Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSigned 2018-02230 Oak Island Modification #2 PackageDEPARTMENT 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 Gregory.e.currey@usace.army.mil, 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 (919) 856-4520 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 (919) 856-4520 Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of an endangered or threatened species, initial notification must be made to the Service's Law Enforcement Office below. Additional notification must be made to the Service's Ecological Services Field Office identified above, and to the NCWRC at (252) 241-7367. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured individuals and in the preservation of specimens in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death or injury. -11- Jason Keith U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 551-F Pylon Drive Raleigh, NC 27606 (919) 856-4786, 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 (maria.dunn@ncwildlife.org) or Matthew Godfrey (matt.godfrey@ncwildlife.org) 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 (919) 856-4520 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 (919) 856-4520 Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of an endangered or threatened species, initial notification must be made to the Service's Law Enforcement Office below. Additional notification must be made to the Service's Ecological Services Field Office identified above, and to the NCWRC at (252) 241-7367. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured individuals and in the preservation of specimens in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death or injury. Jason Keith U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 551-F Pylon Drive Raleigh, NC 27606 (919) 856-4786, 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 (maria.dunn@ncwildlife.org) or Matthew Godfrey (matt.godfrey@ncwildlife.org) 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 (919) 856-4520 Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of an endangered or threatened species, initial notification must be made to the Service's Law Enforcement Office below. Additional notification must be made to the Service's Ecological Services Field Office identified above and to the NCWRC at (252) 241-7367. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured individuals and in the preservation of specimens in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death or injury. Jason Keith U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 551-F Pylon Drive Raleigh, NC 27606 919-856-4786, 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 <kathryn_matthews@fws.gov>. 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