is necessary, the areas for vehicle and equipment usage
should be designated and marked.
b. Artificial lighting as a result of an unnatural beach slope on the adjacent beach
Visual cues are the primary sea -finding mechanism for hatchling sea turtles (Mrosovsky
and Carr 1967; Mrosovsky and Shettleworth 1968; Dickerson and Nelson 1989;
Witherington and Bjomdal 1991). When artificial lighting is present on or near the
beach, it can misdirect hatchlings once they emerge from their nests and prevent them
from reaching the ocean (Philibosian 1976; Mann 1977; FWC 2007). In addition, a
significant reduction in sea turtle nesting activity has been documented on beaches
illuminated with artificial lights (Witherington 1992). Therefore, construction lights
along a project beach and on the dredging vessel may deter females from coming ashore
to nest, misdirect females trying to return to the surf after a nesting event, and misdirect
emergent hatchlings from adjacent non -project beaches.
The unnatural sloped beach adjacent to the structure exposes sea turtles and their nests to
lights that were less visible, or not visible, from nesting areas before the sand placement
activity, leading to a higher mortality of hatchlings. Review of over 10 years of empirical
information from beach nourishment projects indicates that the number of sea turtles
impacted by lights increases on the post -construction berm. A review of selected
nourished beaches in Florida (South Brevard, North Brevard, Captiva Island, Ocean
90

Ridge, Boca Raton, Town of Palm Beach, Longboat Key, and Bonita Beach) indicated
disorientation reporting increased by approximately 300 percent the first nesting season
after project construction and up to 542 percent the second year compared to pre -
nourishment reports (Trindell et al. 2005). Installing appropriate beachfront lighting is
the most effective method to decrease the number of disorientations on any developed
beach including nourished beaches.
c. Nest relocation
Besides the potential for missing nests during surveys and a nest relocation program,
there is a potential for eggs to be damaged by nest movement or relocation, particularly if
eggs are not relocated within 12 hours of deposition (Limpus et al. 1979). Nest
relocation can have adverse impacts on incubation temperature (and hence sex ratios),
gas exchange parameters, hydric environment of nests, hatching success, and hatchling
emergence (Limpus et al. 1979; Ackerman 1980; Parmenter 1980; Spotila et al. 1983;
McGehee 1990). Relocating nests into sands deficient in oxygen or moisture can result
in mortality, morbidity, and reduced behavioral competence of hatchlings. Water
availability is known to influence the incubation environment of the embryos and
hatchlings of turtles with flexible -shelled eggs, which has been shown to affect nitrogen
excretion (Packard et al. 1984), mobilization of calcium (Packard and Packard 1986),
mobilization of yolk nutrients (Packard et al. 1985), hatchling size (Packard et al. 1981;
McGehee 1990), energy reserves in the yolk at hatching (Packard et al. 1988), and
locomotory ability of hatchlings (Miller et al. 1987).
Indirect Effects: Many of the direct effects of beach nourishment and dune vegetation planting
may persist over time and become indirect impacts. These indirect effects include increased
susceptibility of relocated nests to catastrophic events, the consequences of potential increased
beachfront development, changes in the physical characteristics of the beach, the formation of
escarpments, and future sand migration.
a. Changes in the physical environment
Beach nourishment projects create an elevated, wider, and unnatural flat slope berm. Sea
turtles nest closer to the water the first few years after nourishment because of the altered
profile (and perhaps unnatural sediment grain size distribution) (Ernest and Martin 1999;
Trindell 2005).
Beach compaction and unnatural beach profiles resulting from beach nourishment
activities could negatively impact sea turtles regardless of the timing of project. Very
fine sand or the use of heavy machinery can cause sand compaction on nourished beaches
(Nelson et al. 1987; Nelson and Dickerson 1988a). Significant reductions in nesting
success (i.e., false crawls occurred more frequently) have been documented on severely
compacted nourished beaches (Fletemeyer 1980; Raymond 1984; Nelson and Dickerson
1987; Nelson et al. 1987), and increased false crawls may result in increased
physiological stress to nesting females. Sand compaction may increase the length of time
required for female sea turtles to excavate nests and cause increased physiological stress
91

to the animals (Nelson and Dickerson 1988b). Nelson and Dickerson (1988c) concluded
that, in general, beaches nourished from offshore borrow sites are harder than natural
beaches, and while some may soften over time through erosion and accretion of sand,
others may remain hard for 10 years or more.
These impacts can be minimized by using suitable sand and by tilling (minimum depth of
36 inches) compacted sand after project completion. The level of compaction of a beach
can be assessed by measuring sand compaction using a cone penetrometer (Nelson 1987).
Tilling of a nourished beach with a root rake may reduce the sand compaction to levels
comparable to unnourished beaches. However, a pilot study by Nelson and Dickerson
(1988c) showed that a tilled nourished beach will remain uncompacted for only up to 1
year. Thus, multi -year beach compaction monitoring and, if necessary, tilling would help
to ensure that project impacts on sea turtles are minimized.
A change in sediment color on a beach could change the natural incubation temperatures
of nests in an area, which, in turn, could alter natural sex ratios. To provide the most
suitable sediment for nesting sea turtles, the color of the nourished sediments should
resemble the natural beach sand in the area. Natural reworking of sediments and
bleaching from exposure to the sun would help to lighten dark nourishment sediments;
however, the timeframe for sediment mixing and bleaching to occur could be critical to a
successful sea turtle nesting season.
b. Escarpment formation
On nourished beaches, steep escarpments may develop along their water line interface as
they adjust from an unnatural construction profile to a more natural beach profile
(Coastal Engineering Research Center 1984; Nelson et al. 1987). Escarpments can
hamper or prevent access to nesting sites (Nelson and Blihovde 1998). Researchers have
shown that female sea turtles coming ashore to nest can be discouraged by the formation
of an escarpment, leading to situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting
areas to deposit eggs (e.g., in front of the escarpments, which often results in failure of
nests due to prolonged tidal inundation). This impact can be minimized by leveling any
escarpments prior to the nesting season.
c. Increased susceptibility to catastrophic events
Nest relocation within a nesting season may concentrate eggs in an area making them
more susceptible to catastrophic events. Hatchlings released from concentrated areas also
may be subject to greater predation rates from both land and marine predators, because
the predators learn where to concentrate their efforts (Glenn 1998; Wyneken et al. 1998).
d. Increased beachfront development
Pilkey and Dixon (1996) stated that beach replenishment frequently leads to more
development in greater density within shorefront communities that are then left with a
future of further replenishment or more drastic stabilization measures. Dean (1999) also
92

noted that the very existence of a beach nourishment project can encourage more
development in coastal areas. Following completion of a beach nourishment project in
Miami during 1982, investment in new and updated facilities substantially increased
tourism there (NRC 1995). Increased building density immediately adjacent to the beach
often resulted as much larger buildings that accommodated more beach users replaced
older buildings. Overall, shoreline management creates an upward spiral of initial
protective measures resulting in more expensive development that leads to the need for
more and larger protective measures. Increased shoreline development may adversely
affect sea turtle nesting success. Greater development may support larger populations of
mammalian predators, such as foxes and raccoons, than undeveloped areas
(NRC 1990a), and can also result in greater adverse effects due to artificial lighting, as
discussed above.
Beneficial Effects: The placement of sand on a beach with reduced dry foredune habitat may
increase sea turtle nesting habitat if the placed sand is highly compatible (i.e., grain size, shape,
color, etc.) with naturally occurring beach sediments in the area, and compaction and escarpment
remediation measures are incorporated into the project. In addition, a nourished beach that is
designed and constructed to mimic a natural beach system may benefit sea turtles more than an
eroding beach it replaces.
Summary of Responses and Interpretation of Effects
Sand placement activities may impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea turtle nests
occurring along up to 20,7001f of shoreline in Oak Island. Sand placement activities would
occur within and adjacent to nesting habitat for sea turtles and dune habitats that ensure the
stability and integrity of the nesting beach. Specifically, the project would potentially impact
loggerhead, green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley nesting females, their nests, and
hatchling sea turtles. The Service expects the proposed construction activities could directly and
indirectly affect the availability of habitat for nesting and hatchling sea turtles. The timing of the
sand placement activities could directly and indirectly impact nesting females, their nests, and
hatchling sea turtles when conducted between May 1 and November 15.
The effects of sand placement activities may change the nesting behavior of adult female sea
turtles, diminish nesting success, and cause reduced hatching and emerging success. Sand
placement can also change the incubation conditions within the nest. Any decrease in
productivity and/or survival rates would contribute to the vulnerability of the sea turtles nesting
in the southeastern U.S.
During the first post -construction year, nests on nourished beaches are deposited significantly
seaward of the toe of the dune and significantly landward of the tide line than nests on natural
beaches. More nests are washed out on the wide, flat beaches of the nourished treatments than
on the narrower steeply sloped natural beaches. This phenomenon may persist through the
second post -construction year monitoring and result from the placement of nests near the
seaward edge of the beach berm where dramatic profile changes, caused by erosion and scarping,
occur as the beach equilibrates to a more natural contour.
7c3

The principal effect of beach nourishment on sea turtle reproduction is a reduction in nesting
success during the first year following project construction. Although most studies have
attributed this phenomenon to an increase in beach compaction and escarpment formation, Ernest
and Martin (1999) indicated that changes in beach profile may be more important. Regardless,
as a nourished beach is reworked by natural processes in subsequent years and adjusts from an
unnatural construction profile to a natural beach profile, beach compaction and the frequency of
escarpment formation decline, and nesting and nesting success return to levels found on natural
beaches.
The sand placement and demobilization activities are one-time activities, expected to extend
from May 1 to May 26, 2021. Dune vegetation planting activities are expected to extend to the
end of June 2021. Thus, the direct effects would be expected to be short-term in duration.
Indirect effects from the activity may continue to impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea
turtle nests in subsequent nesting seasons.
For this and other sand placement BOs, the Service typically uses a surrogate to estimate the
extent of take. The amount of take is directly proportional to the spatial/temporal extent of
occupied habitat that the Action affects, and exceeding this extent would represent a taking that
is not anticipated in this BO. The Service anticipates incidental take of sea turtles will be
difficult to detect for the following reasons: (1) the turtles nest primarily at night and all nests are
not found because [a] natural factors, such as rainfall, wind, and tides may obscure crawls and
[b] human -caused factors, such as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, may obscure crawls, and
result in nests being destroyed because they were missed during a nesting survey, nest mark and
avoidance, or egg relocation program (2) the total number of hatchlings per undiscovered nest is
unknown; (3) the reduction in percent hatching and emerging success per relocated nest over the
natural nest site is unknown; (4) an unknown number of females may avoid the project beach and
be forced to nest in a less than optimal area; (5) lights may misdirect an unknown number of
hatchlings and cause death; and (6) escarpments may form and prevent an unknown number of
females from accessing a suitable nesting site.
However, the level of take of these species can be anticipated by the sand placement activities on
suitable turtle nesting beach habitat because: (1) turtles nest within the Action Area; (2)
construction will likely occur during the nesting season; (3) the nourishment project(s) will
modify the incubation substrate, beach slope, and sand compaction; and (4) artificial lighting will
deter and/or misdirect nesting hatchling turtles.
5.4. Cumulative Effects on Sea Turtle Species
For purposes of consultation under ESA §7, cumulative effects are those caused by future state,
tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area. Future
Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered, because they require
separate consultation under §7 of the ESA. It is reasonable to expect continued dredging,
shoreline stabilization, and beach renourishment projects in this area in the future since erosion
and sea -level rise increases would impact the existing beachfront development.
EA

5.5. Conclusion for Sea Turtle Species
In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections for the
loggerhead, green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles (status, baseline, effects,
and cumulative effects) relative to the purpose of a BO under §7(a)(2) of the ESA, which is to
determine whether a Federal action is likely to:
a) jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
b) result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
"Jeopardize the continued existence" means to engage in an action that reasonably would be
expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and
recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of
that species (50 CFR §402.02).
Status
All five sea turtle species may nest or attempt to nest in the Action Area. Between 2005 and
2017, the annual number of recorded loggerhead turtle nests on Oak Island has generally
increased. One green turtle nest was found along Oak Island in 2010. No leatherback nests have
been reported on Oak Island, but nests have been reported to the east and west on Holden Beach
and Bald Head Island in 2010.
There are many threats to sea turtles, including nest destruction from natural events, such as tidal
surges and hurricanes, or eggs lost to predation by raccoons, foxes, ghost -crabs, and other
animals. However, human activity has significantly contributed to the decline of sea turtle
populations along the Atlantic Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico (NRC 1990). These factors
include the modification, degradation, or loss of nesting habitat by coastal development, artificial
lighting, beach driving, and marine pollution and debris. Furthermore, the overharvest of eggs
for food, intentional killing of adults and immature turtles for their shells and skin, and
accidental drowning in commercial fishing gear are primarily responsible for the worldwide
decline in sea turtle populations.
Baseline
The Action Area is quite heavily developed. Development began in the mid- to late- 1800s with
the construction of Fort Caswell. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) was constructed
in the mid-1930's. Oak Island began to develop in earnest in the 1950s and 1960s. The entire
length of the Action Area is presently lined with structures, and there is no significant length of
undeveloped shoreline. Recreational use in the Action Area is quite high from residents and
tourists.
The area is also close to the northern limit of nesting for the five sea turtle species. It is difficult
to determine if the relatively low number of nests is due to development actions in the area, the
geographic location in the nesting ranges of the species, or a combination of the two factors.

Effects
Sand placement activities may impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea turtle nests
occurring along up to 20,7001f of shoreline in Oak Island. Sand placement activities would
occur within and adjacent to nesting habitat for sea turtles and dune habitats that ensure the
stability and integrity of the nesting beach. The project would potentially impact loggerhead,
green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley nesting females, their nests, and hatchling sea
turtles. The Service expects the proposed construction activities could directly and indirectly
affect the availability of habitat for nesting and hatchling sea turtles. The timing of the sand
placement activities could directly and indirectly impact nesting females, their nests, and
hatchling sea turtles when conducted between May 1 and November 15.
The Service determined there is a potential for long-term adverse effects on sea turtles as a result
of sand placement. However, the Service acknowledges the potential benefits of the sand
placement project, since it provides additional sea turtle nesting habitat. Nonetheless, an
increase in sandy beach may not necessarily equate to an increase in suitable sea turtle nesting
habitat.
After reviewing the current status of the nesting sea turtle species, the environmental baseline for
the Action Area, the effects of the proposed activities, the proposed Conservation Measures, and
the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the placement of sand is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle,
leatherback sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, and Kemp's ridley sea turtle.
6. CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NWA POPULATION OF THE
LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE
6.1. Status of Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat
This section summarizes best available data about the current condition of all designated units of
critical habitat for the NWA population of the loggerhead sea turtle that are relevant to
formulating an opinion about the Action. The Service published its decision to designate critical
habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle on July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39756).
6.1.1. Description of Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat
Critical habitat for the NWA population of loggerhead sea turtles is comprised of 1,189.9
kilometers (km) (739.3 miles) in 88 separate units from North Carolina to Mississippi. These
beaches account for 48 percent of an estimated 2,464 km (1,531 miles) of coastal beach
shoreline, and account for approximately 84 percent of the documented nesting (numbers of
nests) within these six States. The designated critical habitat has been identified by the recovery
unit in which they are located. Recovery units are management subunits of a listed entity that are
geographically or otherwise identifiable and essential to the recovery of the listed entity. Within
the U.S., four terrestrial recovery units have been designated for the NWA population of the
W

loggerhead sea turtle: the Northern Recovery Unit (NRU), Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit
(PFRU), Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit (DTRU), and Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit
(NGMRU). For the NRU, the Service has designated 393.7 km (244.7 miles) of Atlantic Ocean
shoreline in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, encompassing approximately 86
percent of the documented nesting (numbers of nests) within the recovery unit. The eight critical
habitat units in North Carolina total 96.1 miles (154.6 km) of beach. 15.1 miles (24.3 km) are
located within state-owned lands, while 81 miles (130.3 km) are on land owned by private
parties or others, such as counties and municipalities.
Critical habitat designation for the NWA population of the loggerhead sea turtle used the term
"primary constituent elements" (PCEs) to identify the key components of critical habitat that are
essential to its conservation and may require special management considerations or protection.
Revisions to the critical habitat regulations in 2016 (81 FR 7214, 50 CFR §4.24) discontinue use
of the term PCEs, and rely exclusively the term "physical and biological features" (PBFs) to
refer to these key components, because the latter term is the one used in the statute. This shift in
terminology does not change how the Service conducts a "destruction or adverse modification"
analysis. In this BO, we use the term PBFs to label the key components of critical habitat that
provide for the conservation of the NWA population of the loggerhead sea turtle that were
identified in its critical habitat designation rule as PCEs.
The PBFs of the NWA population of the loggerhead sea turtle critical habitat are (79 FR 39756):
(1) PBF 1—Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of Offspring.
To be successful, reproduction must occur when environmental conditions support adult activity
(e.g., sufficient quality and quantity of food in the foraging area, suitable beach structure for
digging, nearby inter -nesting habitat) (Georges et al. 1993). The environmental conditions of the
nesting beach must favor embryonic development and survival (i.e., modest temperature
fluctuation, low salinity, high humidity, well drained, well aerated) (Mortimer 1982; Mortimer
1990). Additionally, the hatchlings must emerge to onshore and offshore conditions that enhance
their chances of survival (e.g., less than 100 percent depredation, appropriate offshore currents
for dispersal) (Georges et al. 1993).
(2) PBF 2 - Natural Coastal Processes or Activities That Mimic These Natural Processes.
It is important that loggerhead nesting beaches are allowed to respond naturally to coastal
dynamic processes of erosion and accretion or mimic these processes.
6.1.2. Conservation Value of Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat
Terrestrial nesting habitat is the supralittoral zone of the beach where oviposition (egg laying),
embryonic development, and hatching occur. As discussed in Section 5.0, loggerheads nest on
ocean beaches and occasionally on estuarine shorelines with suitable sand. For a beach to serve
as nesting habitat, a nesting turtle must be able to access it. However, anthropogenic structures
(e.g., groins, jetties, breakwaters), as well as natural features (e.g., offshore sand bars), can act as
barriers or deterrents to adult females attempting to access a beach.
r717

Nest sites typically have steeper slopes than other sites on the beach, and steeper slopes usually
indicate an area of the beach with a higher elevation (Wood and Bjorndal 2000). Wood and
Bjorndal (2000) speculated that a higher slope could be a signal to turtles that they have reached
an elevation where there is an increased probability of hatching success of nests. This is related
to the nests being laid high enough on the beach to be less susceptible to repeated and prolonged
tidal inundation and erosion. Nests laid at lower beach elevations are subject to a greater risk of
repeated and prolonged tidal inundation and erosion, which can cause mortality of incubating
egg clutches (Foley et al. 2006). Regardless, loggerheads will use a variety of different nesting
substrates and beach slopes for nesting. They will also scatter their nests over the beach, likely to
ensure that at least some nest sites will be successful as "placement of nests close to the sea
increases the likelihood of inundation and egg loss to erosion whereas placement of nests farther
inland increases the likelihood of desiccation, hatchling misorientation, and predation on nesting
females, eggs, and hatchlings" (Wood and Bjorndal 2000).
Loggerhead sea turtles spread their reproductive effort both temporally and spatially. Spatial
clumping occurs because loggerheads concentrate their nesting to a few primary locations that
are augmented by lower density, satellite sites. In addition, a few isolated, low -density sites are
known (Miller et al. 2003). Loggerheads show a high degree of nesting site fidelity (Miller et al.
2003). Once an adult female has returned to the region where it hatched and selected a nesting
beach, she will tend to re -nest in relatively close proximity (0-5 km (0-3 miles)) during
successive nesting attempts within the same and subsequent nesting seasons, although a small
percentage of turtles will utilize more distant nesting sites in the general area (Miller et al. 2003).
Thus, a high -density nesting beach is the product of site fidelity and nesting success. A high -
density nesting beach produces a large number of hatchlings that are recruited to the population
resulting in a relatively higher number of females that will return to nest on those same beaches.
Sea turtles must have "deep, clean, relatively loose sand above the high -tide level" for
successful nest construction (Hendrickson 1982). Sand is classified as material predominately
composed of carbonate, quartz, or similar material with a particle size distribution ranging
between 0.062 mm and 4.76 mm (0.002 in and 0.187 in) (Wentworth and ASTM classification
systems). Sea turtle eggs require a high humidity substrate that allows for sufficient gas
exchange for development (Mortimer 1990; Miller 1997; Miller et al. 2003). Ackerman (1980)
found that the rate of growth and mortality of sea turtle embryos is related to respiratory gas
exchange with embryonic growth slowing and mortality increasing in environments where gas
exchange is reduced below naturally occurring levels.
Moisture conditions in the nest influence incubation period, hatching success, and hatchling size
(McGehee 1990; Mortimer 1990). Laboratory experiments have shown that hatching success
can be affected by unusually wet or dry hydric conditions (McGehee 1990). Proper moisture
conditions are necessary for maximum hatching success (McGehee 1990).
Sea turtle nesting habitat is part of the highly dynamic and continually shifting coastal system,
which includes oceanfront beaches, barrier islands, and inlets. These geologically dynamic
coastal regions are controlled by natural coastal processes or activities that mimic these natural
processes, including littoral or longshore drift, onshore and offshore sand transport, and tides and
storm surge. The integrity of the habitat components depends upon daily tidal events; these
98

processes are associated with the formation and movement of barrier islands, inlets, and other
coastal landforms throughout the landscape. There has been considerable loss or degradation of
such habitats by humans from development, armoring, sand placement, and other activities to
prevent or forestall erosion or inundation from shifting shorelines, as well as coastal storms and
sea level rise resulting from climate change. Coastal dynamic processes are anticipated to
accelerate due to sea level rise and an increase in frequency and intensity of coastal storms as a
result of climate change. Since sea turtles evolved in this dynamic system, they are dependent
upon these ever -changing features for their continued survival and recovery. Sea turtles require
nesting beaches where natural coastal processes or activities that mimic these natural processes
will be able to continue well into the future to allow the formation of suitable beaches for
nesting. These physical processes benefit sea turtles by maintaining the nesting beaches through
repeated cycles of destruction, alteration, and recovery of the beach and adjacent dune habitats.
Coastal processes happen over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Wind, waves, tides,
storms, and stream discharge are important driving forces in the coastal zone (Dingier 2005).
Thus, it is important that, where it can be allowed, the natural processes be maintained or any
projects that address erosion or shoreline protection contain measures to reduce negative effects
or are temporary in nature.
All of the designated critical habitat is occupied, and all of the designated critical habitat contains
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species in the terrestrial
environment. The high -density nesting beaches designated as critical habitat units have the
highest nesting densities within the each of the four recovery units, and have a good geographic
spatial distribution that will help ensure the protection of genetic diversity. The critical habitat
units next to the primary high -density nesting units currently support loggerhead nesting and can
serve as expansion areas should the high -density nesting beaches be significantly degraded or
temporarily or permanently lost.
Threats to loggerhead sea turtle terrestrial habitat
Most of the threats are discussed in more detail in Section 5.1.2, above, and in the March 25,
2013 proposed designation (78 FR 18000-18082). Most of these threats are interrelated. Threats
include recreational beach use, beach driving, beach sand placement, shoreline stabilization,
coastal development, beach erosion, artificial lighting, military activities, human -caused disasters
or disaster response, predation, and climate change.
6.1.3. Conservation Needs for Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat
Under the definition of CH in the Act, PBFs are both "essential to the conservation of the
species" and "may require special management considerations or protection" (ESA §3(5)(A)(i)).
Within the designated CH units for the NWA population of the loggerhead sea turtle, sites for
breeding and reproduction of offspring (PBF 1) are managed or protected in many states. Some
beach communities, local governments, and State and Federal lands have management plans,
agreements, or ordinances that prohibit beach driving during the nesting season, and also address
recreational equipment on the beach to minimize impacts to nesting and hatchling loggerhead sea
turtles. It is much more difficult to manage or protect natural coastal processes or activities that
99

mimic natural processes on private lands (PBF 2). Across the southeastern U.S., areas where
natural coastal processes are allowed to occur are almost exclusively located on protected state
and federal lands.
The placement of sand on a beach with reduced dry foredune habitat may increase sea turtle
nesting habitat if the placed sand is highly compatible (i.e., grain size, shape, color, etc.) with
naturally occurring beach sediments in the area, and compaction and escarpment remediation
measures are incorporated into the project. In addition, a nourished beach that is designed and
constructed to mimic a natural beach system may benefit sea turtles more than an eroding beach
it replaces. Beach sand placement projects conducted under the Service's Statewide
Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Corps' planning and regulatory sand placement
activities (including post -disaster sand placement activities) in Florida and North Carolina, and
other individual biological opinions throughout the loggerhead's nesting range include required
terms and conditions that minimize incidental take of turtles and protect sand quality and
compatibility for nesting sea turtles.
Efforts are underway to reduce light pollution on sea turtle nesting beaches. In the southeastern
U.S., the effects of light pollution on sea turtles are most extensive in Florida due to dense
coastal development. Enforcement of mandatory lighting ordinances in Florida and other States
has increased.
The Service consults with the Department of Defense under section 7 of the Act on their
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans, military mission, testing, and training activities
that may affect nesting and hatchling sea turtles, sea turtle nests, and sea turtle nesting habitat.
Efforts to minimize the effects of these activities including natural resource management have
focused on adjusting the activity timing to minimize encounters with loggerheads and adjusting
locations of activities to reduce overlap with sea turtle habitats.
The Service acknowledges that we cannot fully address the significant, long-term threat of
natural beach erosion, climate change, or natural disasters to loggerhead sea turtles. However, we
can determine how we respond to the threats by providing protection to the known nesting sites.
We can also identify measures to protect nesting habitat from the actions undertaken to respond
to those natural changes (such as sand placement or coastal armoring). Likewise, coastal
development is difficult to manage with respect to sea turtle protection, and is likely to result in
long-term or recurrent impacts to sea turtle nesting habitat from increased threats in almost all of
the threat categories listed above.
6.2. Environmental Baseline for Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat
This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to
the current status of designated critical habitat for loggerhead sea turtles within the Action Area.
The environmental baseline is a "snapshot" of the condition of the PBFs that are essential to the
conservation of the species within designated critical of the Action Area at the time of the
consultation, and does not include the effects of the Action under review.

6.2.1. Action Area Conservation Value of the Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat
For the Northern Recovery Unit, the Service designated 393.7 km (244.7 miles) of Atlantic
Ocean shoreline in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, encompassing approximately
86 percent of the documented nesting (numbers of nests) within the recovery unit.
This critical habitat unit is one of 38 designated critical habitat units for the Northern Recovery
Unit of the Northwest Atlantic DPS. In North Carolina, 96.1 shoreline miles (154.6 km) of
critical habitat for nesting loggerhead sea turtles was designated. Some of this acreage has been
affected recently by activities such as beach nourishment, sandbag revetment construction, and
groin construction. However, with the exception of beach nourishment activities and
recreational activities, most of the critical habitat units in North Carolina remain relatively
unaffected by development.
Oak Island is located within Critical Habitat Unit LOGG-T-NC-07 (Oak Island, Brunswick
County). From the Federal Register (FR) Notice (see
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2012-0103-0001), this unit
consists of 20.9 km (13.0 mi) of island shoreline along the Atlantic Ocean. The island is
separated from the mainland by the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Cape Fear River, Eastern
Channel, and salt marsh. The unit extends from the mouth of the Cape Fear River to Lockwoods
Folly Inlet. The unit includes lands from the MHW line to the toe of the secondary dune or
developed structures. Land in this unit is in private and or local government ownership. This unit
has high -density nesting by loggerhead sea turtles in North Carolina.
The units in North Carolina contain both of the PBFs, and all function well. The CH units in the
Action Area provide important nesting habitat in the northern portion of the loggerheads
breeding range, and due to cooler sand temperatures, may provide greater numbers of male
hatchlings than beaches to the south. The PBFs in this unit may require special management
considerations or protections to ameliorate the threats of recreational use, predation, beach sand
placement activities, in -water and shoreline alterations, climate change, beach erosion, artificial
lighting, human -caused disasters, and response to disasters.
6.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs for and Threats to Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical
Habitat
The Action Area is quite heavily developed. Development began in the mid- to late- 1800s with
the construction of Fort Caswell. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) was constructed
in the mid-1930's. Oak Island began to develop in earnest in the 1950s and 1960s. The entire
length of the Action Area is presently lined with structures, and there is no significant length of
undeveloped shoreline. Recreational use in the Action Area is quite high from residents and
tourists.
A wide range of recent and on -going beach disturbance activities have altered the proposed
Action Area and, to a greater extent, the North Carolina coastline, and many more are proposed
along the coastline for the near future. Table 3-2 lists the most recent projects, within the past 5
years. The threats to loggerhead terrestrial critical habitat in the Action Area are the same as
101

those to sea turtles in general. See Section 5.2.2 for threats within the Action Area. Currently a
dune reconstruction project is being conducted in the project area and elsewhere on Oak Island.
There are issues with the sediment quality of the material being placed, and the Service is
working with the project proponents to address potential color and compaction issues that may
result from erosion of the placed dune material into the beach berm.
6.3. Effects of the Action on Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat
This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Action on critical habitat for the NWA
Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle, which includes the direct and indirect effects of
interrelated and interdependent actions. Direct effects are caused by the Action and occur at the
same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the Action but are later in time and
reasonably certain to occur.
6.3.1. Effects of Sand Placement and Dune Vegetation Planting on Loggerhead Terrestrial
Critical Habitat
Sand placement and dune vegetation planting activities may impact loggerhead terrestrial critical
habitat along up to 20,7001f of shoreline in Oak Island. Sand placement activities and dune
vegetation planting activities would occur within designated critical habitat.
The sand placement and demobilization activities are one-time activities, expected to extend
from May 1 to May 26, 2021. Dune vegetation planting activities are expected to extend to the
end of June 2021. Thus, the direct effects would be expected to be short-term in duration.
Indirect effects from the activity may continue to impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea
turtle nests in subsequent nesting seasons.
Applicable Science and Pathways of Response
Direct Effects: Potential adverse effects to loggerhead terrestrial critical habitat include many of
the indirect effects to sea turtle species, discussed in Section 5.3.1.
Placement of sand on a beach may adversely affect PBF 1. Equipment left on the nesting beach
overnight can create barriers to nesting females emerging from the surf and crawling up the
beach, causing a higher incidence of false crawls and unnecessary energy expenditure. The
operation of motor vehicles or equipment on the beach to complete the project work at night
affects sea turtle nesting by causing vehicle ruts on the beach interfering with hatchlings
crawling to the ocean. Apparently, hatchlings become diverted not because they cannot
physically climb out of a rut (Hughes and Caine 1994), but because the sides of the track cast a
shadow and the hatchlings lose their line of sight to the ocean horizon (Mann 1977). The
extended period of travel required to negotiate tire ruts may increase the susceptibility of
hatchlings to dehydration and depredation during migration to the ocean (Hosier et al. 1981).
Driving on the beach can cause sand compaction, which may result in adverse impacts on nest
site selection, digging behavior, clutch viability, and emergence by hatchlings (Mann 1977;
Nelson and Dickerson 1987; Nelson 1988).
102

The physical changes and loss of plant cover caused by vehicles on vegetated areas or dunes can
lead to various degrees of instability and cause dune migration, potentially adversely affecting
PBF 1 and PBF 2. As vehicles move over the sand, sand is displaced downward, lowering the
substrate. Since the vehicles also inhibit plant growth, and open the area to wind erosion, the
beach and dunes may become unstable. Vehicular traffic on the beach or through dune breaches
or low dunes may cause acceleration of overwash and erosion (Godfrey et al. 1978).
Artificial lighting as a result of an unnatural beach slope may adversely affect PBF 1. The
unnatural sloped beach adjacent to the structure exposes sea turtles and their nests to lights that
were less visible, or not visible, from nesting areas before the sand placement activity, leading to
a higher mortality of hatchlings.
Changes in the physical environment as a result of the project may adversely affect PBF 2.
Beach nourishment projects create an elevated, wider, and unnatural flat slope berm, and may
result in an unnatural sediment grain size distribution (Ernest and Martin 1999; Trindell 2005).
Beach compaction and unnatural beach profiles resulting from beach nourishment activities
could negatively impact PBF 2. Very fine sand or the use of heavy machinery can cause sand
compaction on nourished beaches (Nelson et al. 1987; Nelson and Dickerson 1988a). Significant
reductions in nesting success (i.e., false crawls occurred more frequently) have been documented
on severely compacted nourished beaches (Fletemeyer 1980; Raymond 1984; Nelson and
Dickerson 1987; Nelson et al. 1987). Nelson and Dickerson (1988c) concluded that, in general,
beaches nourished from offshore borrow sites are harder than natural beaches, and while some
may soften over time through erosion and accretion of sand, others may remain hard for 10 years
or more. The Service remains concerned about the potential compaction issues that may be
caused by material currently (winter of 2018) being placed on the dune. The material appears to
be finer and darker than the existing beach sediment. The sediment dredged and placed from this
project will be placed on top of and adjacent to the dune reconstruction sediments. However, the
potential impacts to critical habitat from the mixture of finer and darker sediments with the
sediments from this project are unclear.
A change in sediment color on a beach could change the natural incubation temperatures of nests
in an area, which, in turn, could alter natural sex ratios. To provide the most suitable sediment
for nesting sea turtles, the color of the nourished sediments should resemble the natural beach
sand in the area. Natural reworking of sediments and bleaching from exposure to the sun would
help to lighten dark nourishment sediments; however, the timeframe for sediment mixing and
bleaching to occur could be critical to a successful sea turtle nesting season.
Escarpment formation may adversely affect PBF 1 and PBF 2. On nourished beaches, steep
escarpments may develop along their water line interface as they adjust from an unnatural
construction profile to a more natural beach profile (Coastal Engineering Research Center 1984;
Nelson et al. 1987). Escarpments can hamper or prevent access to nesting sites (Nelson and
Blihovde 1998). This impact can be minimized by leveling any escarpments prior to the nesting
season.
103

Increased beachfront development may adversely affect PBF 2. Pilkey and Dixon (1996) stated
that beach replenishment frequently leads to more development in greater density within
shorefront communities that are then left with a future of further replenishment or more drastic
stabilization measures. Dean (1999) also noted that the very existence of a beach nourishment
project can encourage more development in coastal areas. Following completion of a beach
nourishment project in Miami during 1982, investment in new and updated facilities
substantially increased tourism there (NRC 1995). Increased building density immediately
adjacent to the beach often resulted as much larger buildings that accommodated more beach
users replaced older buildings. Overall, shoreline management creates an upward spiral of initial
protective measures resulting in more expensive development that leads to the need for more and
larger protective measures.
Beneficial Effects: The placement of sand on a beach with reduced dry foredune habitat may
increase sea turtle nesting habitat if the placed sand is highly compatible (i.e., grain size, shape,
color, etc.) with naturally occurring beach sediments in the area, and compaction and escarpment
remediation measures are incorporated into the project.
6.4. Cumulative Effects Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat
For purposes of consultation under ESA §7, cumulative effects are those caused by future state,
tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area. Future
Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered, because they require
separate consultation under §7 of the ESA.
6.5. Conclusion for Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat
In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections for the NWA
Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle critical habitat (status, baseline, effects, and cumulative
effects) relative to the purpose of a BO under §7(a)(2) of the ESA, which is to determine whether
a Federal action is likely to:
1. jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
2. result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
"Destruction or adverse modification" means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of designated critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such
alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of
such features (50 CFR §402.02).
Status
All of the designated critical habitat for the NWA Population of the loggerhead sea turtle is
occupied, and all of the designated critical habitat contains the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species in the terrestrial environment. The high -density
nesting beaches designated as critical habitat units have the highest nesting densities within the
104

each of the four recovery units, and have a good geographic spatial distribution that will help
ensure the protection of genetic diversity. The critical habitat units next to the primary high -
density nesting units currently support loggerhead nesting and can serve as expansion areas
should the high -density nesting beaches be significantly degraded or temporarily or permanently
lost.
Baseline
This critical habitat unit (LOGG-T-NC-07; Oak Island) is one of 38 designated critical habitat
units for the Northern Recovery Unit of the NWA DPS. In North Carolina, 96.1 shoreline miles
(154.6 km) of critical habitat for nesting loggerhead sea turtles was designated. Some of this
acreage has been affected recently by activities such as beach nourishment, sandbag revetment
construction, and groin construction. However, with the exception of beach nourishment
activities and recreational activities, most of the critical habitat units in North Carolina remain
relatively unaffected by development.
The units in North Carolina contain both of the PBFs, and all function well. The CH units in the
Action Area provide important nesting habitat in the northern portion of the loggerheads
breeding range, and due to cooler sand temperatures, may provide greater numbers of male
hatchlings than beaches to the south.
Effects
PBF 1 and PBF 2 may be adversely affected by the use of heavy equipment on the beach,
artificial lighting (resulting from an unnatural beach slope), changes in the physical environment,
including beach compaction, unnatural beach profiles, changes in sediment color, escarpment
formation, and increased beachfront development. The placement of sand on a beach with
reduced dry foredune habitat may also have a beneficial effect if the sand is highly compatible.
These adverse impacts are limited to the Action Area.
After reviewing the current status of the critical habitat, the environmental baseline for the
Action Area, the effects of the Action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological
opinion that the Action is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for
the NWA Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle.
7. SEABEACH AMARANTH
7.1. Status of Seabeach Amaranth
This section summarizes best available data about the biology and current condition of seabeach
amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) throughout its range that are relevant to formulating an opinion
about the Action. The Service published its decision to list the seabeach amaranth as threatened
on April 7, 1993 (58 FR 18035).
105

7.1.1. Description of Seabeach Amaranth
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) is an annual plant that grows on Atlantic barrier
islands and ocean beaches currently ranging from South Carolina to New York. It was listed as
threatened under the ESA because of its vulnerability to human and natural impacts and the fact
that it had been eliminated from two-thirds of its historic range (USFWS 1996b). Seabeach
amaranth stems are fleshy and pink -red or reddish, with small rounded leaves that are 0.5 to 1.0
inches in diameter. The green leaves, with indented veins, are clustered toward the tip of the
stems, and have a small notch at the rounded tip. Flowers and fruits are relatively inconspicuous,
borne in clusters along the stems. Seabeach amaranth will be considered for delisting when the
species exists in at least six states within its historic range and when a minimum of 75 percent of
the sites with suitable habitat within each state are occupied by populations for 10 consecutive
years (USFWS 1996b). The recovery plan states that mechanisms must be in place to protect the
plants from destructive habitat alterations, destruction or decimation by off -road vehicles or
other beach uses, and protection of populations from debilitating webworm predation. There is
no designation of critical habitat for seabeach amaranth.
7.1.2. Life History of Seabeach Amaranth
Seabeach amaranth is an annual plant. Germination of seabeach amaranth seeds occurs over a
relatively long period, generally from April to July. Upon germinating, this plant initially forms a
small unbranched sprig, but soon begins to branch profusely into a clump. This clump often
reaches one foot in diameter and consists of five to 20 branches. Occasionally, a clump may get
as large as three feet or more across, with 100 or more branches. Flowering begins as soon as
plants have reached sufficient size, sometimes as early as June, but more typically commencing
in July and continuing until the death of the plant in late fall. Seed production begins in July or
August and peaks in September during most years, but continues until the death of the plant.
Weather events, including rainfall, hurricanes, and temperature extremes, and predation by
webworms have strong effects on the length of the reproductive season of seabeach amaranth.
Because of one or more of these influences, the flowering and fruiting period can be terminated
as early as June or July. Under favorable circumstances, however, the reproductive season may
extend until January or sometimes later (Radford et al. 1968; Bucher and Weakley 1990;
Weakley and Bucher1992).
7.1.3. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of Seabeach Amaranth
The species historically occurred in nine states from Rhode Island to South Carolina (USFWS
2003c). By the late 1980s, habitat loss and other factors had reduced the range of this species to
North and South Carolina. Since 1990, seabeach amaranth has reappeared in several states that
had lost their populations in earlier decades. However, threats like habitat loss have not
diminished, and populations are declining overall. It is currently found in New York, New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The typical habitat
where this species is found includes the lower foredunes and upper beach strands on the ocean
side of the primary sand dunes and overwash flats at accreting spits or ends of barrier islands.
Seabeach amaranth has been and continues to be threatened by destruction or adverse alteration
of its habitat. As a fugitive species dependent on a dynamic landscape and large-scale
106

geophysical processes, it is extremely vulnerable to habitat fragmentation and isolation of small
populations. Further, because this species is easily recognizable and accessible, it is vulnerable to
taking, vandalism, and the incidental trampling by curiosity seekers. Seabeach amaranth is
afforded legal protection in North Carolina by the General Statutes of North Carolina, Sections
106-202.15, 106- 202.19 (N.C. Gen. Stat. section 106 (Supp. 1991)), which provide for
protection from intrastate trade (without a permit).
Within North Carolina and across its range, seabeach amaranth numbers vary from year to year.
Data in North Carolina is available from 1987 to 2013. Recently, the number of plants across the
entire state dwindled from a high of 19,978 in 2005 to 165 in 2013. This trend of decreasing
numbers is seen throughout its range. 249,261 plants were found throughout the species' range
in 2000. By 2013, those numbers had dwindled to 1,320 plants. In 2014, there was a slight
increase in the number of plants to 2,829 (USFWS, unpublished data).
Seabeach amaranth is dependent on natural coastal processes to create and maintain habitat.
However, high tides and storm surges from tropical systems can overwash, bury, or inundate
seabeach amaranth plants or seeds, and seed dispersal may be affected by strong storm events.
In September of 1989, Hurricane Hugo struck the Atlantic Coast near Charleston, South
Carolina, causing extensive flooding and erosion north to the Cape Fear region of North
Carolina, with less severe effects extending northward throughout the range of seabeach
amaranth. This was followed by several severe storms that, while not as significant as Hurricane
Hugo, caused substantial erosion of many barrier islands in the seabeach amaranth's range.
Surveys for seabeach amaranth revealed that the effects of these climatic events were substantial
(Weakley and Bucher 1992). In the Carolinas, populations of amaranth were severely reduced.
In South Carolina, where the effects of Hurricane Hugo and subsequent dune reconstruction were
extensive, amaranth numbers declined from 1,800 in 1988 to 188 in 1990, a reduction of 90
percent. A 74 percent reduction in amaranth numbers occurred in North Carolina, from 41,851
plants in 1988 to 10,898 in 1990. Although population numbers in New York increased in 1990,
range -wide totals of seabeach amaranth were reduced 76 percent from 1988 (Weakley and
Bucher 1992). The influence stochastic events have on long-term population trends of seabeach
amaranth has not been assessed.
7.1.4. Conservation Needs of and Threats to Seabeach Amaranth
The most serious threats to the continued existence of seabeach amaranth are construction of
beach stabilization structures, natural and man -induced beach erosion and tidal inundation, fungi
(i.e., white wilt), beach grooming, herbivory by insects and mammals, and off -road vehicles.
Herbivory by webworms, deer, feral horses, and rabbits is a major source of mortality and
lowered fecundity for seabeach amaranth. However, the extent to which herbivory affects the
species as a whole is unknown.
Potential effects to seabeach amaranth from vehicle use on the beaches include vehicles running
over, crushing, burying, or breaking plants, burying seeds, degrading habitat through compaction
of sand and the formation of seed sinks caused by tire ruts. Seed sinks occur when blowing seeds
fall into tire ruts, then a vehicle comes along and buries them further into the sand preventing
germination. If seeds are capable of germinating in the tire ruts, the plants are usually destroyed
107

before they can reproduce by other vehicles following the tire ruts. Those seeds and their
reproductive potential become lost from the population.
Pedestrians also can negatively affect seabeach amaranth plants. Seabeach amaranth occurs on
the upper portion of the beach which is often traversed by pedestrians walking from parking lots,
hotels, or vacation property to the ocean. This is also the area where beach chairs and umbrellas
are often set up and/or stored. In addition, resorts, hotels, or other vacation rental establishments
may set up volleyball courts or other sporting activity areas on the upper beach at the edge of the
dunes. All of these activities can result in the trampling and destruction of plants. Pedestrians
walking their dogs on the upper part of the beach, or dogs running freely on the upper part of the
beach, may result in the trampling and destruction of seabeach amaranth plants. The extent of the
effects that dogs have on seabeach amaranth is not known.
Recovery Criteria
Seabeach amaranth will be considered for delisting when the species exists in at least six states
within its historic range and when a minimum of 75 percent of the sites with suitable habitat
within each state are occupied by populations for 10 consecutive years (USFWS 1996b). The
recovery plan states that mechanisms must be in place to protect the plants from destructive
habitat alterations, destruction or decimation by off -road vehicles or other beach uses, and
protection of populations from debilitating webworm predation.
7.2. Environmental Baseline for Seabeach Amaranth
This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to
the current status of seabeach amaranth, its habitat, and ecosystem within the Action Area. The
environmental baseline is a "snapshot" of the species' health in the Action Area at the time of the
consultation and does not include the effects of the Action under review.
7.2.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of Seabeach Amaranth
Since 1992, seabeach amaranth surveys have been conducted along much of the North Carolina
shoreline. The numbers of seabeach amaranth vary widely from year to year. See Table 7-1 for
data from the Corps and the Service (unpublished). Seabeach amaranth numbers have been very
high in the past on Oak Island, numbering in the thousands of individuals in the 1990s. Over the
past 20 years, the numbers of seabeach amaranth plants has plummeted, with only one plant
reported in 2013 and 2014. Since 1992, the statewide total number of seabeach amaranth records
has varied from as few as 105 plants in the year 2000 to 33,514 plants in 1995. Over the past 12
years, the numbers of seabeach amaranth have declined dramatically across the state. It is
unclear what is causing the decline in numbers of plants.
11:

Table 7-1. Annual seabeach amaranth records in North Carolina, from 1987 to 2014. Data from various sources, collated by the
Service.
F
U
js
a0
E
E
in
E
U
o q
rnin
C
LL
0 in
>v C
2 00
`O
A
1987
5474
1409
58
0
0
0
0
3337
10278
1988
2518
13310
900
2
0
0
0
3531
20261
1989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1990
3082
250
339
175
0
0
0
613
4459
1991
0
0
467
703
0
0
0
0
0
1170
1992
0
10
2556
407
0
22410
416
0
2
9
1
3148
21
5
3175
32160
1993
1290
975
3762
73
0
2089
1344
157
0
7
35
26
6103
52
15
6286
22214
1994
0
0
704
948
1181
3
0
135
1309
38
0
19
103
2
4409
239
112
4762
13964
1995
0
1
75
1155
14776
0
1925
3965
1323
0
295
579
1
4628
59
22
4710
33514
1996
88
10
1
3
0
0
1000
995
289
0
93
37
1983
99
819
3038
8455
1997
1
1
651
61
2
511
811
0
3
1 221
0
1 1
0
599
1
7
607
1445
1998
265
0
125
369
3946
1000
01
1101
191
0
231
1
107
53671
32
11
1 0
11755
1999
8
0
2
9
218
1
01
39
1
0
6
0
24
15
268
5
0
596
2000
2
0
4
13
40
0
12
5
0
3
3
9
10
4
105
2001
43
8
51
126
451
0
4041
64
0
9
1
66
223
5
5088
2002
86
7
71
261
198'.
50
0
413
104
72
51
0
542
702
45
4387
2003
19
11
206
1354
5270
66
0
1043
735
3
207
0
1267
843
206
11230
2004
1
0
79
58
5292
22
1797
1722
782
656
664
2
0
11
79
49
11214
2005
1
1
11
11
284
671
10711
1302
3416
1011
244
772
01
1
45
174
800
545
19978
2006
0
0
33
301
251
2
161
39
1
4
1
4
4621
1954
3371
1181
3251
2007
0
0
2
125
130
6
5
160
21
0
9
0
0
0
116
281
20
875
2008
0
0
0
0
76
313
17
432
14
0
3
0
0
2
65
574
110
2009
0
0
0
1
100
281
71
15
80
6
0
0
0
0
8
64
123
36
2010
0
0
0
6
28
70
187
32
215
18
4
0
0
0
0
1576
434
4
2011
0
0
0
1
18
56
0
6
136
0
17
2
0
0
0
16
116
5
2012
0
0
0
0
7
5
1
4
83
2
0
0
NS
0
NS
5
46
1
Al
2013
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
10
1
31
0
0
0
NS
1
108
1
122014
0
0
52
0
2738
3
0
0
01
349
20
36Site
Totals
0
0
11652
15013
4234
6564
51893
2592
3206
39528
1115
7665
43851507
1494
825
261
30627
7413
2384
166
30
109

7.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs of and Threats to Seabeach Amaranth
The predominant threat to seabeach amaranth is the destruction or alteration of suitable habitat,
primarily because of beach stabilization efforts and storm -related erosion (USFWS 1993). Other
important threats to the plant include beach grooming and vehicular traffic, which can easily
break or crush the fleshy plant and bury seeds below depths from which they can germinate; and
predation by webworms (caterpillars of small moths) (USFWS 1993). Webworms feed on the
leaves of the plant and can defoliate the plants to the point of either killing them or at least
reducing their seed production. Beach vitex (Vitex rotundifulia) is another threat to seabeach
amaranth, as it is an aggressive, invasive, woody plant that can occupy habitat similar to
seabeach amaranth and outcompete it (Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) 2010).
16 biological opinions have been issued for adverse impacts to seabeach amaranth since 2014,
within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area. Activities addressed by the BOs include inlet
dredging, sand placement, construction of sandbag revetments, and terminal groin construction.
The Action Area is quite heavily developed. Development began in the mid- to late-1800s with
the construction of Fort Caswell. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) was constructed
in the mid-1930's. Oak Island began to develop in earnest in the 1950s and 1960s. The entire
length of the Action Area is presently lined with structures, and there is no significant length of
undeveloped shoreline. Recreational use in the Action Area is quite high from residents and
tourists.
A wide range of recent and on -going beach disturbance activities have altered the proposed
Action Area and, to a greater extent, the North Carolina coastline, and many more are proposed
along the coastline for the near future. Table 3-2 lists the most recent projects, within the past 5
years. Activities include nourishment, beach scraping, beach raking, pedestrian use, shoreline
stabilization, and sand fencing. These activities are discussed more fully in Section 3.2.2. and
5.2.2.
7.3. Effects of the Action on Seabeach Amaranth
This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Action on seabeach amaranth, which
includes the direct and indirect effects of interrelated and interdependent actions. Direct effects
are caused by the Action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the
Action, but are later in time and reasonably certain to occur.
7.3.1. Effects of Sand Placement and Dune Vegetation Planting on Seabeach Amaranth
The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect seabeach amaranth and its habitat.
Potential effects include burying, trampling, or injuring plants as a result of construction
operations, vehicle operation, sediment disposal activities, and dune planting; burying seeds to a
depth that would prevent future germination as a result of construction operations and/or
sediment disposal activities; and, destruction of plants by trampling or breaking during dune
planting or as a result of increased recreational activities. The Applicant proposes to place sand
and demobilize between May 1 and May 26, 2021 and dune vegetation planting is expected to
110

extend to the end of June 2021. These time periods may include the growing season of seabeach
amaranth. Therefore, there is the potential for sand placement to adversely impact plants in the
Action Area.
Applicable Science and Response Pathways
Placement of sand and dune vegetation planting will occur within and adjacent to seabeach
amaranth habitat along 10 miles of oceanfront shoreline. The timing of project construction
could directly and indirectly impact seabeach amaranth.
The sand placement and demobilization activities are one-time activities, expected to extend
from May 1 to May 26, 2021. Dune vegetation planting activities are expected to extend to the
end of June 2021. Thus, the direct effects would be expected to be short-term in duration.
Beneficial effects: The placement of beach -compatible sand may benefit this species by
providing additional suitable habitat or by redistributing seed sources buried during past storm
events, beach disposal activities, or natural barrier island migration. Disposal of sand may be
compatible with seabeach amaranth provided the timing of beach disposal is appropriate and the
material placed on the beach is compatible with the natural sand. Further studies are needed to
determine the best methods of beach disposal in seabeach amaranth habitat (Weakley and Bucher
1992).
Direct effects: Direct effects are those direct or immediate effects of a project on the species or
its habitat. The construction window will extend into the seabeach amaranth growing season.
The effects of the project construction include burying, trampling, or injuring plants as a result of
construction operations and/or sediment disposal activities; and burying seeds to a depth that
would prevent future germination as a result of construction operations and/or sediment disposal
activities.
Indirect effects: The proposed project includes beach renourishment along up to 10 miles of
shoreline. Indirect effects include destruction of plants by trampling or breaking as a result of
increased recreational activities. Future tilling or removal of rock on the beach may be necessary
if beach compaction hinders sea turtle nesting activities. The placement of heavy machinery or
associated tilling equipment on the beach may destroy or bury existing plants.
Summary of Responses and Interpretation of Effects
The proposed placement of sand on 10 miles of beach will occur within seabeach amaranth
habitat. Project construction is anticipated to be conducted during portions of the seabeach
amaranth growing and flowering season. Conservation measures have been incorporated into the
project to minimize impacts.
7.4. Cumulative Effects on Seabeach Amaranth
For purposes of consultation under ESA §7, cumulative effects are those caused by future state,
tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area. Future
111

Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered, because they require
separate consultation under §7 of the ESA. It is reasonable to expect continued dredging,
shoreline stabilization, and beach renourishment projects in this area in the future since erosion
and sea -level rise increases would impact the existing beachfront development.
7.5. Conclusion for Seabeach Amaranth
In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections for seabeach
amaranth (status, baseline, effects, and cumulative effects) relative to the purpose of a BO under
§7(a)(2) of the ESA, which is to determine whether a Federal action is likely to:
1. jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
2. result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
"Jeopardize the continued existence" means to engage in an action that reasonably would be
expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and
recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of
that species (50 CFR §402.02).
Status
The Service has determined that seabeach amaranth is threatened due to its vulnerability to
human and natural impacts and the fact that it had been eliminated from two-thirds of its historic
range (USFWS 1996b).
Baseline
Within the Action Area, seabeach amaranth numbers have been very high in the past; in the
thousands of individuals on Oak Island in the 1990s. Over the past 20 years, the numbers of
seabeach amaranth plants has plummeted, with only one plant reported in 2013 and 2014.
Effects
The proposed placement of sand on 10 miles of beach will occur within seabeach amaranth
habitat. The placement of sand in the Action Area could bury existing plants and also bury seeds
to a depth that would prevent germination. Increased traffic from recreationists and their pets
can also destroy existing plants by trampling or breaking the plants. It is unclear whether the
placement of sand would have positive impacts on seabeach amaranth by creating additional
habitat for the species, or by exposing seeds that had previously buried.
Cumulative Effects
It is reasonable to expect continued shoreline stabilization and beach renourishment projects in
this area in the future since erosion and sea -level rise increases would impact the existing
beachfront development. These future projects are likely to require federal permits and
therefore, are not considered to be cumulative effects.
112

After reviewing the current status of the species, the environmental baseline for the Action Area,
the effects of the Action and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the
Action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of seabeach amaranth.
8. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
ESA §9(a)(1) and regulations issued under §4(d) prohibit the take of endangered and threatened
fish and wildlife species without special exemption. The term "take" in the ESA means "to
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in
any such conduct" (ESA §3). In regulations at 50 CFR § 17.3, the Service further defines:
"harass" as "an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of
injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal
behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering;"
"harm" as "an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include
significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife
by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or
sheltering;" and
"incidental take" as "any taking otherwise prohibited, if such taking is incidental to, and
not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity."
Under the terms of ESA §7(b)(4) and §7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as
part of the agency action is not considered prohibited, provided that such taking is in compliance
with the Terms and Conditions of an incidental take statement (ITS).
This BO evaluated effects of the Action on piping plover and red knot and determined that
incidental take of these species is reasonably certain to occur. The Service will not refer the
incidental take of these species for prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as
amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712), if such take is in compliance with the Terms and Conditions
specified below.
For the exemption in ESA §7(o)(2) to apply to the Action considered in this BO, the Corps must
undertake the non -discretionary measures described in this ITS, and these measures must
become binding conditions of any permit, contract, or grant issued for implementing the Action.
The Corps has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this ITS. The protective
coverage of §7(o)(2) may lapse if the Corps fails to:
• assume and implement the terms and conditions; or
• require a permittee, contractor, or grantee to adhere to the terms and conditions of the ITS
through enforceable terms that are added to the permit, contract, or grant document.
In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the Corps must report the progress of the
Action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in this ITS.
113

8.1. Amount or Extent of Take
This section specifies the amount or extent of take of listed wildlife species that the Action is
reasonably certain to cause, which we estimated in the "Effects of the Action" sections of this
BO.
8.1.1. Piping Plover
It is difficult for the Service to estimate the exact number of piping plovers that could be
migrating through or wintering within the Action Area at any point in time and place during and
after project construction and maintenance events. Disturbance to suitable habitat resulting from
placement of sand would affect the ability of an undetermined number of piping plovers to find
suitable foraging and roosting habitat during construction and maintenance for an unknown
length of time after construction.
The Service anticipates that directly and indirectly an unspecified amount of piping plovers
along as much as 20,7001f of shoreline, all at some point, potentially usable by piping plovers,
could be taken in the form of habitat loss as a result of this proposed action. The amount of take
is directly proportional to the spatial/temporal extent of occupied habitat that the Action affects,
and exceeding this extent would represent a taking that is not anticipated in this BO. Incidental
take of piping plovers will be difficult to detect for the following reasons:
1. harassment to the level of harm may only be apparent on the breeding grounds the
following year; and
2. dead plovers may be carried away by waves or predators.
The level of take of this species can be anticipated by the proposed activities because:
1. piping plovers migrate through and winter in the Action Area;
2. the placement of the constructed beach is expected to affect the coastal morphology and
prevent early successional stages, thereby precluding the maintenance and creation of
additional recovery habitat;
3. increased levels of pedestrian disturbance may be expected; and
4. a temporary reduction of food base will occur.
The Service has reviewed the biological information and other information relevant to this
action. The take is expected in the form of harm and harassment because of. (1) decreased
fitness and survivorship of plovers due to loss and degradation of foraging and roosting habitat;
(2) decreased fitness and survivorship of plovers attempting to migrate to breeding grounds due
to loss and degradation of foraging and roosting habitat.
Due to the difficulty of detecting take of piping plovers caused by the Action, the Corps will
monitor the extent of taking using the surrogate measure of length of beach habitat modified.
Instructions for monitoring and reporting take are provided in section 2.2.
114

8.1.2. Red Knot
It is difficult for the Service to estimate the exact number of red knots that could be migrating
through or wintering within the Action Area at any one point in time and place during project
construction. Disturbance to suitable habitat resulting from both construction and sand placement
activities within the Action Area would affect the ability of an undetermined number of red knots
to find suitable foraging and roosting habitat during any given year.
The Service anticipates that directly and indirectly an unspecified number of red knots along
20,7001f of shoreline, all at some point, potentially usable by red knots, could be taken in the
form of harm and harassment as a result of this proposed action. The amount of take is directly
proportional to the spatial/temporal extent of occupied habitat that the Action affects, and
exceeding this extent would represent a taking that is not anticipated in this BO. Incidental take
of red knots will be difficult to detect for the following reasons:
1. harassment to the level of harm may only be apparent on the breeding grounds the
following year; and
2. dead red knots may be carried away by waves or predators.
The level of take of this species can be anticipated by the proposed activities because:
1. red knots migrate through and winter in the Action Area;
2. the placement of the constructed beach is expected to affect the coastal morphology
and prevent early successional stages, thereby precluding the maintenance and
creation of additional recovery habitat;
3. increased levels of pedestrian disturbance may be expected; and
4. a temporary reduction of food base will occur.
The Service has reviewed the biological information and other information relevant to this
action. The take is expected in the form of harm and harassment because of. (1) decreased
fitness and survivorship of red knots due to loss and degradation of foraging and roosting habitat;
(2) decreased fitness and survivorship of red knots attempting to migrate to breeding grounds due
to loss and degradation of foraging and roosting habitat.
Due to the difficulty of detecting take of red knots caused by the Action, the Corps will monitor
the extent of taking using the surrogate measure of length of beach habitat modified.
Instructions for monitoring and reporting take are provided in section 2.2.
8.1.3. Loggerhead, Green, Leatherback, Hawksbill, and Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
The Service anticipates as much as 20,7001f of nesting beach habitat could be taken as a result
of this proposed action. The amount of take is directly proportional to the spatial/temporal extent
of occupied habitat that the Action affects and exceeding this extent would represent a taking
that is not anticipated in this BO.
115

The conservation of the five loggerhead recovery units in the Northwest Atlantic is essential to
the recovery of the loggerhead sea turtle. Each individual recovery unit is necessary to conserve
genetic and demographic robustness, or other features necessary for long-term sustainability of
the entire population. Thus, maintenance of viable nesting in each recovery unit contributes to
the overall population. The NRU, one of the five loggerhead recovery units in the Northwest
Atlantic occurs within the Action Area. The NRU averages 5,215 nests per year (based on 1989-
2008 nesting data). Of the available nesting habitat within the NRU, construction will occur
and/or will likely have an effect on as much as 20,7001f of nesting shoreline.
Generally, green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtle nesting overlaps with or
occurs within the beaches where loggerhead sea turtles nest on both the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico beaches. Thus, for green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles, sand
placement activities will affect up to 20,700 if of shoreline.
Research has shown that the principal effect of sand placement on sea turtle reproduction is a
reduction in nesting success, and this reduction is most often limited to the first year or two
following project construction. Research has also shown that the impacts of a nourishment
project on sea turtle nesting habitat are typically short-term because a nourished beach will be
reworked by natural processes in subsequent years, and beach compaction and the frequency of
escarpment formation will decline. Although a variety of factors, including some that cannot be
controlled, can influence how a nourishment project will perform from an engineering
perspective, measures can be implemented to minimize impacts to sea turtles.
Take is expected to be in the form of:
1. destruction of all nests that may be constructed and eggs that may be deposited and
missed by a nest survey, nest mark and avoidance program, or egg relocation program
within the boundaries of the proposed project;
2. destruction of all nests deposited during the period when a nest survey, nest mark and
avoidance, or egg relocation program is not required to be in place within the boundaries
of the proposed project;
3. reduced hatching success due to egg mortality during relocation and adverse conditions at
the relocation site;
4. harassment in the form of disturbing or interfering with female turtles attempting to nest
within the construction area or on adjacent beaches as a result of construction activities;
5. misdirection of nesting and hatchling turtles on beaches adjacent to the sand placement or
construction area as a result of project lighting;
6. behavior modification of nesting females due to escarpment formation within the Action
Area during the nesting season, resulting in false crawls or situations where they choose
marginal or unsuitable nesting areas to deposit eggs; and
7. destruction of nests from escarpment leveling within a nesting season when such leveling
has been approved by the Service.
Incidental take is anticipated for the 20,7001f of beach that has been identified. The Service
anticipates incidental take of sea turtles will be difficult to detect for the following reasons:
116

1. the turtles nest primarily at night and all nests are not found because [a] natural factors,
such as rainfall, wind, and tides may obscure crawls and [b] human -caused factors, such
as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, may obscure crawls, and result in nests being
destroyed because they were missed during a nesting survey, nest mark and avoidance, or
egg relocation program;
2. the total number of hatchlings per undiscovered nest is unknown;
3. the reduction in percent hatching and emerging success per relocated nest over the natural
nest site is unknown;
4. an unknown number of females may avoid the project beach and be forced to nest in a
less than optimal area; lights may misdirect an unknown number of hatchlings and cause
death; and
5. escarpments may form and prevent an unknown number of females from accessing a
suitable nesting site.
However, the level of take of these species can be anticipated by the sand placement activities on
suitable turtle nesting beach habitat because:
1. turtles nest within the Action Area;
2. construction will likely occur during the nesting season;
3. the nourishment project(s) will modify the incubation substrate, beach slope, and sand
compaction; and
4. artificial lighting will deter and/or misdirect nesting hatchling turtles.
Due to the difficulty of detecting take of sea turtle adults, eggs, and hatchlings caused by the
Action, the Corps will monitor the extent of taking using the surrogate measure of length of
beach habitat modified. The Applicant has committed to monitoring and reporting take as
described in the Conservation Measures of section 2.
8.2. Reasonable and Prudent Measures
With the Conservation Measures already incorporated in the project, the Service believes that no
reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) are necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of
incidental take caused by the Action on piping plover, red knot, seabeach amaranth, and sea
turtles. Minor changes that do not alter the basic design, location, scope, duration, or timing of
the Action will not reduce incidental take below the amount or extent anticipated for the Action
as proposed. Therefore, the ITS does not provide RPMs.
The Corps is reminded of its commitment to implement the Conservation Measures, and
the Service recommends that they be implemented through enforceable terms that are
added to the permit modification.
8.3. Terms and Conditions
No RPMs to minimize the impacts of incidental take caused by the Action are provided in this
ITS; therefore, no terms and conditions for carrying out such measures are necessary.
117

8.4. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
In order to monitor the impacts of incidental take, the Corps has committed to report the progress
of the Action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the ITS (50 CFR
§402.14(i)(3)). As necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility, the Corps must require
any contractor or grantee to accomplish the monitoring and reporting through enforceable terms
that are added to the contract or grant document. Such enforceable terms must include a
requirement to immediately notify the Corps and the Service if the amount or extent of incidental
take specified in this ITS is exceeded during Action implementation.
Reporting information (collected as per the commitments in the Conservation Measures) should
be submitted to the following address:
Pete Benjamin, Supervisor
Raleigh Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
[phone]
Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of an endangered or threatened species, initial
notification must be made to the Service's Law Enforcement Office below. Additional
notification must be made to the Service's Ecological Services Field Office identified above and
to the NCWRC at [phone]. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured individuals
and in the preservation of specimens in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death
or injury.
Jason Keith
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
919-856-4786, extension 34
9. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the
purposes of the ESA by conducting conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and
threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary activities that an action
agency may undertake to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of a proposed action, implement
recovery plans, or develop information that is useful for the conservation of listed species. The
Service offers the following recommendations that are relevant to the listed species addressed in
this BO and that we believe are consistent with the authorities of the Corps.
118

For the benefit of sea turtles, the Service recommends the following conservation
recommendations:
1. Construction activities for this project and similar future projects should be planned to
take place outside the main part of the sea turtle nesting and hatching season, as much as
possible.
2. Use of sand fences should be limited. Appropriate native salt -resistant dune vegetation
should be established on the restored dunes.
3. Educational signs should be placed where appropriate at beach access points explaining
the importance of the area to sea turtles and/or the life history of sea turtle species that
nest in the area.
4. Based upon information provided by the lighting survey conducted as a project
commitment (see Section 2.2), the town should develop a lighting ordinance to avoid and
minimize impacts to nesting sea turtles from public and private lighting. Upon request,
the Service and NCWRC can provide more information regarding sea -turtle friendly
lighting.
In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or
benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation
of any conservation recommendations.
10. REINITIATION NOTICE
Formal consultation for the Action considered in this BO is concluded. Reinitiating consultation
is required if the Corps retains discretionary involvement or control over the Action (or is
authorized by law) when:
a. the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded;
b. new information reveals that the Action may affect listed species or designated critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this BO;
c. the Action is modified in a manner that causes effects to listed species or designated
critical habitat not considered in this BO; or
d. a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that the Action may affect.
In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, the Corps is required to
immediately request a reinitiation of formal consultation.
119

I LLITERATURE CITED
Ackerman, R.A. 1980. Physiological and ecological aspects of gas exchange by sea turtle eggs.
American Zoologist 20:575-583.
Ackerman, R.A., T. Rimkus, and R. Horton. 1991. The hydric structure and climate of natural and
renourished sea turtle nesting beaches along the Atlantic coast of Florida. Unpublished report to
Florida Department of Natural Resources. 61 pages.
Amirault, D.L., F. Shaffer, K. Baker, A. Boyne, A. Calvert, J. McKnight, and P. Thomas. 2005.
Preliminary results of a five year banding study in Eastern Canada - support for expanding
conservation efforts to non -breeding sites? Unpublished Canadian Wildlife Service report.
Amorocho, D. 2003. Monitoring nesting loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the central Caribbean
coast of Colombia. Marine Turtle Newsletter 101:8-13.
Anders, F.J., and S.P. Leatherman. 1987. Disturbance of beach sediment by off -road vehicles.
Environmental Geology and Water Sciences 9:183-189.
Anonymous. 1992. First Kemp's ridley nesting in South Carolina. Marine Turtle Newsletter 59:23.
Antas, P.T.Z., and I.L.S. Nascimento. 1996. Analysis of red knot Calidris canutus rufa banding data in
Brazil. International Wader Studies 8:63-70.
Arvin, J.C. 2009. Hurricane shifts plover populations. Gulf Coast Bird Observatory's Gulf Crossings.
Vol. 13, No.1.
Ashton, A.D., J.P. Donnelly, and R.L. Evans. 2007. A discussion of the potential impacts of climate
change on the shorelines of the northeastern USA. Unpublished report prepared for the Northeast
Climate Impacts Assessment, Union of Concerned Scientists, Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, Woods Hole, MA, Available at <http://www.georgetownclimate.org/resources/a-
discussion-of-the-potential-impacts-of-climate-change-on-the-shorelines-of-the-northeast>.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998. Interstate fishery management plan for horseshoe
crab. Fishery management report no. 32, Available at <http://http://www.asmfc.org>.
Audubon Society. 2015. New Bahamas National Park will Protect Migratory Piping Plovers, Red Knots,
Other Atlantic Coast Birds. Available at < https://www.audubon.ory-/news/new-bahamas-
national-park-will-protect-mi rg atory_pining-plovers-red-knots-other>.
Baker, A.J., P.M. Gonzalez, T. Piersma, L.J. Niles, d.N. de Lima Serrano, P.W. Atkinson, N.A. Clark,
C.D.T. Minton, M.K. Peck, G. Aarts, and et al. 2004. Rapid population decline in red knots:
Fitness consequences of decreased refuelling rates and late arrival in Delaware Bay. Proceedings
of the Royal Society Biological Sciences Series B 271(1541):875-882.
Baker, S. and B. Higgins. 2003. Summary of CWT project and recoveries, tag detection, and protocol
for packaging and shipping Kemp's ridley flippers. Unpublished presentation at the Sea Turtle
Stranding and Salvage Network annual meeting. February 2003.
Baldwin, R., G.R. Hughes, and R.I.T. Prince. 2003. Loggerhead turtles in the Indian Ocean. Pages 218-
232 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian
Books, Washington D.C.
Bandedbirds.org. 2012. Bandings and resightings, Available at <http://www.bandedbirds.org>.
Barber, H. and Sons. 2012. Beach cleaning equipment and beach cleaning machines.
http://www.hbarber.com/Cleaners/Beach_ Cleaning Equipment.html. Accessed August 30, 2012.
Beggs, J.A., J.A. Horrocks, and B.H. Krueger. 2007. Increase in hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys
imbricata nesting in Barbados, West Indies. Endangered Species Research 3:159-168.
Bent, A.C. 1927. Life histories of North American shore birds: Order Limicolae (Part 1). Smithsonian
Institution U.S. National Museum Bulletin (142):131-145.
Bent, A.C. 1929. Life histories of North American Shorebirds. U.S. Natural Museum Bulletin 146:236-
246.
120

Bernardo, J. and P.T. Plotkin. 2007. An evolutionary perspective on the arribada phenomenon and
reproductive behavior polymorphism of olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea). Pages
59-87 in Plotkin, P.T. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. John Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Bibby, R., S. Widdicombe, H. Parry, J. Spicer, and R. Pipe. 2008. Effects of ocean acidification on the
immune response of the blue mussel Mytilus edulis. Aquatic Biology 2:67-74.
Billes, A., J.-B. Moundemba, and S. Gontier. 2000. Campagne Nyamu 1999-2000. Rapport de fin de
saison. PROTOMAC-ECOFAC. 111 pages.
Bimbi, M. 2012. Biologist. E-mails of September 12, and November 1, 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Recovery and Endangered Species, South Carolina Field Office. Charleston, SC.
Bimbi, M. 2013. Biologist. E-mails of January 31, June 27, and July 2, 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Recovery and Endangered Species, South Carolina Field Office, Charleston, SC.
Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A. Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le Quer6, S.
Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley, and A. Unnikrishnan. 2007. Observations: oceanic
climate change and sea level. Pages 385-432 in Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (editors). Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar4/wg 1 /ar4-wg 1-chapter5.pdf.
Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Meylan, and B.J. Turner. 1983. Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne Beach, Florida,l.
Size, growth and reproductive biology. Biological Conservation 26:65-77.
Blair, K. 2005. Determination of sex ratios and their relationship to nest temperature of loggerhead sea
turtle (Caretta caretta, L.) hatchlings produced along the southeastern Atlantic coast of the
United States. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,
Florida.
Bleakney, J.S. 1955. Four records of the Atlantic ridley turtle, Lepidochelys kempi, from Nova Scotia.
Copeia 2:137.
Blomqvist, S., N. Holmgren, S. Akesson, A. Hedenstr6m, and J. Pettersson. 2002. Indirect effects of
lemming cycles on sandpiper dynamics: 50 years of counts from southern Sweden. Oecologia
133(2):146-158.
Bolten, A.B. 2003. Active swimmers - passive drifters: the oceanic juvenile stage of loggerheads in the
Atlantic system. Pages 63-78 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea
Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.
Bolten, A.B. and H.R. Martins. 1990. Kemp's ridley captured in the Azores. Marine Turtle Newsletter
48:23.
Botton, M.L., R.E. Loveland, and T.R. Jacobsen. 1988. Beach erosion and geochemical factors: Influence
on spawning success of horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus ) in Delaware Bay. Marine Biology
99(3):325-332.
Botton, M.L., R.E. Loveland, and T.R. Jacobsen. 1994. Site selection by migratory shorebirds in
Delaware Bay, and its relationship to beach characteristics and abundance of horseshoe crab
(Limulus polyphemus) eggs. The Auk 111(3):605-616.
Boulon, R.H., Jr. 1983. Somes notes on the population biology of green (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill
(Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles in the northern U.S Virgin Islands; 1981-83. Report to the
National Marine Fisheries Service, Grant No. NA82-GA-A-00044. 18 pages.
Boulon, R.H., Jr. 1984. Growth rates of wild juvenile hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelys imbricata, in St.
Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. Copeia 1994(3):811-814.
Bowen, B. W., A.L. Bass, L. Soares, and R.J. Toonen. 2005. Conservation implications of complex
population structure: lessons from the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). Molecular Ecology
14:2389-2402.
121

Bowman, M.L. and Dolan, R. 1985. The relationship of Emerita talpoida to beach characteristics. J.
Coastal Res. 1, 151-163.
Boyd, R.L. 1991. First Nesting Record for the Piping Plover in Oklahoma. The Wilson Bulletin 103(2):
305-308.
Breese, G. 2010. Compiled by Gregory Breese from notes and reports. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Shorebird Technical Committee.
Breese, G. 2013. Project Leader. E-mails of March 11, 12, 25, and April 26 and 29, 2013. US Fish &
Wildlife Service, Delaware Bay Estuary Project. Smyrna, Delaware.
Brongersma, L.D. 1972. European Atlantic Turtles. Zoologische Verhandelingen 121:318.
Brongersma, L. and A. Carr. 1983. Lepidochelys kempii (Garman) from Malta. Proceedings of the
Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Series C) 86(4):445-454.
Burchfield, P.M. and J.L Pena. 2011. Final report on the Mexico/United Stated of America population
for the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on the coasts of Tamaupilas, Mexico.
2011. Annual report to Fish and Wildlife Service. 43 pages.
Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activities on shorebirds in two coastal bays in the Northeastern
United States. Environmental Conservation 13:123-130.
Burger, J. 1991. Foraging behavior and the effect of human disturbance on the piping plover
(Charadrius melodus). Journal of Coastal Research 7:39-52.
Burger, J. 1994. The effect of human disturbance on foraging behavior and habitat use in piping plover
(Charadrius melodus). Estuaries 17:695-701.
Burger, J., L.J. Niles, R.R. Porter, A.D. Dey, S. Koch, and C. Gordon. 2012. Migration and over -
wintering of red knots (Calidris canutus rufa) along the Atlantic coast of the United States. The
Condor 114(2):1-12.
Burton, N.H.K., P.R. Evans, and M.A. Robinson. 1996. Effects on shorebirds numbers of disturbance,
the loss of a roost site and its replacement by an artificial island at Hartlepool, Cleveland.
Biological Conservation 77:193-201.
Cairns, W.E. 1977. Breeding Biology and Behaviour of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) in
Southern Nova Scotia. M.S. Thesis, Dalhousie University.
Cairns, W.E. and I.A. McLauren 1980. Status of the Piping Plover on the East Coast of North America:
A summary of our recent knowledge of this Blue -listed species. American Birds 34(2): 206-208.
Caldwell, D.K. 1962. Comments on the nesting behavior of Atlantic loggerhead sea turtles, based
primarily on tagging returns. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 25(4):287-
302.
Calvert, A.M., D.L. Amirault, F. Shaffer, R. Elliott, A. Hanson, J. McKnight, and P.D. Taylor. 2006.
Population assessment of an endangered shorebird: the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus
melodus) in eastern Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology - Ecologie et conservation des
olseaux 1(3): 4.
Camfield, F.E. and C.M. Holmes. 1995. Monitoring completed coastal projects. Journal of Performance
of Constructed Facilities 9:169-171.
Carr, A. 1961. The ridley mystery today. Animal Kingdom 64(1):7-12.
Carr, A. 1963. Panspecific reproductive convergence in Lepidochelys kempii. Ergebnisse der Biologie
26:298-303.
Carr, A. and L. Ogren. 1960. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 4. The green turtle in the
Caribbean Sea. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 121(1):1-48.
Chaloupka, M. 2001. Historical trends, seasonality and spatial synchrony in green sea turtle egg
production. Biological Conservation 101:263-279.
Christens, E. 1990. Nest emergence lag in loggerhead sea turtles. Journal of Herpetology 24(4):400-
402.
Clark, K.E., L.J. Niles, and J. Burger. 1993. Abundance and distribution of migrant shorebirds in
Delaware Bay. The Condor 95:694-705.
122

Clark, K.E., R.R. Porter, and J.D. Dowdell. 2009. The shorebird migration in Delaware Bay. New Jersey
Birds 35(4):85-92.
Clark, R.R. 1992. Beach Conditions in Florida: A Statewide Inventory and Identification of the Beach
Erosion Problem Areas in Florida. Beaches and Shores Technical and Design Memorandum 89-
1. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores.
Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1984. Shore protection manual, volumes I and Il. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Cohen, J. B., J. D. Fraser, and D. H. Catlin. 2006. Survival and site fidelity of piping plovers on Long
Island, New York. Journal of Field Ornithology 77:409-417.
Cohen, J.B., S.M. Karpanty, D.H. Catlin, J.D. Fraser, and R.A. Fischer. 2008. Winter ecology of piping
plovers at Oregon Inlet, North Carolina. Waterbirds 31:472-479.
Cohen, J. 2009. Electronic mail dated 15 and 16 January 2009 from Jonathan Cohen, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, to Anne Hecht, USFWS.
Cohen, J.B., S.M. Karpanty, J.D. Fraser, B.D. Watts, and B.R. Truitt. 2009. Residence probability and
population size of red knots during spring stopover in the mid -Atlantic region of the United
States. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(6):939-945.
Cohen, J.B., S.M. Karpanty, J.D. Fraser, and B.R. Truitt. 2010. The effect of benthic prey abundance and
size on red knot (Calidris canutus) distribution at an alternative migratory stopover site on the US
Atlantic Coast. Journal of Ornithology 151:355-364.
Collard, S.B. and L.H. Ogren. 1990. Dispersal scenarios for pelagic post-hatchling sea turtles. Bulletin
of Marine Science 47(1):233-243.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and status
report on the red knot Calidris canutus in Canada. COSEWIC, Gatineau, QC, Available at <
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_calidris_canutus_e.pdf>.
Conant, T.A., P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. MacPherson, E.E.
Possardt, B.A. Schroeder, J.A. Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Uptite, and B.E. Witherington.
2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act. Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
219 pages.
Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham, and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and
demographics of Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): implications for conservation and
management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7(4):826-833.
Corliss, L.A., J.I. Richardson, C. Ryder, and R. Bell. 1989. The hawksbills of Jumby Bay, Antigua,
West Indies. Pages 33-35 in Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (compilers).
Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232.
Council Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna [CAFF]. 2010. Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010 —
Selected indicators of change. CAFF, Akureyri, Iceland, Available at
<http://www.caff.is/publications/view_ document/ 162-arctic-biodiversity-trends-2010-selected-
indicators-of-change>.
Coutu, S.D., J.D. Fraser, J.L. McConnaughy, and J.P. Loegering. 1990. Piping plover distribution and
reproductive success on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Unpublished report to the National
Park Service.
Cox, J.H., H.F. Percival, and S.V. Colwell. 1994. Impact of vehicular traffic on beach habitat and wildlife
at Cape San Blas, Florida. Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Technical Report
Number 50.44 pages.
Crain, D.A., A.B. Bolten, and K.A. Bjomdal. 1995. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles: review
and research initiatives. Restoration Ecology 3(2):95-104.
123

Cross, R.R. 1990. Monitoring, management and research of the piping plover at Chincoteague National
Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished report. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries,
Richmond, Virginia.
Crouse, D. 1999. Population modeling and implications for Caribbean hawksbill sea turtle management.
Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):185-188.
Cummings, V., J. Hewitt, A. Van Rooyen, K. Currie, S. Beard, S. Thrush, J. Norkko, N. Barr, P. Heath,
N.J. Halliday, and et al. 2011. Ocean acidification at high latitudes: Potential effects on
functioning of the Antarctic bivalve Laternula elliptica. PLoS ONE 6(1):e16069.
Cuthbert, F.J. and E.A. Roche. 2006. Piping plover breeding biology and management in the Great
Lakes, 2006. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI.
Cuthbert, F.J. and E.A. Roche. 2007. Estimation and evaluation of demographic parameters for recovery
of the endangered Great Lakes piping plover population. Unpublished report submitted to the US
Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI.
Dabees, M.A., and N.C. Kraus. 2008. Cumulative effects of channel and ebb shoal dredging on inlet
evolution in southwest Florida, USA. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Coastal
Engineering 2008, WS, pp. 2303-2315.
Dahlen, M.K., R. Bell, J.I. Richardson, and T.H. Richardson. 2000. Beyond D-0004: Thirty-four years
of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) research on Little Cumberland Island, Georgia, 1964-1997. Pages
60-62 in Abreu-Grobois, F.A., R. Briseno-Duenas, R. Marquez, and L. Sarti (compilers).
Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Sea Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-436.
Daniel, R.S. and K.U. Smith. 1947. The sea -approach behavior of the neonate loggerhead turtle (Caretta
caretta). Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 40(6):413-420.
Davis, G.E. and M.C. Whiting. 1977. Loggerhead sea turtle nesting in Everglades National Park,
Florida, U.S.A. Herpetologica 33:18-28.
Dean, C. 1999. Against the tide: the battle for America's beaches. Columbia University Press; New
York, New York.
Defeo, O., A. McLachlan, D.S. Schoeman, T.A. Schlacher, J. Dugan, A. Jones, M. Lastra, and F.
Scapini. 2009. Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: a review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science 81:1-12.
Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1938. The Mexican loggerhead turtle in Europe. Nature 142:540.
Dey, A., L. Niles, H. Sitters, K. Kalasz, and R.I.G. Morrison. 2011. Update to the status of the red knot
Calidris canutus in the Western Hemisphere, April, 2011, with revisions to July 14, 2011.
Unpublished report to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and
Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program.
Dey, A. 2012. Principal Zoologist. E-mails of August 9, 13, 20; October 12, 29; November 19;
and December 3, 2012. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish
and Wildlife, Endangered & Nongame Species Program. Millville, NJ.
Dickerson, D.D. and D.A. Nelson. 1989. Recent results on hatchling orientation responses to light
wavelengths and intensities. Pages 41-43 in Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson
(compilers). Proceedings of the 9th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232.
Dingler, J.R. 2005. Beach processes. Pages 161-168 in Schwartz, M.L. (editor). Encyclopedia of Coastal
Science. Springer, The Netherlands.
Dinsmore, S.J., J.A. Collazo, and J.R. Walters. 1998. Seasonal numbers and distribution of shorebirds on
North Carolina's Outer Banks Wilson Bulletin 110:171-181.
Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta
(Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(14).
Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 1999. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia, 1999:
implications for management. Georgia Department of Natural Resources report
124

Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2000. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia, 2000:
implications for management. Georgia Department of Natural Resources unpublished report.
Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2001. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia, 2001.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Jacksonville, Florida..
Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2002. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia, 2002.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida.
Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2003. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia, 2003.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida.
Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2004. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia, 2004.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida.
Dodge, K.D., R. Prescott, D. Lewis, D. Murley, and C. Merigo. 2003. A review of cold stun strandings
on Cape Cod, Massachusetts from 1979-2003. Unpublished Poster NOAA, Mass Audubon, New
England Aquarium. http://galveston.ssp.nmfs.gov/research/protectedspecies/
Drake, K.R. 1999. Movements, habitat use and survival of wintering piping plovers. M.S.
Thesis. Texas A&M University -Kingsville, Kingsville, TX. 82 pp.
Drake, K.R., J.E. Thompson, K.L. Drake, and C. Zonick. 2001. Movements, habitat use, and survival of
non -breeding Piping Plovers. Condor 103(2):259-267.
Duerr, A.E., B.D. Watts, and F.M. Smith. 2011. Population dynamics of red knots stopping over in
Virginia during spring migration. Center for Conservation Biology technical report series.
College of William and Mary & Virginia Commonwealth University, CCBTR-11-04,
Williamsburg, VA.
Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard, M.D. McCrary, and M.O. Pierson. 2003. The response of macrofauna
communities and shorebirds to macrophyte wrack subsidies on exposed sandy beaches of
southern California. Estuarine. Coastal and Shelf Science 58, 25-40.
Dugan and Hubbard. 2006. Ecological responses to coastal armoring on exposed sandy beaches. Journal
of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association. Winter. Volume 74, No. 1.
Dunne, P., D. Sibley, C. Sutton, and W. Wander. 1982. 1982 aerial shorebird survey of the Delaware Bay
endangered species. New Jersey Birds 9:68-74.
Dutton, D.L., P.H. Dutton, M. Chaloupka, and R.H. Boulon. 2005. Increase of a Caribbean leatherback
turtle Dermochelys coriacea nesting population linked to long-term nest protection. Biological
Conservation 126:186-194.
eBird.org. 2014. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. Cornell
Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. , Available at http://www.ebird.org/.
eBird.org. 2012. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. Cornell
Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. , Available at http://www.ebird.org/.
Ehrhart, L.M. 1989. Status report of the loggerhead turtle. Pages 122-139 in Ogren, L., F. Berry, K.
Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (editors). Proceedings of
the 2nd Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226.
Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, and W.E. Redfoot. 2003. Loggerhead turtles in the Atlantic Ocean:
geographic distribution, abundance, and population status. Pages 157-174 in Bolten, A.B. and
B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.
Ehrhart, L.M. and B.E. Witherington. 1987. Human and natural causes of marine turtle nest and hatchling
mortality and their relationship to hatchling production on an important Florida nesting beach.
Final Report, Project Number GFC-84-018. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
Nongame Wildlife Program, Technical Report No. 1. Tallahassee, Florida. 141 pages.
Elliott, L.F. and T. Teas. 1996. Effects of human disturbance on threatened wintering
shorebirds. In fulfillment of Texas Grant number E-1-8. Project 53. 10 pp.
125

Elliott -Smith, E., Haig, S.M., and Powers, B.M. 2009. Data from the 2006 International Piping Plover
Census: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 426, 332 p.
Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature,
Volume 436(4), pp. 686-688.
Encalada, S.E., J.C. Zurita, and B.W. Bowen. 1999. Genetic consequences of coastal development: the
sea turtle rookeries at X'cacel, Mexico. Marine Turtle Newsletter 83:8-10.
Environment Canada. 2006. Recovery Strategy for the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus circumcinctus)
in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Coastal Zones and sea level rise. Accessed on 29 January
2009 at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/ index/html.
Ernest, R.G. and R.E. Martin. 1993. Sea turtle protection program performed in support of velocity cap
repairs, Florida Power & Light Company St. Lucie Plant. Applied Biology, Inc., Jensen Beach,
Florida.
Ernest, R.G. and R.E. Martin. 1999. Martin County beach nourishment project: sea turtle monitoring and
studies. 1997 annual report and final assessment. Unpublished report prepared for the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
Escudero, G., J.G. Navedo, T. Piersma, P. De Goeij, and P. Edelaar. 2012. Foraging conditions `at the end
of the world' in the context of long-distance migration and population declines in red knots.
Austral Ecology 37:355-364.
Espoz, C., A. Ponce, R. Matus, O. Blank, N. Rozbaczylo, H.P. Sitters, S. Rodriguez, A.D. Dey, and L.J.
Niles. 2008. Trophic ecology of the red knot Calidris canutus rufa at Bahia Lomas, Tierra del
Fuego, Chile. Wader Study Group Bulletin 115(2):69-76.
Fabry, V.J., B.A. Seibel, R.A. Feely, and J.C. Orr. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna
and ecosystem processes. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65:414-432.
Farley, R. 2009. Phone conversation on 11 February 2009 between Robert Farley, Planning and
Landscape Architecture, Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. and Patricia Kelly, USFWS,
Panama City, Florida, Field Office regarding status of beach vitex on northwest Florida beaches.
Farrell, J.G., and C.S. Martin. 1997. Proceedings of the Horseshoe Crab Forum: Status of the resource.
University of Delaware, Sea Grant College Program, Newark, Delaware.
Feng, S., C. Ho, Q. Hu, R.J. Oglesby, and S. Jeong. 2012. Evaluating observed and projected future
climate changes for the Arctic using the Koppen-Trewartha climate classification. Climate
Dynamics 38:1359-1373.
Fenster, M., and R. Dolan. 1996. Assessing the impact of tidal inlets on adjacent barrier island shorelines.
Journal of Coastal Research 12(1):294-310.
Ferland, C.L., and S.M. Haig. 2002. 2001 International Piping Plover Census. U.S. Geological Survey,
Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, Oregon. 293 pp.
Fish, M.R., I.M. Cote, J.A. Gill, A.P. Jones, S. Renshoff, and A.R. Watkinson. 2005. Predicting the
impact of sea -level rise on Caribbean sea turtle nesting habitat. Conservation Biology 19:482-
491.
Fletemeyer, J. 1980. Sea turtle monitoring project. Unpublished report prepared for the Broward County
Environmental Quality Control Board, Florida.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. Critically eroded beaches in Florida. Bureau of
Beaches and Coastal Systems. Tallahassee, Florida
http://www.dep. state.fl.us/BEACHES/publications/pdf/CritEroRpt09.pdf
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2007. Light sources contributing to reported
disorientation events in Florida, 2007.
http://www.myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Seaturtle_DisorientationEvents2007.pdf
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008a. Reported nesting activity of the Kemps
Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), in Florida, 1979-2007. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.
htip://research.myfwc.com/images/articles/2377/sea_turtle_ nesting on florida bchs_93-07.pdf
126

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008b. Personal communication to the Loggerhead
Recovery Team. Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009a. Statewide Nesting Beach Survey database
htip://research.myfwc.com/features/view article.asp?id=10690
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009b. Index Nesting Beach Survey Totals.
http://research.myfwc.com/features/view article.asp?id=10690
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009c. Florida's endangered species, threatened
species, and species of special concern.
htip://research.myfwc.com/features/view_ article.asp?id=5182
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission/Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2010a.
A good nesting season for loggerheads in 2010 does not reverse a recent declining trend.
htip://research.myfwc.com/features/view_ article.asp?id=27537
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission/Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2010b.
Index nesting beach survey totals (1989 - 2010). http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-
turtles/nesting/beach-survey-totals-1989-2010/
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission/Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2011.
Personal communication to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Florida Oceans and Coastal Council. 2010. Climate change and sea -level rise in Florida: An update of
"The effects of climate change on Florida's ocean and coastal resources". FOCC, Tallahassee,
FL, Available at
http://www.floridaoceanscouncil.org/reports/Climate_Change_and_ Sea Level_Rise.pdf
Foley, A. 2005. Personal communication to Loggerhead Recovery Team. Florida Fish and Wildlife
Research Institute.
Foley, A., B. Schroeder, and S. MacPherson. 2008. Post -nesting migrations and resident areas of Florida
loggerheads. Pages 75-76 in Kalb, H., A. Rohde, K. Gayheart, and K. Shanker (compilers).
Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-582.
Fontaine, C.T., S.A. Manzella, T.D. Williams, R.M. Harris, and W.J. Browning. 1989. Distribution,
growth and survival of head started, tagged and released Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys
kempii) from year -classes 1978-1983. Pages 124-144 in Caillouet, C.W., Jr., and A.M. Landry Jr.
(editors). Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
Biology, Conservation and Management. TAMU-SG:89-105.
Foote, J.J. and T.L. Mueller. 2002. Two Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) nests on the Gulf coast of
Sarasota County, Florida, USA. Page 217 in Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (compilers).
Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477.
Foote, J., J. Sprinkel, T. Mueller, and J. McCarthy. 2000. An overview of twelve years of tagging data
from Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas nesting habitat along the central
Gulf coast of Florida, USA. Pages 280-283 in Kalb, H.J. and T. Wibbels (compilers).
Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443.
Frair, W., R.G. Ackerman, and N. Mrosovsky. 1972. Body temperature of Dermochelys coriacea: warm
water turtle from cold water. Science 177:791-793.
Francisco -Pearce, A.M. 2001. Contrasting population structure of Caretta caretta using mitochondrial
and nuclear DNA primers. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.
Fraser, J.D., S.M. Karpanty, J.B. Cohen, and B.R. Truitt. 2013. The red knot (Calidris canutus rufa)
decline in the western hemisphere: Is there a lemming connection? Canadian Journal of Zoology
91:13-16.
127

Frazer, N.B. and J.I. Richardson. 1985. Annual variation in clutch size and frequency for loggerhead
turtles, Caretta-caretta, nesting at Little Cumberland Island, Georgia, USA. Herpetologica
41(3):246-251.
Fretey, J., A. Billes, and M. Tiwari. 2007. Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea, nesting along the Atlantic
coast of Africa. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6(1): 126-129.
Fritts, T.H. and M.A. McGehee. 1982. Effects of petroleum on the development and survival of marine
turtle embryos. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report FWS/OBS-82/37.41 pages.
Frumhoff, P.C., J.J. McCarthy, J.M. Melillo, S.C. Moser, and D.J. Wuebbles. 2007. Confronting climate
change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, impacts, and solutions. Synthesis report of the Northeast
Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA). Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Cambridge, MA.
Fussell, John. O. III. 1994. A Birder's Guide to Coastal North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press. 540 pages.
Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius, B. Harrington, and G. Page. 2002. Global
climate changes and sea level rise: Potential loss of intertidal habitat for shorebirds. Waterbirds
25:173-183.
Garduno-Andrade, M. 1999. Nesting of the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, in Rio Lagartos,
Yucatan, Mexico, 1990-1997. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):281-285.
Garner, J.A. and S.A. Garner. 2010. Saturation tagging and nest management of leatherback sea turtles
on (Dermochelys coriacea) on Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Island, 2010. Annual report to
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 49 pages.
Gaylord, B., T.M. Hill, E. Sanford, E.A. Lenz, L.A. Jacobs, K.N. Sato, A.D. Russell, and A. Hettinger.
2011. Functional impacts of ocean acidification in an ecologically critical foundation species.
Journal of Experimental Biology 214:2586-2594.
Gerasimov, K.B. 2009. Functional morphology of the feeding apparatus of red knot Calidris canutus,
great knot C. tenuirostris and surfbird Aphriza virgate. In International Wader Study Group
Annual Conference, September 18-21, 2009, International Wader Study Group, Norfolk, UK.
Gerrodette, T. and J. Brandon. 2000. Designing a monitoring program to detect trends. Pages 36-39 in
Bjorndal, K.A. and A.B. Bolten (editors). Proceedings of a Workshop on Assessing Abundance
and Trends for In -water Sea Turtle Populations. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-
445.
Gibbs, J.P. 1986. Feeding ecology of nesting piping plovers in Maine. Unpublished report to Maine
Chapter, The Nature Conservancy, Topsham, Maine.
Gibson, M., C.W. Nathan, A.K. Killingsworth, C.Shankles, E. Coleman, S. Bridge, H. Juedes, W. Bone,
and R. Shiplett. 2009. Observations and implications of the 2007 amalgamation of Sand -Pelican
Island to Dauphin Island, Alabama. Geological Society of America. Paper No. 20-10,
Southeastern Section - 58' Annual Meeting. Volume 41, No.1, p. 52.
Glenn, L. 1998. The consequences of human manipulation of the coastal environment on hatchling
loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta, L.). Pages 58-59 in Byles, R., and Y. Fernandez
(compilers). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412.
Glen, F. and N. Mrosovsky. 2004. Antigua revisited: the impact of climate change on sand and nest
temperatures at a hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) nesting beach. Global
Change Biology 10:2036-2045.
Godfrey, M.H. and N. Mrosovsky. 1997. Estimating the time between hatching of sea turtles and their
emergence from the nest. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(4):581-585.
Godfrey, P.J., S.P. Leatherman, and P.A. Buckley. 1978. Impact of off -road vehicles on coastal
ecosystems. Pages 581-599 in Coastal Zone '78 Symposium on Technical, Environmental
Socioeconomic and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Management. Vol. II, San Francisco,
California.
128

Goldin, M.R., C.Griffin, and S. Melvin. 1990. Reproductive and foraging ecology, human disturbance,
and management of piping plovers at Breezy Point, Gateway National Recreational Area, New
York, 1989. Progress report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts.
Goldin, M.R. 1993. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) management, reproductive ecology, and chick
behavior at Goosewing and Briggs Beaches, Little Compton, Rhode Island, 1993. The Nature
Conservancy, Providence, Rhode Island.
Gonzalez, P.M. 2005. Report for developing a red knot status assessment in the U.S. Unpublished report
by Fundacion Inalafquen, Rio Negro, Argentina.
Gonzalez, P.M., A.J. Baker, and M.E. Echave. 2006. Annual survival of red knots (Calidris canutus rufa)
using the San Antonio Oeste stopover site is reduced by domino effects involving late arrival and
food depletion in Delaware Bay. Hornero 21(2):109-117.
Goss -Custard, J.D., R.T. Clarke, S.E.A. le V. dit Durell, R.W.G. Caldow, and B.J. Ens. 1996. Population
consequences of winter habitat loss in migratory shorebird. II. Model predictions. Journal of
Applied Ecology 32:337-351.
Gratto-Trevor, C., D. Amirault-Langlais, D. Catlin, F. Cuthbert, J. Fraser, S. Maddock, E. Roche, and F.
Shaffer. 2012. Connectivity in Piping Plovers: Do Breeding Populations Have Distinct Winter
Distributions? J. Wildl. Mgmt. 76(2):348-355.
Gratto-Trevor, C., D. Amirault-Langlais, D. Catlin, F. Cuthbert, J. Fraser, S. Maddock, E. Roche, and F.
Shaffer. 2009. Winter distribution of four different piping plover breeding populations. Report
to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 11 pp.
Green, M.A., G.G. Waldbusser, S.L. Reilly, K. Emerson, and S. O'Donnell. 2009. Death by dissolution:
Sediment saturation state as a mortality factor for juvenile bivalves. Limnology and
Oceanography 54(4):1037-1047.
Greene, K. 2002. Beach nourishment: A review of the biological and physical impacts. ASMFC Habitat
Management Series # 7. ASMFC, Washington, DC., Available at
<http://www.asmfc.org/ublications/habitat/beachNourishment.pdf>
Greer, A.E., J.D. Lazell, Jr., and R.M. Wright. 1973. Anatomical evidence for counter -current heat
exchanger in the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Nature 244:181.
Griffin, C.R. and S.M. Melvin. 1984. Research plan on management, habitat selection, and population
dynamics of piping plovers on outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts. University of
Massachusetts. Research proposal submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner,
Massachusetts.
Guilfoyle, M.P., R.A. Fischer, D.N. Pashley, and C.A. Lott editors. 2006. Summary of first regional
workshop on dredging, beach nourishment, and birds on the south Atlantic coast. ERDC/EL TR-
06-10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, Available at
<hgp://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pdfs/ES/trLI06-10.pdf>.
Guilfoyle, M.P., R.A. Fischer, D.N. Pashley, and C.A. Lott editors. 2007. Summary of second regional
workshop on dredging, beach nourishment, and birds on the north Atlantic coast. ERDC/EL TR-
07-26. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, Available at <hlt2://www.dtic.miUcRi-
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA474358>.
Gyuris E. 1994. The rate of predation by fishes on hatchlings of the green turtle. Coral Reefs 12:137.
Haig, S.M. 1992. Piping Plover. In The Birds of North America, No. 2 (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, & F.
Gill, eds). Philadelphia: The academy of Natural Sciences; Washington DC: The American
Ornithologists' Union. 17 pp.
Haig, S.M., and L.W. Oring. 1985. The distribution and status of the piping plover throughout the
annual cycle. Journal of Field Ornithology 56:334-345.
Haig, S.M., and L.W. Oring. 1987. The piping plover. Audubon Wildlife Report. Pp. 509-519.
Haig, S.M. and J.H. Plissner. 1992. Distribution and Abundance of Piping Plovers: Results and
Implications of the 1991 International Census. The Condor 95:145-156.
129

Haig, S.M., and C.L. Ferland, F.J. Cuthbert, J. Dingledine, J.P. Goossen, A. Hecht, and N.
McPhillips. 2005. A complete species census and evidence for regional declines in piping
plovers. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(1): 160-173.
Haig, S.M., and E. Elliott -Smith. 2004. Piping Plover. In A. Poole (eds.), The Birds of North America
Online. Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of North American
Online database: http://bna.birds.comell.edu/BNA/account/PipingPlover/.
Hake, M. 1993. 1993 summary of piping plover management program at Gateway NRA Breezy Point
district. Unpublished report. Gateway National Recreational Area, Long Island, New York.
Hanlon, H. 2012. Biologist. E-mail of November 22, 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cape May
National Wildlife Refuge. Cape May Court House, NJ.
Hanson, J., T. Wibbels, and R.E. Martin. 1998. Predicted female bias in sex ratios of hatchling
loggerhead sea turtles from a Florida nesting beach. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76(10):1850-
1861.
Hailman, J.P. and A.M. Elowson. 1992. Ethogram of the nesting female loggerhead (Caretta caretta).
Herpetologica 48:1-30.
Harrington, B.R. 2008. Coastal inlets as strategic habitat for shorebirds in the southeastern United States.
DOER Technical Notes Collection. ERDC TN-DOER-E25. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/doer.
Harrington, B.A. 1996. The flight of the red knot: A natural history account of a small bird's annual
migration from the Arctic Circle to the tip of South America and back. W. W. Norton &
Company, New York.
Harrington, B.A. 2001. Red knot (Calidris canutus). In A. Poole, and F. Gill, eds. The birds of North
America, No. 563, The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Harrington, B.A. 2005a. Unpublished information on red knot numbers and distribution in the eastern
United States: Based largely on ongoing projects and manuscripts under development at the
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Harrington, B.A. 2005b. Studies of disturbance to migratory shorebirds with a focus on Delaware Bay
during north migration. Unpublished report by Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences,
Manomet, MA.
Harrington, B.A., J.M. Hagen, and L.E. Leddy. 1988. Site fidelity and survival differences between two
groups of New World red knots (Calidris canutus). The Auk 105:439-445.
Harrington, B. 2012. Biologist. E-mail of November 12, 2012. Manomet Center for Conservation
Sciences. Manomet, MA.
Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2005. Status of nesting loggerhead
turtles Caretta caretta at Bald Head Island (North Carolina, USA) after 24 years of intensive
monitoring and conservation. Oryx 39(1):65-72.
Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2009. Climate change and
marine turtles. Endangered Species Research 7:137-154.
Hayes, M.O. and J. Michel. 2008. A coast for all seasons: A naturalist's guide to the coast of South
Carolina. Pandion Books, Columbia, South Carolina. 285 pp.
Hays, G.C. 2000. The implications of variable remigration intervals for the assessment of population
size in marine turtles. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206:221-227.
Hecht, A., and S. M. Melvin. 2009. Expenditures and effort associated with recovery of
breeding Atlantic Coast piping plovers. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7):1099-1107.
Hegna, R.H., M.J. Warren, C.J. Carter, and J.C. Stiner. 2006. Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's Ridley sea
turtle). Herpetological Review 37(4):492.
Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird management manual. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve.
Network, Manomet, Massachusetts, USA.
Hendrickson, J.R. 1958. The green sea turtle Chelonia mydas (Linn.) in Malaya and Sarawak.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 130:455-535.
130

Hendrickson, J.R. (1982): Nesting behaviour of sea turtles with emphasis on physical and behavioural
determinants of nesting success or failure. In: Biology and conservation of sea turtles, p.53-57.
Bjorndal, K.A., Ed., Smithsonian Institution Press, in cooperation with World Wildlife Fund, Inc
Washington DC.
Heppell, S.S. 1998. Application of life -history theory and population model analysis to turtle
conservation. Copeia 1998(2):367-375.
Heppell, S.S., L.B. Crowder, and T.R. Menzel. 1999. Life table analysis of long-lived marine species
with implications for conservation and management. Pages 137-148 in Musick, J.A. (editor).
Life in the Slow Lane: Ecology and Conservation of Long-lived Marine Animals. American
Fisheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland.
Heppell, S.S., L.B. Crowder, D.T. Crouse, S.P. Epperly, and N.B. Frazer. 2003. Population models for
Atlantic loggerheads: past, present, and future. Pages 225-273 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E.
Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washinghton D.C.
Heppell, S.S., D.T. Crouse, L.B. Crowder, S.P. Epperly, W. Gabriel, T. Henwood, R. Marquez, and N.B.
Thompson. 2005. A population model to estimate recovery time, population size, and
management impacts on Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Chelonian Conservation and Biology
4(4):767-773.
Herren, R.M. 1999. The effect of beach nourishment on loggerhead (Caretta caretta) nesting and
reproductive success at Sebastian Inlet, Florida. Unpublished Master of Science thesis.
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. 138 pages.
Hildebrand, H.H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidaci6n de la tortuga marina "lora" Lepidochelys kempi
(Garman), en la coasta occidental del Golfo de M6xico. Sobretiro de Ciencia, M6xico 22:105-
112.
Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 97(1).
Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationships between human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology and
chick survival. M.S. Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Hope, C. 2012. Personal communication to S.L. MacPherson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, South Carolina.
Hopkins, S.R. and T.M. Murphy. 1980. Reproductive ecology of Caretta caretta in South Carolina.
South Carolina Wildlife Marine Resources Department Completion Report.
Hopkinson, C.S., A.E. Lugo, M. Alber, A.P. Covich, and S.J. Van Bloem. 2008. Forecasting effects of
sea -level rise and windstorms on coastal and inland ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and
Environment 6:255-263.
Hosier, P.E., M. Kochhar, and V. Thayer. 1981. Off -road vehicle and pedestrian track effects on the sea
-approach of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Environmental Conservation 8:158-161.
Houghton, J.D.R. and G.C. Hays. 2001. Asynchronous emergence by loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)
hatchlings. Naturwissenschaften 88:133-136.
Howard, B. and P. Davis. 1999. Sea turtle nesting activity at Ocean Ridge in Palm Beach County,
Florida 1999. Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management, West
Palm Beach, Florida.
Hubbard, D.M. and J.E. Dugan. 2003. Shorebird use of an exposed sandy beach in southern
California. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science 58, 41-54.
Hughes, A.L. and E.A. Caine. 1994. The effects of beach features on hatchling loggerhead sea turtles.
Pages 237 in Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (compilers).
Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-3 5 1.
Humiston and Moore Engineers. 2001. "Naples Beach Erosion Control Project 1-Year Post Construction
Monitoring Report." Prepared for The City of Naples, Florida.
Ims, R.A., and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles in tundra ecosystems and the impact of climate
change. BioScience 55(4):311-322.
131

Insacco, G. and F. Spadola. 2010. First record of Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidocheyls kempii (Garman
1880) (Cheloniidae), from the Italian waters (Mediterranean Sea). Acta Herpetologica 5(1):113-
117.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Summary for Policymakers. In Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (editors). Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. Summary for Policymakers. In Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (editors). Climate
Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA.
International Wader Study Group. 2003. Wader Study Group Workshop 26 September 2003 - Are waders
world-wide in decline? Reviewing the evidence. Wader Study Group Bulletin 101/102:8-41.
Invasive Species Specialist Group. 2009. ISSG Global Invasive Species Database: Impact information
for Vitex rotundifolia. Accessed November 11, 2010:
h!W://www.iss2.or2/database/species/iinpact_info.asp?si=1110&fr-1 &sts=&lang=EN
Jimenez, M.C., A. Filonov, I. Tereshchenko, and R.M. Marquez. 2005. Time -series analyses of the
relationship between nesting frequency of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle and meteorological
conditions. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(4):774-780.
Johnson, C.M. and G.A. Baldassarre. 1988. Aspects of the wintering ecology of piping plovers in coastal
Alabama. Wilson Bulletin 100:214-233.
Johnson, S.A., A.L. Bass, B. Libert, M. Marmust, and D. Fulk. 1999. Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys
kempi) nesting in Florida. Florida Scientist 62(3/4):194-204.
Jones, S.J., F.P. Lima, and D. S. Wethey. 2010. Rising environmental temperatures and biogeography:
Poleward range contraction of the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis L., in the western Atlantic. Journal
of Biogeography 37:2243-2259.
Jones, T.T., M.D. Hastings, B.L. Bostrom, D. Pauly, and D.R. Jones. 2011. Growth of captive
leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, with inferences on growth in the wild: Implications
for population decline and recovery. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
399:84-92.
Kalasz, K. 2008. Delaware shorebird conservation plan. Version 1.0. Delaware Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program Division of Fish and Wildlife, Delaware Department of Natural
Resources & Environmental Control, Smyrna, DE.
Kalasz, K. 2013. Biologist. E-mails of February 8, and March 29, 2013. Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, Delaware Shorebird Project. Dover, DE.
Kamezaki, N., Y. Matsuzawa, O. Abe, H. Asakawa, T. Fujii, K. Goto, S. Hagino, M. Hayami, M. Ishii, T.
Iwamoto, T. Kamata, H. Kato, J. Kodama, Y. Kondo,l. Miyawaki, K. Mizobuchi, Y. Nakamura,
Y. Nakashima, H. Naruse, K. Omuta, M. Samejima, H. Suganuma, H. Takeshita, T. Tanaka, T.
Toji, M. Uematsu, A. Yamamoto, T. Yamato, and 1. Wakabayashi. 2003. Loggerhead turtles
nesting in Japan. Pages 210-217 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead
Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.
Karpanty, S.M., J.D. Fraser, J.B. Cohen, S. Ritter, B. Truitt, and D. Catlin. 2012. Update of red knot
numbers and prey counts in Virginia using ground survey methods. Unpublished report to the
Delaware Bay Technical Committee and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,
Department Fish and Wildlife Conservation.
Kaplan, J.O., N.H. Bigelow, P.J. Bartlein, T.R. Christiansen, W. Cramer, S.M. Harrison, N.V.
Matveyeva, A.D. McGuire, D.F. Murray, I.C. Prentice, and et al. 2003. Climate change and
Arctic ecosystems 11: Modeling, paleodata-model comparisons, and future projections. Journal of
Geophysical Research 108(D17):8171.
132

Kaufman, W. and O. Pilkey. 1979. The Beaches are Moving: The Drowning of America's Shoreline.
Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York.
Kennedy, V.S., R.R. Twilley, J.A. Kleypas, J.H., Cowan, and S.R. Hare. 2002. Coastal and marine
ecosystems and global climate change: potential effects on U.S. resources. Arlington (VA): Pew
Center on Global Climate Change. 51 pages.
Kochenberger, R. 1983. Survey of shorebird concentrations along the Delaware bayshore. Peregrine
Observer spring 1983. New Jersey Audubon Publications.
Komar, P.D. 1983. Coastal erosion in response to the construction of jetties and breakwaters. Pages 191-
204 in Komar, P.D. (editor). CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion. CRC Press.
Boca Raton, Florida.
Kraus, N.C. and W.G. McDougal. 1996. The effects of seawalls on the beach: part I, an updated literature
review. Journal of Coastal Research 12(3):691-701.
Kraus, N.C. 2007. Coastal Inlets of Texas, USA. Proceedings Coastal Sediments '07. Reston, Virginia:
ASCE Press. Pp. 1475-1488. Available at
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA481728.
Kraus, N.C., G.A. Zarillo, and J.F. Tavolaro. 2003. Hypothetical relocation of Fire Island Inlet, New
York. Proceedings Coastal Sediments '03. World Scientific Publishing Corp. and East Meets
West Productions, Corpus Christi, Texas. Pp. 10-14.
Labisky, R.F., M.A. Mercadante, and W.L. Finger. 1986. Factors affecting reproductive success of sea
turtles on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, 1985. Final report to the United States Air
Force. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,
Agreement Number 14-16-0009-1544, Research Work Order Number 25.
Lafferty, K.D. 2001a. Birds at a Southern California beach: Seasonality, habitat use and disturbance by
human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1949-1962.
Lafferty, K.D. 2001b. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation
101:315-325.
Lamont, M.M., H.F. Percival, L.G. Pearlstine, S.V. Colwell, W.M. Kitchens, and R.R. Carthy. 1997.
The Cape San Blas ecological study. U.S. Geological Survey -Biological Resources Division.
Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Technical Report Number 57.
Lathrop, R.G.,Jr. 2005. Red knot habitat in Delaware Bay: Status and trends. Unpublished report by the
Department of Ecology, Evolution & Natural Resources, Center for Remote Sensing & Spatial
Analysis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
LeBlanc, D. 2009. Electronic mail dated 29 January 2009 from Darren LeBlanc, USFWS, Daphne,
Alabama, Ecological Services Office to Patricia Kelly, USFWS, Panama City, Florida, Field
Office regarding habitat changes along Alabama coast from hurricanes.
LeBuff, C.R., Jr. 1990. The loggerhead turtle in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Caretta Research, Inc.;
Sanibel Island, Florida.
LeDee, O.E. 2008. Canaries on the coastline: estimating survival and evaluating the relationship
between nonbreeding shorebirds, coastal development, and beach management policy. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. 73 pp.
Leon, Y.M. and C.E. Diez. 1999. Population structure of hawksbill turtles on a foraging ground in the
Dominican Republic. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):230-236.
Leonard, L.A., T.D. Clayton, and O.H. Pilkey. 1990. An analysis of replenished beach design
parameters on U.S. East Coast barrier islands. Journal of Coastal Research 6(1):15-36.
Limpus. C.J. 1971. Sea turtle ocean finding behaviour. Search 2(10):385-387.
Limpus, C.J. 1997. Marine turtle populations of Southeast Asia and the western Pacific Region:
distribution and status. Pages 37-72 in Noor, Y.R.., I.R. Lubis, R. Ounsted, S. Troeng, and A.
Abdullah (editors). Proceedings of the Workshop on Marine Turtle Research and Management in
Indonesia. Wetlands International, PHPA/Environment Australia, Bogor, Indonesia.
Limpus, C.J. 2002. Western Australia marine turtle review. Unpublished report to Western Austalian
Department of Conservation and Land Management.
133

Limpus, C.J. 2004. A biological review of Australian marine turtles. iii. hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys
imbricata (Linnaeus). Department of Environment and Heritage and Queensland Environmental
Protection Agency.
Limpus, C.J., V. Baker, and J.D. Miller. 1979. Movement induced mortality of loggerhead eggs.
Herpetologica 35(4):335-338.
Limpus, C., J.D. Miller, and C.J. Parmenter. 1993. The northern Great Barrier Reef green turtle
Chelonia mydas breeding population. Pages 47-50 in Smith, A.K. (compiler), K.H. Zevering and
C.E. Zevering (editors). Raine Island and Environs Great Barrier Reef. Quest to Preserve a
Fragile Outpost of Nature. Raine Island Corporation and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Limpus, C.J., and D.J. Limpus. 2003. Loggerhead Turtles in the Equatorial and Southern Pacific Ocean.
Pages 199-209 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggherhead Sea Turtles. The
Smithsonian Institution.
Lindstr6m, A., and J. Agrell. 1999. Global change and possible effects on the migration and reproduction
of Arctic -breeding waders. Ecological Bulletins 47:145-159.
Loegering, J.P. 1992. Piping plover breeding biology, foraging ecology and behavior on Assateague
Island National Seashore, Maryland. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Lohmann, K. J., Witherington, B. E., Lohmann, C. M. F. and Salmon, M. 1997. Orientation, navigation,
and natal beach homing in sea turtles. In The Biology of Sea Turtles (ed. P. Lutz and J. Musick),
pp. 107-136. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Lohmann, K.J. and C.M.F. Lohmann. 2003. Orientation mechanisms of hatchling loggerheads. Pages
44-62 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian
Books, Washington D.C.
Lott, C.A., P.A. Durkee, W.A. Gierhart, and P.P. Kelly. 2009a. Florida coastal engineering and bird
conservation geographic information system (GIS) manual. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program, Engineer Research and Development
Center, Technical Report, 42 pp.
Lott, C.A., C.S. Ewell Jr., and K.L. Volansky. 2009b. Habitat associations of shoreline -dependent birds
in barrier island ecosystems during fall migration in Lee County, Florida. Prepared for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Technical Report. 103
PP.
Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle
survival. Pages 387-409 in Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (editors). The Biology of Sea Turtles.
CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.
MacIvor, L.H. 1990. Population dynamics, breeding ecology, and management of piping plovers on
outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts. M.S. Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Massachusetts.
Maddock, S. B. 2008. Wintering piping plover surveys 2006 2007, East Grand Terre, LA to Boca Chica,
TX, December 20, 2006 — January 10, 2007, final report. Unpublished report prepared for the
Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Edmonton, Alberta. iv + 66 pp.
Maddock, S., M. Bimbi, and W. Golder. 2009. South Carolina shorebird project, draft 2006 — 2008
piping plover summary report. Audubon North Carolina and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Charleston, South Carolina. 135 pp.
Mann, T.M. 1977. Impact of developed coastline on nesting and hatchling sea turtles in southeastern
Florida. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida.
Margaritoulis, D., R. Argano, I. Baran, F. Bentivegna, M.N. Bradai, J.A. Caminas, P. Casale, G. De
Metrio, A. Demetropoulos, G. Gerosa, B.J. Godley, D.A. Haddoud, J. Houghton, L. Laurent, and
B. Lazar. 2003. Loggerhead turtles in the Mediterranean Sea: present knowledge and
conservation perspectives. Pages 175-198 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors).
Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.
134

Marquez-Millan, R. 1994. Synopsis of biological data on the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys
kempi (Garman, 1880). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-343.
Marquez, M.R., A. Villanueva O., and M. Sanchez P. 1982. The population of the Kemp's ridley sea
turtle in the Gulf of Mexico — Lepidochelys kempii. Pages 159-164 in Bjorndal, K.A. (editor).
Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institute Press.
Marquez-Millan, R., A. Villanueva O., and P.M. Burchfield. 1989. Nesting population and production of
hatchlings of Kemp's ridley sea turtle at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Pages 16-19 in
Caillouet, Jr., C.W. and A.M. Landry, Jr. (editors). Proceedings of the First international
Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation, and Management. Texas A&M
University, Sea Grant Program. TAMU-SG-89-105. College Station, Texas.
Marquez, M.R., M.A. Carrasco, C. Jimenez, R.A. Byles, P. Burchfield, M. Sanchez, J. Diaz, and A.S.
Leo. 1996. Good news! Rising numbers of Kemp's ridleys nest at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas,
Mexico. Marine Turtle Newsletter 73:2-5.
Martin, R.E. 1992. Turtle nest relocation on Jupiter Island, Florida: an evaluation. Presentation to the
Fifth Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, February 12-14, 1992, St.
Petersburg, Florida.
McConnaughey, J.L., J.D. Fraser, S.D. Coutu, and J.P. Loegering. 1990. Piping plover distribution
and reproductive success on Cape Lookout National Seashore. Unpublished report to
National Park Service.
McDonald, D.L. and P.H. Dutton. 1996. Use of PIT tags and photoidentification to revise remigration
estimates of leatherback turtles (Deemochelys coriacea) nesting in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands,
1979-1995. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2):148-152.
McGehee, M.A. 1990. Effects of moisture on eggs and hatchlings of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta
caretta). Herpetologica 46(3):251-258.
McGowan, C.P., J.E. Hines, J.D. Nichols, J.E. Lyons, D.R. Smith, K.S. Kalasz, L.J. Niles, A.D. Dey,
N.A. Clark, P.W. Atkinson, and et al. 2011. Demographic consequences of migratory stopover:
Linking red knot survival to horseshoe crab spawning abundance. Ecosphere 2(6):1-22.
Meehl, G.A, T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, and P. Friedlingstein. 2007. Global climate projections. In:
Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z and others (editors) Climate change 2007: the physical
science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 749-844.
Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wgI/ar4-wg1-chapterIO.pdf.
Meltofte, H., T. Piersma, H. Boyd, B. McCaffery, B. Ganter, V.V. Golovnyuk, K. Graham, C.L. Gratto-
Trevor, R.I.G. Morrison, E. Nol, and et al. 2007. Effects of climate variation on the breeding
ecology of Arctic shorebirds. Meddelelser om Gronland, Bioscience 59. Danish Polar Center,
Copenhagen, Available at
<http://www.worldwaders.orfz/dokok/literature/125/effects_of climate_ on arctic_ shorebirds_mo
g_biosci 59 2007.pdfl.
Melvin, S.M., C.R. Griffin, and L.H. MacIvor. 1991. Recovery strategies for piping plovers in Managed
coastal landscapes. Coastal Management 19: 21-34.
Meylan, A. 1982. Estimation of population size in sea turtles. Pages 135-138 in Bjorndal, K.A. (editor).
Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Meylan, A. 1992. Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata. Pages 95-99 in Moler, P.E. (editor). Rare
and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume III. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Meylan, A. 1995. Fascimile dated April 5, 1995, to Sandy MacPherson, National Sea Turtle
Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. St. Petersburg, Florida.
Meylan, A.B. 1999. Status of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Caribbean region.
Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):177-184.
135

Meylan, A.B. and M. Donnelly. 1999. Status justification for listing the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys
imbricata) as critically endangered on the 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals.
Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):200-224.
Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the State of Florida 1979-
1992. Florida Marine Research Publications Number 52, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Meyer, S.R., J. Burger, and L.J. Niles. 1999. Habitat use, spatial dynamics, and stopover ecology of red
knots on Delaware Bay. Unpublished report to the New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species
Program, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, NJ.
Miller, K., G.C. Packard, and M.J. Packard. 1987. Hydric conditions during incubation influence
locomotor performance of hatchling snapping turtles. Journal of Experimental Biology 127:401-
412.
Miller, J.D., C.J. Limpus, and M.H. Godfrey. 2003. Nest site selection, oviposition, eggs, development,
hatching, and emergence of loggerhead turtles. Pages 125-143 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E.
Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.
Moody, K. 1998. The effects of nest relocation on hatching success and emergence success of the
loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in Florida. Pages 107-108 in Byles, R. and Y. Fernandez
(compilers). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412.
Moran, K.L., K.A. Bjorndal, and A.B. Bolten. 1999. Effects of the thermal environment on the temporal
pattern of emergence of hatchling loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 189:251-261.
Morrison, R.I.G., and R.K. Ross. 1989. Atlas of Nearctic shorebirds on the coast of South America in two
volumes. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Canada.
Morrison, R.I.G., K. Ross, and L.J. Niles. 2004. Declines in wintering populations of red knots in
southern South America. The Condor 106:60-70.
Morrison, R.I.G. 2006. Body transformations, condition, and survival in red knots Calidris canutus
travelling to breed at Alert, Ellesmere Island, Canada. Ardea 94(3):607-618.
Morrison, R.I.G., and B.A. Harrington. 1992. The migration system of the red knot Calidris canutus in
the New World. Wader Study Group Bulletin 64:71-84.
Morton, R.A. 2003. An overview of coastal land loss: With emphasis on the southeastern United States.
USGS Open File Report 03-337. U.S. Geological Survey Center for Coastal and Watershed
Studies, St. Petersburg, FL, Available at<http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-337/pdf.html>.
Morton, R., G. Tiling, and N. Ferina. 2003. Causes of hot -spot wetland loss in the Mississippi delta
plain. Environmental Geosciences 10:71-80.
Morton, R.A., and R.L. Peterson. 2005. Coastal Classification Atlas: Alabama -Mississippi Coastal
Classification Maps - Perdido Pass to Cat Island. USGS Open File Report 2005-1151. Available
online with maps at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1151/.
Mrosovsky, N. 1988. Pivotal temperatures for loggerhead turtles from northern and southern nesting
beaches. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:661-669.
Mrosovsky, N. and A. Carr. 1967. Preference for light of short wavelengths in hatchling green sea turtles
(Chelonia mydas), tested on their natural nesting beaches. Behavior 28:217-231.
Mrosovsky, N. and J. Provancha. 1989. Sex ratio of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles: data and estimates
from a five year study. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:530-538.
Mrosovsky, N. and S.J. Shettleworth. 1968. Wavelength preferences and brightness cues in water
finding behavior of sea turtles. Behavior 32:211-257.
Mrosovsky, N. and C.L. Yntema. 1980. Temperature dependence of sexual differentiation in sea turtles:
implications for conservation practices. Biological Conservation 18:271-280.
Murphy, T.M. and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting beaches in
the southeast region. Unpublished report prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service.
136

Musick, J.A. 1999. Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine mammals. Pages 1-10 in Musick,
J.A. (editor). Life in the Slow Lane: Ecology and Conservation of Long-lived Marine Animals.
American Fisheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001. Stock assessments of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles
and an assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on the loggerhead and leatherback
sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-455.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009a. Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta). National Marine
Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Springs, Maryland.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009b. Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas). National Marine
Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Springs, Maryland.
http://www.mnfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009c. Leatherback Sea Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). National
Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Springs, Maryland.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/leatherback.htm
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009d. Hawksbill Turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata). National
Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Springs, Maryland.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/hawksbill.htm
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery plan for U.S.
population of Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service,
Washington, D.C.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery plan for
leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery plan for
hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico.
National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998a. Recovery plan for
U.S. Pacific populations of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service,
Silver Spring, Maryland.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998b. Recovery plan for
U.S. Pacific populations of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate). National Marine
Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Green sea turtle
(Chelonia mydas) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. 102 pages.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Leatherback sea turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. 79 pages.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007c. Hawksbill sea turtle
(Eretmochelys imbricata) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. 90 pages.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Recovery plan for the
Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), second revision.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and SEMARNAT. 2011. Bi-national
recovery plan for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), second revision. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. 2012. Linear mean sea level (MSL) trends
and standard errors in mm/yr, Available at
<http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/msltrendstable.htm>.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. Regional climate trends and scenarios for the
U.S. national climate assessment. Part 1. Climate of the northeast U.S. NOAA technical report
137

NESDIS 142-1. NOAA, Washington, DC, Available at
<http://scenarios. globalchange.gov/report/regional-climate-trends-and-scenarios-us-national-
climate-assessment-part-1-climate-northeast>.
National Park Service. 2007. Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2007 annual piping plover (Charadrius
melodus) report. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Manteo, North Carolina.
National Research Council. 1987. Responding to changes in sea level: Engineering Implications.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1990a. Decline of the sea turtles: causes and prevention. National Academy
Press; Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1990b. Managing coastal erosion. National Academy Press; Washington,
D.C.
National Research Council. 1995. Beach nourishment and protection. National Academy Press;
Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 2010. Advancing the science of climate change. The National Academies
Press, Washington, DC, Available at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782>.
Neal, W.J., O.H. Pilkey, and J.T. Kelley. 2007. Atlantic coast beaches: a guide to ripples, dunes, and
other natural features of the seashore. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana.
250 pages.
Nelson, D.A. 1987. The use of tilling to soften nourished beach sand consistency for nesting sea turtles.
Unpublished report of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Nelson, D.A. 1988. Life history and environmental requirements of loggerhead turtles. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(23). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-86-2 (Rev.).
Nelson, D.A. and B. Blihovde. 1998. Nesting sea turtle response to beach scarps. Page 113 in Byles, R.,
and Y. Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle
Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412.
Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1987. Correlation of loggerhead turtle nest digging times with beach
sand consistency. Abstract of the 7th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology.
Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1988a. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles. In Tait, L.S.
(editor). Proceedings of the Beach Preservation Technology Conference '88. Florida Shore &
Beach Preservation Association, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida.
Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1988b. Hardness of nourished and natural sea turtle nesting beaches
on the east coast of Florida. Unpublished report of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1988c. Response of nesting sea turtles to tilling of compacted
beaches, Jupiter Island, Florida. Unpublished report of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Nelson, D.A., K. Mauck, and J. Fletemeyer. 1987. Physical effects of beach nourishment on sea turtle
nesting, Delray Beach, Florida. Technical Report EL-87-15. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Newstead, D.J., Niles, L.J., Porter, R.R., Dey, A.D., Burger, J. & Fitzsimmons, O.N. 2013. Geolocation
reveals mid-continent migratory routes and Texas wintering areas of Red Knots (Calidris canutus
rufa). Wader Study Group Bull. 120(1): 53-59.
Nielsen, J.T. 2010. Population structure and the mating system of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta).
Open Access Dissertations. Paper 507. hllp://scholarl iepositoiy.miami.edu/oa_dissertations/507
Nicholas, M. Electronic mail dated 8 March 2005 from Mark Nicholas, Gulf Islands National Seashore,
Gulf Breeze, Florida to Patricia Kelly, USFWS, Panama City, Florida Field Office providing
documentation of Great Lakes piping plover sightings post -hurricane.
Nicholls, J.L. 1989. Distribution and other ecological aspects of piping plovers (Charadrius melodus)
wintering along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. M.S. Thesis. Auburn University, Auburn,
Alabama.
138

Nicholls, J.L. and G.A. Baldassarre. 1990. Habitat selection and interspecific associations of piping
plovers along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. M.S. Thesis. Auburn
University, Auburn, Alabama.
Niles, L.J., H.P. Sitters, A.D. Dey, P.W. Atkinson, A.J. Baker, K.A. Bennett, R. Carmona, K.E. Clark,
N.A. Clark, and C. Espoza. 2008. Status of the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) in the Western
Hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology 36:1-185.
Niles, L.J., Burger, J., Porter, R.R., Dey, A.D., Minton, C.D.T., Gonzalez, P.M., Baker, A.J., Fox, J.W.
and Gordon, C. 2010. First results using light level geolocators to track Red Knots in the
Western Hemisphere show rapid and long intercontinental flights and new details of migration
pathways. Wader Study Group Bull. 117(2): 123-130.
Niles, L.J. 2010. Blog - a rube with a view: Delaware Bay update 5/28/10-The importance of good
habitat, Available at <http://www.arubewithaview.com/blog/2010/5/29/delaware-bay-update-
52810-the-importance-of-good-habitat.html>.
Niles, L.J. 2012. Blog - a rube with a view: Unraveling the Texas knot, Available at
<http://arubewithaview.com/2012/05/0 1/unraveling-the-texas-knot/>.
Niles, L.J., J. Burger, R.R. Porter, A.D. Dey, S. Koch, B. Harrington, K. Iaquinto, and M. Boarman. 2012.
Migration pathways, migration speeds and non -breeding areas used by northern hemisphere
wintering red knots Calidris canutus of the subspecies rufa. Wader Study Group Bull. 119(2):
195-203.
Niles, L. 2013. Consulting Biologist/Leader. E-mails of January 4, 8, and 25, and March 15, 2013.
International Shorebird Project, Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey. Greenwich, NJ.
Niles, L., L. Tedesco, D. Daly, and T. Dillingham. 2013. Restoring Reeds, Cooks, Kimbles and Pierces
Point Delaware Bay beaches, NJ, for shorebirds and horseshoe crabs. Unpublished draft project
proposal.
Noel, B.L., C.R. Chandler, and B. Winn. 2005. Report on migrating and wintering Piping Plover activity
on Little St. Simons Island, Georgia in 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Noel, B.L., C.R. Chandler, and B. Winn. 2007. Seasonal abundance of nonbreeding piping plovers on a
Georgia barrier island. Journal of Field Ornithology 78:420-427.
Noel, B. L., and C. R. Chandler. 2008. Spatial distribution and site fidelity of non -breeding piping
plovers on the Georgia coast. Waterbirds 31:241-251.
Nordstrom, K.F. 2000. Beaches and dunes of developed coasts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Nordstrom, K.F., and M.N. Mauriello. 2001. Restoring and maintaining naturally -functioning landforms
and biota on intensively developed barrier islands under a no -retreat alternative. Shore & Beach
69(3):19-28.
Nordstrom, K.F., N.L. Jackson, A.H.F. Klein, D.J. Sherman, and P.A. Hesp. 2006. Offshore aoelian
transport across a low foredune on a developed barrier island. Journal of Coastal Research.
Volume 22., No. 5. pp1260-1267.
North Carolina Office of Budget and Management. Municipal population estimates. Available at
http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and figures/socioeconomic _data/
population _ estimate
s/municipal_ estimates.shtm. Accessed May 28, 2014.
Nudds, R.L. and D.M. Bryant. 2000. The energetic cost of short flight in birds. Journal of Experimental
Biology 203:1561-1572.
Ogren, L.H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and subadult Kemp's ridley turtles: preliminary results from
the 1984-1987 surveys. Pages 116-123 in Caillouet, C.W., Jr., and A.M. Landry, Jr. (eds.).
Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology,
Conservation and Management. Texas A&M University Sea Grant College Program TAMU-SG-
89-105.
Packard, M.J. and G.C. Packard. 1986. Effect of water balance on growth and calcium mobilization of
embryonic painted turtles (Chrysemys picta). Physiological Zoology 59(4):398-405.
139

Packard, G.C., M.J. Packard, and T.J. Boardman. 1984. Influence of hydration of the environment on the
pattern of nitrogen excretion by embryonic snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina). Journal of
Experimental Biology 108:195-204.
Packard, G.C., M.J. Packard, and W.H.N. Gutzke. 1985. Influence of hydration of the environment on
eggs and embryos of the terrestrial turtle Terrapene ornata. Physiological Zoology 58(5):564-
575.
Packard,G.C., M.J. Packard, T.J. Boardman, and M.D. Ashen. 1981. Possible adaptive value of water
exchange in flexible -shelled eggs of turtles. Science 213:471-473.
Packard G.C., M.J. Packard, K. Miller, and T.J. Boardman. 1988. Effects of temperature and moisture
during incubation on carcass composition of hatchling snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina).
Journal of Comparative Physiology B 158:117-125.
Palmer, R.S. 1967. Piping plover. In: Stout, G.D. (editor), The shorebird of North America. Viking
Press, New York. 270 pp.
Parmenter, C.J. 1980. Incubation of the eggs of the green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas, in Torres Strait,
Australia: the effect of movement on hatchability. Australian Wildlife Research 7:487-491.
Patrick, L. 2012. Biologist. E-mails of August 31, and October 22, 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Southeast Region. Panama City, FL.
Penland, S., and K. Ramsey. 1990. Relative sea level rise in Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico: 1908-
1988. Journal of Coastal Resources 6:323-342.
Perkins, S. 2008. Perkins, S. 2008. "South Beach PIPLs", 29 September 2008. electronic correspondence
(30 September 2008).
Peters, K.A., and D.L. Otis. 2007. Shorebird roost -site selection at two temporal scales: Is human
disturbance a factor? Journal of Applied Ecology 44:196-209.
Peterson, C.H., and M.J. Bishop. 2005. Assessing the environmental impacts of beach nourishment.
BioScience 55(10):887-896.
Peterson, C.H., and L. Manning. 2001. How beach nourishment affects the habitat value of intertidal
beach prey for surf fish and shorebirds and why uncertainty still exists. Pages 2 In Proceedings of
the coastal ecosystems & federal activities technical training symposium, August 20-22, 2001,
Available at <http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/ecoconf/ppeterson%20abs.pdf>.
Pfeffer, W.T., J.T. Harper, and S. O'Neel. 2008. Kinematic constraints on glacier contributions to 21st-
century sea -level rise. Science 321(5894):1340-1343.
Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a
migration staging area. Biol. Conserv. 60:115-126.
Philibosian, R. 1976. Disorientation of hawksbill turtle hatchlings (Eretmochelys imbricata) by stadium
lights. Copeia 1976:824.
Philippart, C.J.M., H.M. van Aken, J.J. Beukema, O.G. Bos, G.C. Cadge, and R. Dekker. 2003. Climate -
related changes in recruitment of the bivalve Macoma balthica. Limnology and Oceanography
48(6):2171-2185.
Piersma, T., and A.J. Baker. 2000. Life history characteristics and the conservation of migratory
shorebirds. Pages 105-124 In L.M. Gosling, and W.J. Sutherland, eds. Behaviour and
Conservation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Piersma, T., and A. Lindstr6m. 2004. Migrating shorebirds as integrative sentinels of global
environmental change. Ibis 146 (Suppl.l):61-69.
Piersma, T., G.A. Gudmundsson, and K. Lilliendahl. 1999. Rapid changes in the size of different
functional organ and muscle groups during refueling in a long-distance migrating shorebird.
Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 72(4):405-415.
Piersma, T., and J.A. van Gils. 2011. The flexible phenotype. A body -centred integration of ecology,
physiology, and behavior. Oxford University Press Inc., New York.
Pilcher, N. J., Enderby, J. S., Stringell, T. and Bateman, L. 2000. Nearshore turtle hatchling distribution
and predation. In Sea Turtles of the Indo-Pacific: Research, Management and Conservation (ed.
N. J. Pilcher and M. G. Ismai), pp.151 -166. New York: Academic Press.
140

Pilkey, O.H. and K.L. Dixon. 1996. The Corps and the shore. Island Press; Washington, D.C.
Pilkey, O.H. and H.L. Wright III. 1988. Seawalls versus beaches. Journal of Coastal Research, Special
Issue 4:41-64.
Pilkey, Jr., O.H., D.C. Sharma, H.R. Wanless, L.J. Doyle, O.H. Pilkey, Sr., W. J. Neal, and B.L. Gruver.
1984. Living with the East Florida Shore. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.
Pinkston, J. 2004. Observations of wintering piping plovers using Gulf of Mexico barrier beaches along
the Central Texas coast. Year One research summary report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Corpus Christi, Texas, Field Office. July 2004. One page + maps and tables.
Plant, N.G. and G.B. Griggs. 1992. Interactions between nearshore processes and beach morphology
near a seawall. Journal of Coastal Research 8(1): 183-200.
Plissner, J.H. and S.M. Haig. 1997. 1996 International Piping Plover Census Report to U.S. Geological
Survey, Biological Resources Division, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystems Science Center,
Corvallis, Oregon. 231pp.
Plissner, J.H. and S.M. Haig. 2000. Status of the broadly distributed endangered species: results and
implications of the second International Piping Plover Census. Can. J. Zool. 78: 128-139.
Plotkin, P. and A.F. Amos. 1990. Effects of anthropogenic debris on sea turtles in the northwestern Gulf
of Mexico. Pages 736-743 in Shomura, R.S. and M.L. Godfrey (editors). Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Marine Debris. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-
SWFSC-154. Available at: https:Hswfsc.noaa.gov/publications/TM/SWFSC/NOAA-TM-NMFS-
SWFSC-154_P736.PDF.
Pompei, V. D., and F. J. Cuthbert. 2004. Spring and fall distribution of piping plovers in North America:
implications for migration stopover conservation. Report the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina
Press. 402 pages.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982. Nesting of the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea in Pacific Mexico, with
a new estimate of the world population status. Copeia 1982(4):741-747.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1992. Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea. Pages 214-218 in Moler, P.E.
(editor). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume III. University Press of Florida;
Gainesville, Florida.
Pritchard, P.C.H. and R. Marquez M. 1973. Kemp's ridley or Atlantic ridley, Lepidochelys kempii.
IUCN Monograph No. 2. (Marine Turtle Series).
Provancha, J.A. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1987. Sea turtle nesting trends at Kennedy Space Center and Cape
Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, and relationships with factors influencing nest site
selection. Pages 33-44 in Witzell, W.N. (editor). Ecology of East Florida Sea Turtles:
Proceedings of the Cape Canaveral, Florida Sea Turtle Workshop. NOAA Technical Report
NMFS-53.
Putman, N.F., T.J. Shay, and K.J. Lohmann. 2010. Is the geographic distribution of nesting in the
Kemp's ridley turtle shaped by the migratory needs of offspring? Integrative and Comparative
Biology, a symposium presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and
Comparative Biology, Seattle, WA. 10 pages.
Rabon, D.R., Jr., S.A. Johnson, R. Boettcher, M. Dodd, M. Lyons, S. Murphy, S. Ramsey, S. Roff, and K.
Stewart. 2003. Confirmed leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) nests from North Carolina,
with a summary of leatherback nesting activities north of Florida. Marine Turtle Newslettter
101:4-8.
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A Semi -Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea -Level Rise. Science 315:
368-370.
141

Raymond, P.W. 1984. The effects of beach restoration on marine turtles nesting in south Brevard
County, Florida. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando,
Florida.
Rehfisch, M.M., and H.Q.P. Crick. 2003. Predicting the impact of climatic change on Arctic -breeding
waders. Wader Study Group Bulletin 100:86-95.
Reina, R.D., P.A. Mayor, J.R. Spotila, R. Piedra, and F.V. Paladino. 2002. Nesting ecology of the
leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, at Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, Costa Rica:
1988-1989 to 1999-2000. Copeia 2002(3):653-664.
Rice, T.M. 2009. Best management practices for shoreline stabilization to avoid and minimize adverse
environmental impacts. Unpublished report prepared for the USFWS, Panama City Ecological
Services Field Office, Available at
htip://www.fws. gov/charleston/pdf/PIPL/BMPs%20For%20Shoreline%20Stabilization%20To%2
OAvoid%20And%20Minimize%20Adverse%20Environmental%20lmpacts.pdf.
Richardson, T.H., J.I. Richardson, C. Ruckdeschel, and M.W. Dix. 1978. Remigration patterns of
loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) nesting on Little Cumberland Island and Cumberland
Island, Georgia. Pages 39-44 in Henderson, G.E. (editor). Proceedings of the Florida and
Interregional Conference on Sea Turtles. Florida Marine Research Publications Number 33.
Richardson, J.I., R. Bell, and T.H. Richardson. 1999. Population ecology and demographic implications
drawn from an 11-year study of nesting hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelys imbricata, at Jumby Bay,
Long Island, Antigua, West Indies. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):244-250.
Roche, E.A., J.B. Cohen, D.H. Catlin, D.L. Amirault-Langlais, F.J. Cuthbert, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, J.
Felio, and J.D. Fraser. 2010. Range -Wide Piping Plover Survival: Correlated Patterns and
Temporal Declines. J. Wild. Management 74(8): 1784-1791.
Ross, J.P. 1979. Sea turtles in the Sultanate of Oman. World Wildlife Fund Project 1320. May 1979
report. 53 pages.
Ross, J.P. 1982. Historical decline of loggerhead, ridley, and leatherback sea turtles. Pages 189-195 in
Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press;
Washington, D.C.
Ross, J.P. and M.A. Barwani. 1995. Review of sea turtles in the Arabian area. Pages 373-383 in
Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Revised Edition. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 615 pages.
Rostal, D.C. 2007. Reproductive physiology of the ridley sea turtle. Pages 151-165 in Plotkin P.T.
(editor). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, Maryland.
Routa, R.A. 1968. Sea turtle nest survey of Hutchinson Island, Florida. Quarterly Journal of the Florida
Academy of Sciences 30(4):287-294.
Rumbold, D.G., P.W. Davis, and C. Perretta. 2001. Estimating the effect of beach nourishment on
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) nesting. Restoration Ecology 9(3):304-310.
Ryan, M.R., B.G. Root, and P.M. Mayer. 1993. Status of piping plovers in the great plains of North
America: a demographic simulation model. Conservation Biology 7(3): 581-585.
Sallenger, A.H. Jr., C.W. Wright, P. Howd, and K. Doran. 2009 in review. Barrier island failure modes
triggered by Hurricane Katrina: implications for future sea -level -rise impacts. Submitted to
Geology.
Salmon, M. and J. Wyneken. 1987. Orientation and swimming behavior of hatchling loggerhead turtles
Caretta caretta L. during their offshore migration. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 109: 137-153.
Salmon, M., J. Wyneken, E. Fritz, and M. Lucas. 1992. Seafinding by hatchling sea turtles: role of
brightness, silhouette and beach slope as orientation cues. Behaviour 122 (1-2):56-77.
Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D.R. Cayan, M. Fogarty, M.A.
Harwell, R.W. Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Sallenger, and J.G. Titus. 2002.
Climate change impacts on U.S. coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries 25:149-164.
142

Schlacher, T.A., and L.M.C. Thompson. 2008. Physical impacts caused by off -road vehicles (ORVs) to
sandy beaches: Spatial quantification of car tracks on an Australian barrier island. Journal of
Coastal Research 24:234-242.
Schmidt, N.M., R.A. Ims, T.T. Hoye, O. Gilg, L.H. Hansen, J. Hansen, M. Lund, E. Fuglei, M.C.
Forchhammer, and B. Sittler. 2012. Response of an arctic predator guild to collapsing lemming
cycles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279:4417-4422.
Schmitt, M.A. and A. C. Haines. 2003. Proceeding of the 2003 Georgia Water Resources
ConferenceApril 23-24, 2003, at the University of Georgia.
Schneider, T.M., and B. Winn. 2010. Georgia species account: Red knot (Calidris canutus). Unpublished
report by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Nongame
Conservation Section, Available at
<http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accounts/birds/
calidris_canutus.pdf>.
Schroeder, B.A. 1981. Predation and nest success in two species of marine turtles (Caretta caretta and
Chelonia mydas) at Merritt Island, Florida. Florida Scientist 44(1):35.
Schroeder, B.A. 1994. Florida index nesting beach surveys: are we on the right track? Pages 132-133 in
Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (compilers). Proceedings of the 14th
Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-SEFSC-351.
Schroeder, B.A., A.M. Foley, and D.A. Bagley. 2003. Nesting patterns, reproductive migrations, and
adult foraging areas of loggerhead turtles. Pages 114-124 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington
(editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.
Schroeder, B.A. and A.E. Mosier. 1996. Between a rock and a hard place: coastal armoring and marine
turtle nesting habitat in Florida. Proceedings of the 18th International Sea Turtle Symposium
(Supplement, 16th Annual Sea Turtle Symposium Addemdum). NOAA Technical
Memorandum.
Schroeder, B.A. and A.E. Mosier. 2000. Between a rock and a hard place: coastal armoring and marine
turtle nesting habitat in Florida. Pages 290-292 in Abreu-Grobois, F.A., R. Brisefio-Duenas, R.
Marquez, and L. Sarti (compilers). Proceedings of the Eighteenth Symposium on Sea Turtle
Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-436.
Schwarzer, A.C., J.A. Collazo, L.J. Niles, J.M. Brush, N.J. Douglass, and H.F. Percival. 2012. Annual
survival of red knots (Calidris canutus rufa) wintering in Florida. The Auk 129(4):725-733.
Schweitzer, S.H. 2015. 2015 Breeding Season Report for the Piping Plover in North Carolina.
Unpublished report. 6 pp.
Schweitzer, S.H. and M.L. Abraham. 2014. Status and distribution of colonial waterbirds during the
2014 nesting season in coastal North Carolina. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District. 27 pp.
Scott, J.A. 2006. Use of satellite telemetry to determine ecology and management of loggerhead turtle
(Caretta caretta) during the nesting season in Georgia. Unpublished Master of Science thesis.
University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Shaver, D.J. 2002. Research in support of the restoration of sea turtles and their habitat in national
seashores and areas along the Texas coast, including the Laguna Madre. Final NRPP Report.
U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
Shaver, D.J. 2005. Analysis of the Kemp's ridley imprinting and headstart project at Padre Island
National Seashore, Texas, 1978-88, with subsequent nesting and stranding records on the Texas
coast. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(4):846-859.
Shaver, D.J. 2006a. Kemp's ridley sea turtle project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea
turtle nesting and stranding 2004 report. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
Shaver, D.J. 2006b. Kemp's ridley sea turtle project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea
turtle nesting and stranding 2005 report. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
143

Shaver, D.J. 2007. Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2006 report. National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
Shaver, D.J. 2008. Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2007 report. National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
Shaver, D.J. and C.W. Caillouet, Jr. 1998. More Kemp's ridley turtles return to south Texas to nest.
Marine Turtle Newsletter 82:1-5.
Shaver, D. 2008. Personal communication via e-mail to Sandy MacPherson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida, on Kemp's ridley sea turtle nesting in Texas in 2008. National
Park Service.
Shuster, C.N. Jr., R.B. Barlow, and J.H. Brockmann editors. 2003. The American horseshoe crab.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Siok, D., and B. Wilson. 2011. Using dredge spoils to restore critical American horseshoe crab (Limulus
polyphemus) spawning habitat at the Mispillion Inlet. Delaware Coastal Program, Dover, DE.
Skagen, S.K. 2006. Migration stopovers and the conservation of Arctic -breeding Calidridine sandpipers.
The Auk 123:313-322.
Smith, B.S. 2007. 2006-2007 Nonbreeding shorebird survey, Franklin and Wakulla Counties, Florida.
Final report to the USFWS in fulfillment of Grant #40181-7-J008. Apalachicola Riverkeeper,
Apalachicola, Florida. 32 pp.
Smith, D.R., and S.F. Michels. 2006. Seeing the elephant: Importance of spatial and temporal coverage in
a large-scale volunteer -based program to monitor horseshoe crabs. Fisheries 31(10):485-491.
Smith, D.R., N.L. Jackson, K.F. Nordstrom, and R.G. Weber. 2011. Beach characteristics mitigate effects
of onshore wind on horseshoe crab spawning: Implications for matching with shorebird migration
in Delaware Bay. Animal Conservation 14:575-584.
Snover, M.L., A.A. Hohn, L.B. Crowder, and S.S. Heppell. 2007. Age and growth in Kemp's ridley sea
turtles: evidence from mark -recapture and skeletochronology. Pages 89-106 in Plotkin P.T.
(editor). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, Maryland.
Snover, M. 2005. Personal communication to the Loggerhead Sea Turtle Recovery Team. National
Marine Fisheries Service.
Sobel, D. 2002. A photographic documentation of aborted nesting attempts due to lounge chairs. Page
311 in Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (compilers). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual
Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-
SEFSC-477.
Solow, A.R., K.A. Bjorndal, and A.B. Bolten. 2002. Annual variation in nesting numbers of marine
turtles: the effect of sea surface temperature on re -migration intervals. Ecology Letters 5:742-
746.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2012. Interim performance report, October 1,
2011-September 30, 2012, South Carolina USFWS Project E-1, Segment 34 (F11AP00805).
Spaans, A.L. 1978. Status and numerical fluctuations of some North American waders along the Surinam
coast. Wilson Bulletin 90:60-83.
Spotila, J.R., E.A. Standora, S.J. Morreale, G.J. Ruiz, and C. Puccia. 1983. Methodology for the study of
temperature related phenomena affecting sea turtle eggs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered Species Report 11.
Spotila, J.R., A.E. Dunham, A.J. Leslie, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and F.V. Paladino. 1996.
Worldwide population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going extinct?
Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2):290-222.
Spotila, J.R. R.D. Reina, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and F.V. Paladino. 2000. Pacific leatherback
turtles face extinction. Nature 405:529-530.
Staine, K.J., and J. Burger. 1994. Nocturnal foraging behavior of breeding piping plovers (Charadrius
melodus) in New Jersey. Auk 111:579-587
144

Stancyk, S.E., O.R. Talbert, and J.M. Dean. 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle Caretta
caretta in South Carolina, II: protection of nests from raccoon predation by transplantation.
Biological Conservation 18:289-298.
Stancyk, S.E. 1995. Non -human predators of sea turtles and their control. Pages 139-152 in Bjorndal,
K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Revised Edition. Smithsonian Institution
Press. Washington D.C.
Steinitz, M.J., M. Salmon, and J. Wyneken. 1998. Beach renourishment and loggerhead turtle
reproduction: a seven year study at Jupiter Island, Florida. Journal of Coastal Research
14(3):1000-1013.
Sternberg, J. 1981. The worldwide distribution of sea turtle nesting beaches. Center for Environmental
Education, Washington, D.C.
Stewart, K.R. 2007. Establishment and growth of a sea turtle rookery: the population biology of the
leatherback in Florida. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Duke University, Durham, North
Carolina. 129 pages.
Stewart, K. and C. Johnson. 2006. Dermochelys coriacea-Leatherback sea turtle. In Meylan, P.A.
(editor). Biology and Conservation of Florida Turtles. Chelonian Research Monographs 3:144-
157.
Stewart, K.R. and J. Wyneken. 2004. Predation risk to loggerhead hatchlings at a high -density nesting
beach in Southeast Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 74(2):325-335.
Stewart, K., M. Sims, A. Meylan, B. Witherington, B. Brost, and L.B. Crowder. 2011. Leatherback nests
increasing significantly in Florida, USA; trends assessed over 30 years using multilevel modeling.
Ecological Applications 21(l):263-273.
Stone, W. 1937. Bird studies at Old Cape May: An ornithology of coastal New Jersey. Dover
Publications, New York.
Stucker, J.H. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2004. Piping plover breeding biology and management in the Great
Lakes, 2004. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI.
Stucker, J.H., and F.J. Cuthbert. 2006. Distribution of non -breeding Great Lakes piping plovers along
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastlines: 10 years of band resightings. Final Report to U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Stucker, J.H., F.J. Cuthbert and C.D. Haffner. 2003. Piping plover breeding biology and management in
the Great Lakes, 2003. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI.
Summers, R.W., and L.G. Underhill. 1987. Factors related to breeding production of Brent Geese Branta
b. bernicla and waders (Charadrii) on the Taimyr Peninsula. Bird Study 34:161-171.
Tait, J.F. and G.B. Griggs. 1990. Beach response to the presence of a seawall. Shore and Beach, April
1990:11-28.
Talbert, O.R., Jr., S.E. Stancyk, J.M. Dean, and J.M. Will. 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle
(Caretta caretta) in South Carolina 1: a rookery in transition. Copeia 1980(4):709-718.
Tanacredi, J.T., M.L. Bolton, and D. Smith. 2009. Biology and conservation of horseshoe crabs. Springer,
New York.
Tarr, J.G., and P.W. Tarr. 1987. Seasonal abundance and the distribution of coastal birds on the northern
Skeleton Coast, South West Africa/Nimibia. Madoqua 15, 63-72.
Tarr, N.M. 2008. Fall migration and vehicle disturbance of shorebirds at South Core Banks, North
Carolina. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Tebaldi, C., B.H. Strauss, and C.E. Zervas. 2012. Modelling sea level rise impacts on storm surges along
US coasts. Environmental Research Letters 7:014032.
Thieler, E.R., and E.S. Hammar-Klose. 1999. National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea -level
rise: Preliminary results for the U.S. Atlantic coast. Open -file report 99-593. U.S. Geological
Survey, Woods Hole, MA, Available at<hlW://pubs.usgs.%zov/of/1999/of99-593/>.
Thieler, E.R., and E.S. Hammar-Klose. 2000. National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea -level
rise: Preliminary results for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast. Open -file report 00-179. U.S.
Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA, Available at <hqp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-179/>.
145

Thomas, K., R.G. Kvitek, and C. Bretz. 2002. Effects of human activity on the foraging behavior of
sanderlings (Calidris alba). Biological Conservation 109:67-71.
Titus, J.G., and C. Richman. 2001. Maps of lands vulnerable to sea level rise: Modeled elevations along
the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Climatic Research 18:205-228
Titus, J.G. 1990. Greenhouse effect, sea level rise, and barrier islands: Case study of Long Beach Island,
New Jersey. Coastal Management 18:65-90.
Terchunian, A.V. 1988. ITPting coastal armoring structures: can seawalls and beaches coexist? Journal
of Coastal Research, Special Issue 4:65-75.
Tomas, J. and J.A. Raga. 2007. Occurrence of Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) in the
Mediterranean. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2.
Biodiversity Records 5640. 3 pages.
Trindell, R. 2005. Sea turtles and beach nourishment. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, Imperiled Species Management Section. Invited Instructor, CLE Conference.
Trindell, R. 2007. Personal communication. Summary of lighting impacts on Brevard County beaches
after beach nourishment. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Imperiled Species
Management Section, Tallahassee, Florida to Lorna Patrick, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Panama City, Florida.
Trindell, R., D. Arnold, K. Moody, and B. Morford. 1998. Post -construction marine turtle nesting
monitoring results on nourished beaches. Pages 77-92 in Tait, L.S. (compiler). Proceedings of
the 1998 Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology. Florida. Shore & Beach
Preservation Association, Tallahassee, Florida.
Truitt, B.R., B.D. Watts, B. Brown, and W. Dunstan. 2001. Red knot densities and invertebrate prey
availability on the Virginia barrier islands. Wader Study Group Bulletin 95:12.
Turtle Expert Working Group. 1998. An assessment of the Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and
loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409.
Turtle Expert Working Group. 2000. Assessment for the Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtle
populations in the western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NUTS-SEFSC-444.
Turtle Expert Working Group. 2007. An assessment of the leatherback turtle population in the Atlantic
Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-555.
Turtle Expert Working Group. 2009. An assessment of the loggerhead turtle population in the Western
North Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-575.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Project factsheet: Delaware Bay coastline, DE & NJ, Reeds Beach
and Pierces Point, NJ, Available at
<http://www.nap.usace. army.mil/Missions/Factsheets/FactSheetArticIeView/tabid/4694/Article/6
442/delaware-bay-coastline-de-nj-reeds-beach-and-pierces-point-nj .aspx
U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2008. Weather and climate extremes in a changing climate:
Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands. U.S. Climate
Change Science Program synthesis and assessment product 3.3. 162 pp.
U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2009. Coastal sensitivity to sea -level rise: A focus on the Mid -
Atlantic Region. U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment product 4.1.
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, Available at<http:Hdownloads.globalchange.izov/sap/sap4-
1 /sap4-1-final-report-all.pdf>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Coastal zones and sea level rise.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed June 19, 2014. Impacts on Coastal Resources.
Available at <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southeast.html>.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970. United States List of Endangered Native Fish and Wildlife.
Federal Register 35(199):16047.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Determination of endangered and threatened status for the piping
plover. Federal Register 50:50726-50734.
146

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Recovery plan for piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) of the
Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota, and Twin
Cities, Minnesota.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Revised Draft - Recovery plan for piping plovers - Breeding on the
Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. 99 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast Population,
Revised Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 258 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Final designation of critical habitat for the Northern Great Plains
breeding population of the piping plover. Federal Register. 67:57637-57717.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes piping plover (Charadrius
melodus). Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Delaware Bay shorebird -horseshoe crab assessment report and
peer review. ASMFC, Arlington, VA, Available at
<http://digitalmedia.fws. gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/ 1418>.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Report on the Mexico/United States of America population
restoration project for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on the coasts of
Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico 2005. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Report.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Strategic Habitat Conservation. Final Report of the National
Ecological Assessment Team to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geologic Survey.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Draft communications plan on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Role in Climate Change.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Revised designation of critical habitat for the wintering population
of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) in Texas. Federal Register 74:23476-23524.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Final report on the Mexico/United States of America population
restoration project for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on the coasts of
Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Abundance and productivity estimates - 2010 update: Atlantic
Coast piping plover population. Sudbury, Massachusetts. 4 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey. 2012. Cooperative
agreement. Project title: Identify juvenile red knot wintering areas.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa). 78 FR 60024-60098. Docket
FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097 (September 30, 2013). Available at www.re"lations..og_v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013b. Rufa Red Knot Ecology and Abundance. Supplement to
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for the Rufa Red
Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) [FWS-R5-ES-2013-AY17].
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1978. Listing and Protecting
Loggerhead Sea Turtles as Threatened Species and Populations of Green and Olive Ridley Sea
Turtles as Threatened Species or Endangered Species. Federal Register 43(146):32800-32811.
U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States.
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, Available at<http://librM.globalchange.Rov/2009-
global-climate-change-impacts-in-the-united-states>.
Urner, C.A., and R.W. Storer. 1949. The distribution and abundance of shorebirds on the North and
Central New Jersey Coast, 1928-1938. The Auk 66(2):177-194.
van Gils, J.A., P.F. Battley, T. Piersma, and R. Drent. 2005a. Reinterpretation of gizzard sizes of red
knots world-wide emphasis overriding importance of prey quality at migratory stopover sites.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 272:2609-2618.
van Gils, J.A., A. Dekinga, B. Spaans, W.K. Vahl, and T. Piersma. 2005b. Digestive bottleneck affects
foraging decisions in red knots (Calidris canutus). II. Patch choice and length of working day.
Journal of Animal Ecology 74:120-130.
147

Van Houtan, K.S. and J.M. Halley. 2011. Long -Term Climate Forcing in Loggerhead Sea Turtle Nesting.
PLoS ONE 6(4): e19043. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019043.
Wamsley, T.V., and N.C. Kraus. 2005. Coastal Barrier Island Breaching, Part 2: Mechanical Breaching
and Breach Closure. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Note RDC/CHL CHETN-IV-65.
21 pp.
Ward, J.R., and K.D. Lafferty. 2004. The elusive baseline of marine disease: Are diseases in ocean
ecosystems increasing? PLoS Biology 2(4):542-547.
Watson, J.W., D. G. Foster, S. Epperly, and A. Shah. 2004. Experiments in the western Atlantic
Northeast Distant Waters to evaluate sea turtle mitigation measures in the pelagic longline
fishery. Report on experiments conducted in 2001-2003. February 4, 2004.
Webster, P., G. Holland, J.Curry, and H. Chang. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration,
and intensity in a warming environment. Science Vol. 309: pp. 1844-1846.
Weishampel, J.F., D.A. Bagley, and L.M. Ehrhart. 2006. Intra-annual loggerhead and green turtle spatial
nesting patterns. Southeastern Naturalist 5(3):453-462.
Westbrock, M., E.A. Roche, F.J. Cuthbert and J.H. Stucker. 2005. Piping plover breeding biology and
management in the Great Lakes, 2005. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service,
East Lansing, MI.
Westbrooks, R.G., and J. Madsen. 2006. Federal regulatory weed risk assessment beach vitex (Vitex
rotundifolia L.£) assessment summary. USGS Biological Research Division, Whiteville, North
Carolina, and Mississippi State University, GeoResources Institute. 5pp.
Wheeler, N.R. 1979. Effects of off -road vehicles on the infauna of Hatches Harbor, Cape Cod National
Seashore. Unpublished report from the Environmental Institute, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, Massachusetts. UM-NPSCRU Report No. 28. [Also submitted as a M.S. Thesis
entitled "Off -road vehicle (ORV) effects on representative infauna and a comparison of predator -
induced mortality by Polinices duplicatus and ORV activity on Mya arenaria at Hatches Harbor,
Provincetown, Massachusetts" to the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.]
Wibbels, T., D.W. Owens, and D.R. Rostal. 1991. Soft plastra of adult male sea turtles: an apparent
secondary sexual characteristic. Herpetological Review 22:47-49.
Wilcox, L. 1939. Notes on the life history of the piping plover. Birds of Long Island 1: 3-13.
Wilcox, L. 1959. A twenty year banding study of the piping plover. Auk 76: 129-152.
Williams, S.J., K. Dodd, and K.K. Gohn. 1995. Coasts in Crisis. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1075.
32 pp.
Williams, K.L., M.G. Frick, and J.B. Pfaller. 2006. First report of green, Chelonia mydas, and Kemp's
ridley, Lepidochelys kemph, turtle nesting on Wassaw Island, Georgia, USA. Marine Turtle
Newsletter 113:8.
Williams -Walls, N., J. O'Hara, R.M. Gallagher, D.F. Worth, B.D. Peery, and J.R. Wilcox. 1983. Spatial
and temporal trends of sea turtle nesting on Hutchinson Island, Florida, 1971-1979. Bulletin of
Marine Science 33(1):55-66.
Winstead, N. 2008. Letter dated 8 October 2008 from Nick Winstead, Mississippi Department of
Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Museum of Natural Science to Patty Kelly, USFWS, Panama City,
Florida Field Office regarding habitat changes in Mississippi from hurricanes and estimates of
shoreline miles of mainland and barrier islands.
Witherington, B.E. 1986. Human and natural causes of marine turtle clutch and hatchling mortality and
their relationship to hatching production on an important Florida nesting beach. Unpublished
Master of Science thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.
Witherington, B. E. 199 1. Orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles at sea off artificially lighted and
dark beaches. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 149, 1-11.
Witherington, B.E. 1992. Behavioral responses of nesting sea turtles to artificial lighting. Herpetologica
48:31-39.

Witherington, B.E. 1997. The problem of photopollution for sea turtles and other nocturnal animals.
Pages 303-328 in Clemmons, J.R. and R. Buchholz (editors). Behavioral approaches to
conservation in the wild. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Witherington, B.E. 1999. Reducing threats to nesting habitat. Pages 179-183 in Eckert, K.L., K.A.
Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois, and M. Donnelly (editors). Research and Management Techniques
for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No.
4.
Witherington, B.E. 2006. Personal communication to Loggerhead Recovery Team on nest monitoring in
Florida during 2005. Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.
Witherington, B.E. and K.A. Bjorndal. 1991. Influences of artificial lighting on the seaward orientation
of hatchling loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta). Biological Conservation 55:139-149.
Witherington, B.E., K.A. Bjorndal, and C.M. McCabe. 1990. Temporal pattern of nocturnal emergence
of loggerhead turtle hatchlings from natural nests. Copeia 1990(4):1165-1168.
Witherington, B., C. Crady, and L. Bolen. 1996. A "hatchling orientation index" for assessing orientation
disruption from artificial lighting. Pages 344-347 in Keinath, J.A., D.E. Barnard, J.A. Musick,
and B.A. Bell (compilers). Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on the Biology and
Conservation of Sea Turtles. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-387.
Witherington, B.E. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Status and reproductive characteristics of green turtles
(Chelonia mydas) nesting in Florida. Pages 351-352 in Ogren, L., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H.
Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (editors). Proceedings of the Second
Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226.
Witherington, B.E. and R.E. Martin. 1996. Understanding, assessing, and resolving light pollution
problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-
2.
Witherington, B.E, L. Lucas, and C. Koeppel. 2005. Nesting sea turtles respond to the effects of ocean
inlets. Pages 355-356 in Coyne, M.S. and R.D. Clark (compilers). Proceedings of the Twenty-
first Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528.
Witherington, B.E. and M. Salmon. 1992. Predation on loggerhead turtle hatchlings after entering the
sea. Journal of Herpetology. 26(2):226-228.
Wood, D.W. and K.A. Bjorndal. 2000. Relation of temperature, moisture, salinity, and slope to nest site
selection in loggerhead sea turtles. Copeia 2000(1):119-128.
Wyneken, J., Salmon, M. and K. J. Lohmann. 1990. Orientation by hatchling loggerhead sea turtles
Caretta caretta in a wave tank. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 139, 43-50.
Wyneken, J., L. DeCarlo, L. Glenn, M. Salmon, D. Davidson, S. Weege., and L. Fisher. 1998. On the
consequences of timing, location and fish for hatchlings leaving open beach hatcheries. Pages
155-156 in Byles, R. and Y. Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual
Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-
SEFSC-412.
Wyneken, J. 2000. The migratory behavior of hatchling sea turtles beyond the beach. Pages 121-142 in
N.J. Pilcher and G. Ismail, eds. Sea turtles of the Indo-Pacific. ASEAN Academic Press, London.
Wyneken, J., L.B. Crowder, and S. Epperly. 2005. Final report: evaluating multiple stressors in
loggerhead sea turtles: developing a two -sex spatially explicit model. Final Report to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Research, Washington, DC.
EPA Grant Number: R829094.
Zockler, C., and 1. Lysenko. 2000. Water birds on the edge: First circumpolar assessment of climate
change impact on Arctic breeding water birds. World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK,
Available at<hllp://www.unep-wcmc.ora/biodiversiiy-series-11 114.httnl>.
Zonick, C.A. 2000. The winter ecology of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) along the Texas Gulf
Coast. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.
149

Zonick, C. and M. Ryan. 1996. The ecology and conservation of piping plovers (Charadrius melodus)
wintering along the Texas Gulf Coast. Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Missouri,
Columbia, Missouri 65211. 1995 Annual report. 49pp.
Zug, G.R. and J.F. Parham. 1996. Age and growth in leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea
(Testidines: Dermochelyidae): a skeletochronological analysis. Chelonian Conservation and
Biology 2(2):244-249.
Zurita, J.C., R. Herrera, A. Arenas, M.E. Torres, C. Calder6n, L. G6mez, J.C. Alvarado, and R.
Villavicencio. 2003. Nesting loggerhead and green sea turtles in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Pages
125-127 in Seminoff, J.A. (compiler). Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Symposium on
Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503.
Zwarts, L., and A.M. Blomert. 1992. Why knot Calidris canutus take medium-sized Macoma balthica
when six prey species are available. Marine Ecology Progress Series 83:113-128.
150

APPENDIX
Lighting Survey Form for NC
Lighting survey must be conducted to include a landward view from the seaward most extent of
the beach profile. Survey must occur after 9pm. The survey shall follow standard techniques for
such a survey and include the number and type of visible lights, location of lights and photo
documentation.
Date:
Location (name of beach):
Contact information of person conducting the lighting survey:
Time survey started:
Time survey ended:
Location survey began (include address or GPS location):
Location survey ended (include address or GPS location):
Date summarizing report sent to seaturtlegfws.gov:
Contact information for follow up meeting with the USFWS and State Wildlife Agency:
151

For each light visible from the nesting beach provide the following information (use additional
sheets as needed:
Location of Light
(include cross street
and nearest beach
access)
GPS location of
Light
Description of light (type
and location)
Photo take (YES/ NO)
152

ATTACHMENT (C)
(USFWS May 12, 2021 Amended BO)

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 13, 2021
Greg Currey
Project Manager
USACE, Wilmington District
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
SUBJECT: Town of Oak Island; Post -Isaias Sand Nourishment
Action ID No. SAW 2018-02230
FWS Log #: 04EN2000-2020-F-2226
Dear Mr. Currey:
This document constitutes an amendment to the April 29, 2021, Biological Opinion (BO) for the
extension of the Town of Oak Island's Post -Isaias Sand Nourishment Project. The applicant has
requested a further extension of the dredging and sand placement activities. Specifically, the
applicant proposes to extend the beach fill placement to May 22, 2021 for hopper dredge
beachfill placement, and to May 17, 2021 for hydraulic dredge beachfill placement.
Demobilization activities are proposed to be conducted during daylight hours through May 26,
2021. The Town of Oak Island and its Contractors commit to all terms and conditions as written
in the April 13, 2020 authorization and the April 30, 2021 permit modification from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, including the conservation measures outlined in the BO for the
continued beach placement, demobilization, and dune planting activities.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the request, and the overall impacts to federally
listed species remain relatively unchanged. The current Conservation Measures in the BO are
adequate to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for adverse impacts to piping plover, red knot,
seabeach amaranth, leatherback, green, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles, and the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean (NWA) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the loggerhead sea turtle, along
with designated critical habitat for the NWA DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle. Therefore, it is
likely that the level of incidental take that would occur from the short-term extension of
construction within the existing project area would not exceed that which would occur from the
original proposal.
Accordingly, the April 29, 2021 BO issued to your agency is amended as follows. The change
from the original language is underlined and italicized.
Section 2, first paragraph:
The Town of Oak Island has requested authorization to extend state and federal permits to allow
for beach placement activities to proceed through May 22, 2021, with demobilization activities
(during daylight hours only) through May 26, 2021.

Section 2.2, first paragraph:
Beach sand placement is proposed to be conducted until May 22, 2021, followed by
demobilization activities (during daylight hours) until May 26, 2021.
Section 2.2, Conservation Measures:
To avoid and minimize impacts from sand placement to listed species and other resources, the
Corps has proposed the following conservation measures:
Conservation Measures for Beach Placement Activities from Mav 1— Mav 22. 2021
If you have any questions, please contact Kathy Matthews at <[e-mail]>. In
future correspondence concerning the project, please reference FWS Log No. 04EN2000-2021-
F-2226.
Sincerely,
THOMAS TTHOMIASSiped AUGS by
URGER
AUGSPURGER 0400°Z'.°S'315:S8:28
for Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc: NCDCM, Morehead City, NC
NCWRC, Washington, NC
Town of Oak Island