20190220 Topsail Final BO signed

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Terms and Conditions ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ................................................................................................................. 9
CONSULTATION HISTORY ..................................................................................................................................... 12
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 13
2. PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................................................................................................... 14
2.1. Action Area ............................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2. Dredging ................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.3. Sand Placement ........................................................................................................................................ 15
2.4. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions ................................................................................................. 16
2.5. Tables and Figures for Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 17
3. LOGGERHEAD, GREEN, AND KEMP’S RIDLEY SEA TURTLES .......................................................................... 20
3.1. Status of Sea Turtle Species ..................................................................................................................... 20
3.2. Environmental Baseline for Loggerhead, Green, and Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles ..................................... 37
3.3. Effects of the Action on Loggerhead, Green, and Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles ........................................... 41
3.4. Cumulative Effects on Loggerhead, Green, and Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles ............................................. 47
3.5. Conclusion for Sea Turtle Species ............................................................................................................. 47
4. CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NORTHWEST ATLANTIC (NWA) POPULATION OF LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLES. 49
4.1. Status of Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat ..................................................................................... 49
4.2. Environmental Baseline for Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat........................................................ 56
4.3. Effects of the Action on Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat .............................................................. 57
4.4. Cumulative Effects on Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat ................................................................ 59
4.5. Conclusion for Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat ............................................................................ 59
5. PIPING PLOVER ........................................................................................................................................... 60
5.1. Status of Piping Plover ............................................................................................................................. 60
5.2. Environmental Baseline for Piping Plover ................................................................................................ 96
5.3. Effects of the Action on Piping Plover .................................................................................................... 109
5.4. Cumulative Effects on Piping Plover ....................................................................................................... 114
5.5. Conclusion for Piping Plover ................................................................................................................... 114
6. CRITICAL HABITAT FOR PIPING PLOVER .................................................................................................... 116
6.1. Status of Piping Plover Critical Habitat .................................................................................................. 116
6.2. Environmental Baseline for Piping Plover Wintering Critical Habitat .................................................... 123
6.3. Effects of the Action on Piping Plover Wintering Critical Habitat .......................................................... 127
6.4. Cumulative Effects on Piping Plover Wintering Critical Habitat ............................................................. 129
6.5. Conclusion for Piping Plover Wintering Critical Habitat ......................................................................... 129
7. RED KNOT ................................................................................................................................................. 131
3
7.1. Status of Red Knot .................................................................................................................................. 131
7.2. Environmental Baseline for Red Knot ..................................................................................................... 144
7.3. Effects of the Action on Red Knot ........................................................................................................... 146
7.4. Cumulative Effects on Red Knot ............................................................................................................. 151
7.5. Conclusion for Red Knot ......................................................................................................................... 151
8. SEABEACH AMARANTH ............................................................................................................................. 152
8.1. Status of Seabeach Amaranth ................................................................................................................ 152
8.2. Environmental Baseline for Seabeach Amaranth ................................................................................... 155
8.3. Effects of the Action on Seabeach Amaranth ......................................................................................... 159
8.4. Cumulative Effects on Seabeach Amaranth ........................................................................................... 160
8.5. Conclusion for Seabeach Amaranth ....................................................................................................... 160
9. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 161
9.1. Amount or Extent of Take ...................................................................................................................... 163
9.2. Reasonable and Prudent Measures ....................................................................................................... 167
9.3. Terms and Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 168
9.4. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements .............................................................................................. 172
10. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 174
11. REINITIATION NOTICE ............................................................................................................................... 175
12. LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................................................... 182

4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Endangered Species Act (ESA) Biological Opinion (BO) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) addresses the Topsail Beach Beach, Inlet, and Sound (BIS) Program (the Action). The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposes to authorize the Town of Topsail Beach to dredge
material from federally-authorized channels in New Topsail Inlet, Banks Channel, Topsail Creek
and the Banks Channel Connector and place the material along 24,700 linear feet (lf) of shoreline
on Topsail Beach. The Corps determined that the Action is likely to adversely affect the loggerhead
and green sea turtle, piping plover, red knot, and seabeach amaranth and requested formal
consultation with the Service. The BO concludes that the Action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of these species, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify these
designated critical habitats. This conclusion fulfills the requirements applicable to the Action for
completing consultation under §7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973, as amended, with respect to these
species and designated critical habitats.

The Corps also determined that the Action is not likely to adversely affect the following species,
and requested Service concurrence: West Indian manatee, leatherback sea turtle, hawksbill sea
turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, and seabeach amaranth. The Service concurs with the findings for
West Indian manatee, leatherback sea turtle, and hawksbill sea turtle. The Service does not concur
with the findings for Kemp’s ridley sea turtle and seabeach amaranth. We provided our basis for
the concurrence decision by letter dated October 16, 2018. This concurrence fulfills the
requirements applicable to the Action for completing consultation with respect to West Indian
manatee, leatherback sea turtle, and hawksbill sea turtle.

The Applicant plans to dredge material from federally-authorized channels in New Topsail Inlet,
Banks Channel, Topsail Creek and the Banks Channel Connector and place the material along
24,700 lf of shoreline on Topsail Beach. A primary dune will be constructed along the entire reach.
A hydraulic or cutterhead dredge is proposed to be used, with sand pumped by submerged pipeline
to the beachfront shoreline. All work is proposed to be conducted between November 16 and
March 31.

After reviewing the current status of the 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 dredging and placement of sand is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the piping plover, red knot, seabeach amaranth, loggerhead
sea turtle, green sea turtle, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle. It is the Service’s biological opinion that
the dredging and placement of sand is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical
habitat for the Northwest Atlantic (NWA) population of the loggerhead sea turtle and designated
wintering critical habitat for the piping plover. This conclusion fulfills the requirements applicable
to the Action for completing consultation under §7(a)(2) of the ESA, with respect to these species.

The BO includes an Incidental Take Statement that requires the Corps to implement reasonable and
prudent measures (RPMs) that the Service considers necessary or appropriate to minimize the
impacts of anticipated taking on the listed species. Incidental taking of listed species that is
compliance with the terms and conditions (T&C) of this statement is exempted from the
prohibitions against taking under the ESA.
5
The Service believes the following RPMs are necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of
incidental take caused by the Action on listed wildlife species. The RPMs are described for each
listed wildlife species in the subsections below.

RPMs for All Species

1. All sand placement activities above MHW must be conducted within the winter work
window (November 16 to March 31).

2. Prior to sand placement, all derelict material, large amounts of rock, or other debris must be
removed from the beach to the maximum extent possible.

3. Conservation Measures included in the permit applications/project plans must be
implemented in the proposed project. If a RPM and T&C address the same requirement, the
requirements of the RPM and T&C take precedence over the Conservation Measure.

4. During construction, trash and food items shall be disposed of properly either in predator-
proof receptacles, or in receptacles that are emptied each night to minimize the potential for
attracting predators of piping plovers, red knots, and sea turtles.

5. The pipeline route/pipeline placement must be coordinated with North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management (NCDCM), the Corps, the Service, and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC). Pipeline placement coordination may be accomplished
through the permit application process.

6. A meeting between representatives of the Applicant and contractor(s), the Corps, the
Service, the NCWRC, the permitted sea turtle surveyor(s), and other species surveyors, as
appropriate, must be held prior to the commencement of work. Advance notice (of at least
10 business days) must be provided prior to conducting this meeting.

7. Access points for construction vehicles should be as close to the project site as possible.
Construction vehicle travel down the beach should be limited to the maximum extent
possible.

RPMs for Piping Plovers and Red Knots

8. All personnel involved in the construction or sand placement process along the beach shall
be aware of the potential presence of piping plovers and red knots. Before start of work
each morning, a visual survey must be conducted in the area of work for that day, to
determine if piping plovers and red knots are present.

9. If project-related activities will potentially adversely affect nesting shorebirds or active
nesting habitat, the Corps or Permittee must coordinate with the Service and NCWRC prior
to proceeding. If the project is ongoing and shorebirds begin territorial or other nesting
behaviors within the project area, then the Corps or Permittee must contact the Service and
NCWRC as soon as possible.
6
10. The Corps or the Permittee shall clearly delineate work areas within piping plover critical
habitat, such as dredge footprints, travel corridors, and access points. Disturbance within
those delineated work areas must be limited to the maximum extent possible, thereby
minimizing effects to sandy, sparsely-vegetated habitat within the project footprint.

RPMs for Loggerhead, Green, and Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles

11. Only beach quality sand suitable for sea turtle nesting, successful incubation, and hatchling
emergence shall be used for sand placement.

12. During dredging operations, material placed on the beach shall be qualitatively inspected
daily to ensure compatibility. If the inspection process finds that a significant amount of
non-beach compatible material is on or has been placed on the beach, all work shall stop
immediately and the NCDCM and the Corps will be notified by the Permittee and/or its
contractors to determine the appropriate plan of action.

13. 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.

14. Sand compaction must be qualitatively evaluated at least twice after each sand placement
event. Sand compaction must be inspected in the project area immediately after completion
of any sand placement event and one time after project completion between October 1 and
May 1.

Terms and Conditions

In order for the exemption from the take prohibitions of §9(a)(1) and of regulations issued under
§4(d) of the ESA to apply to the Action, the Corps must comply with the T&Cs of this statement,
provided below, which carry out the RPMs described in the previous section. These T&Cs are
mandatory. As necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility, the Corps must require any
permittee, contractor, or grantee to implement these T&Cs through enforceable terms that are added
to the permit, contract, or grant document.

T&Cs for All Species

1. For the life of the permit, all sand placement activities above MHW must be conducted
within the winter work window (November 16 to April 30), unless a variance is approved
after additional consultation with the Service.

2. Prior to sand placement, all derelict material, large amounts of rock, or other debris must be
removed from the beach to the maximum extent possible. If debris removal activities take
place during shorebird breeding season (April 1– August 31), the work shall be conducted
during daylight hours only.

7
3. Conservation Measures included in the permit applications/project plans must be
implemented in the proposed project. If a RPM and T&C address the same requirement, the
requirements of the RPM and T&C take precedence over the Conservation Measure.

4. During construction, trash and food items shall be disposed of properly either in predator-
proof receptacles, or in receptacles that are emptied each night to minimize the potential for
attracting predators of piping plovers, red knots, and sea turtles.

5. The pipeline route/pipeline placement must be coordinated with NCDCM, the Corps, the
Service, and the NCWRC. Pipeline placement coordination may be accomplished through
the permit application process.

6. Access points for construction vehicles should be as close to the project site as possible.
Construction vehicle travel down the beach should be limited to the maximum extent
possible.

7. A meeting between representatives of the contractor(s), the Corps, the Service, the
NCWRC, and NCDCM, must be held prior to the commencement of work. Advance notice
(of at least 5 business days) must be provided prior to conducting this meeting. The meeting
will provide an opportunity for explanation and/or clarification of the Conservation
Measures and T&Cs, and will include the following:
a) Staging locations, and storing of equipment, including fuel stations;
b) Coordination with the surveyors on required species surveys;
c) Pipeline placement;
d) Minimization of driving within and around the Action Area;
e) Follow up coordination during construction and post construction;
f) Direction of the work including progression of sand placement along the beach;
g) Plans for compaction monitoring;
h) Plans for escarpment surveys and
i) Names and qualifications of personnel involved in any required species surveys.

T&Cs for Piping Plover and Red Knot

8. All personnel involved in the construction or sand placement process along the beach shall
be aware of the potential presence of piping plovers and red knots. Before start of work
each morning, a visual survey must be conducted in the area of work for that day, to
determine if piping plovers and red knots are present. If shorebirds are present in the work
area, careful movement of equipment in the early morning hours should allow those
individuals to move out of the area. Construction operations shall be carried out at all times
in a manner as to avoid negatively impacting shorebirds and allowing them to exit the area.

9. If project-related activities will potentially adversely affect nesting shorebirds or active
nesting habitat, the Corps or Permittee must coordinate with the Service and NCWRC prior
to proceeding. If the project is ongoing and shorebirds begin territorial or other nesting
behaviors within the project area, then the Corps or Permittee must contact the Service and
NCWRC as soon as possible.
8
10. Piping plover habitat (sandy unvegetated habitat) within the critical habitat unit shall be
avoided to the maximum extent practicable when staging equipment, establishing the dredge
footprint and travel corridors. The Corps or the Permittee, to the maximum extent
practicable, shall clearly delineate work areas within the critical habitat unit such as dredge
footprint, travel corridors, and access points. Disturbance outside those delineated work
areas must be limited, thereby minimizing effects to sandy unvegetated habitat. Driving on
the beach for construction shall be limited to the minimum necessary within the designated
travel corridor.
T&Cs for Sea Turtles

11. Only beach compatible fill shall be placed on the beach or in any associated dune system.
Beach compatible fill must be sand that is similar to a native beach in the vicinity of the site
that has not been affected by prior sand placement activity. Beach compatible fill must be
sand comprised solely of natural sediment and shell material, containing no construction
debris, toxic material, large amounts of rock, or other foreign matter. The beach compatible
fill must be similar in both color and grain size distribution (sand grain frequency, mean and
median grain size and sorting coefficient) to the native material in the Action Area. Beach
compatible fill is material that maintains the general character and functionality of the
material occurring on the beach and in the adjacent dune and coastal system. In general, fill
material that meets the requirements of the most recent version of the North Carolina
Technical Standards for Beach Fill (15A NCAC 07H .0312) is considered compatible.

12. During dredging operations, material placed on the beach shall be qualitatively inspected
daily to ensure compatibility. If the inspection process finds that a significant amount of
non-beach compatible material is on or has been placed on the beach, all work shall stop
immediately, and the NCDCM, Corps, and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
(as appropriate) will be notified by the permittee and/or its contractors to determine the
appropriate plan of action. Required actions may include immediate removal of material
and/or long-term remediation activities.

13. Visual surveys for escarpments along the Action Area must be made immediately after
completion of sand placement, and within 30 days prior to May 1, for two subsequent years
after any construction or sand placement event. Escarpments that interfere with sea turtle
nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for a distance of 100 feet must be leveled and the
beach profile must be reconfigured to minimize scarp formation by the dates listed above.
Any escarpment removal must be reported by location. The Service must be contacted
immediately if subsequent reformation of escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting
or that exceed 18 inches in height for a distance of 100 feet occurs during the nesting and
hatching season to determine the appropriate action to be taken. If it is determined that
escarpment leveling is required during the nesting or hatching season, the Service or
NCWRC will provide a brief written authorization within 30 days that describes methods to
be used to reduce the likelihood of impacting existing nests. An annual summary of
escarpment surveys and actions taken must be submitted to the Service.
14. Sand compaction must be qualitatively evaluated at least twice after each sand placement
event, once in the project area immediately after completion of any sand placement event
9
and once after project completion between October 1 and May 1. Compaction monitoring
and remediation are not required if the placed material no longer remains on the beach.
Within 14 days of completion of sand placement and prior to any tilling (if needed), a field
meeting shall be held with the Service, NCWRC, and the Corps to inspect the project area
for compaction and determine whether tilling is needed.
a) If tilling is needed for sand suitability, the area must be tilled to a depth of 36 inches.
All tilling activities shall be completed prior to May 1 of any year.
b) Tilling must occur landward of the wrack line and avoid all vegetated areas that are 3
square feet or greater, with a 3-foot buffer around all vegetation.
c) If tilling occurs during the shorebird nesting season or seabeach amaranth growing
season (after April 1), shorebird surveys and/or seabeach amaranth surveys are
required prior to tilling.
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.
e) These conditions will be evaluated and may be modified if necessary to address and
identify sand compaction problems.
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

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. As
necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility, the Corps must require any permittee,
contractor, or grantee to accomplish the monitoring and reporting 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 this 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 Corps or Permittee will be
responsible to collect the data. Data collected 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. Please see REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS below.

10

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.
Parameter Measurement Variable
Number of False Crawls Visual Assessment of all
false crawls
Number/location of false crawls in
nourished areas; any interaction of
turtles with obstructions, such as sand
bags 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
hatchlings and adults
11
3. Seabeach amaranth surveys must be conducted within the entire oceanfront sand placement
area (up to 24,000 lf) for a minimum of three years after completion of construction and
each maintenance event. At a minimum, the stretches of oceanfront where sand placement
occurred should be surveyed. Surveys should be conducted in August or September of each
year. Habitat known to support this species, including the upper edges of the beach, lower
foredunes, and overwash flats must be visually surveyed for the plant. Annual reports should
include numbers of plants, latitude/longitude, and habitat type. Please see REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS, below, for more information.

4. Two full years of post-construction monitoring is required for piping plovers and red knots.
The piping plover and red knot survey protocol in the Appendix (page 176) must be
followed.

Information required in the above T&C and/or these Reporting Requirements should be submitted
to the following address by February 28 of each year a report is due:

Pete Benjamin, Supervisor
Raleigh Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
[phone]

Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of an endangered or threatened species, initial
notification must be made to the Service’s Law Enforcement Office below. Additional notification
must be made to the Service’s Ecological Services Field Office identified above and to the NCWRC
at [phone]. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured individuals and in the
preservation of specimens in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death or injury.

Jason Keith
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
919-856-4786, extension 34

In the Conservation Recommendations section, the BO outlines voluntary actions that are relevant
to the conservation of the listed species addressed in this BO and are consistent with the authorities
of the Corps.

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;

12
(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.

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 Field Office.

2013-05-27, 2013-20-25, and 2013-11-22: In comments to a previous project, the Service
recommended that the Corps and Applicant develop a biological assessment (BA) for this
and future projects. We also recommended that the BA include a conservation measure that
prevents the applicant from using portions of piping plover critical habitat Unit NC-11 as a
source of sand (as described in the Town of Topsail Beach’s 30-Year Management Plan).
The Service also recommended that the Applicant coordinate with the permitting and
resource agencies in the development of a longer-term permit.

2017-04-28 and 2018-05-10: The Service participated by phone in meetings with the Corps,
NCDCM, the Applicant, and others, to discuss the proposed project. During both meetings,
the Service identified concerns for potential impacts to piping plover and piping plover
critical habitat, and again requested coordination on the development of long-term plans.

2018-03-30: The Corps issued a public notice for the proposed project. The Service provided
comments to the public notice by letter dated April 9, 2018, recommending changes to the
project to avoid and minimize impacts to wintering and migrating piping plovers.

2018-08-24: By email, the applicant’s consultant provided an updated BA for the project.

2018-10-15: By emailed letter, the Corps requested initiation of formal consultation. The Service
initiated formal consultation by letter dated October 16, 2018.

2018-11-28: By email, the Service provided the draft Executive Summary of the BO to the Corps,
including draft RPMs and T&C.

2018-12-03: By email, the Corps informed the Service that it could comply with the RPMs and
T&C.

13
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) permitting
decision under section 404 of the Clean Water Act in response to an application from the Town of
Topsail Beach (Applicant) for the Topsail Beach BIS Renourishment Project, in Pender County,
North Carolina (the Action). This BO considers the effects of the Action on piping plover, red
knot, seabeach amaranth, Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, the North Atlantic Ocean Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) of the green sea turtle, the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of the loggerhead sea
turtle, and designated critical habitat for wintering piping plovers and terrestrial critical habitat for
the loggerhead sea turtle.

The Corps also determined that the Action is not likely to adversely affect the following species,
and requested Service concurrence: West Indian manatee, leatherback sea turtle, hawksbill sea
turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, and seabeach amaranth. The Service concurs with the findings for
West Indian manatee, leatherback sea turtle, and hawksbill sea turtle. The Service does not concur
with the findings for Kemp’s ridley sea turtle and seabeach amaranth. We provided our basis for
the concurrence decision by letter dated October 16, 2018. This concurrence fulfills the
requirements applicable to the Action for completing consultation with respect to West Indian
manatee, leatherback sea turtle, and hawksbill sea turtle.

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).

14
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

According to the Biological Assessment (BA) for the proposed Action, the purpose of the
Applicant’s project is to obtain beach compatible sand in a cost-effective manner and to maintain a
previously designed beach fill project, protecting property and public infrastructure within the
Town of Topsail Beach. By utilizing shoal material within the navigation channels for beach
nourishment, a secondary purpose of the project will be the maintenance and improvement of the
shallow draft navigation channels associated with New Topsail Inlet at the southern end of Topsail
Island.

The Applicant plans to dredge material from federally-authorized channels in New Topsail Inlet,
Banks Channel, Topsail Creek and the Banks Channel Connector and place the material along
24,700 lf of shoreline on Topsail Beach. A primary dune will be constructed along the entire reach.
A hydraulic or cutterhead dredge is proposed to be used, with sand pumped by submerged pipeline
to the beachfront shoreline. All work is proposed to be conducted between November 16 and
March 31.

Below, we “deconstruct” the Action into logical components for more detailed descriptions and
analysis. Logical components of this action include dredging and sand placement.

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 ocean and estuarine
shorelines of Topsail Island, New Topsail Inlet, Banks Connector, Topsail Creek, Banks Channel,
Cut Through Channel and Side Channels 1 and 2, in Pender County, North Carolina (Figure 2-1).
The Action Area includes approximately 24,700 lf (4.68 mi) of beach shoreline on Topsail Beach,
north of New Topsail Inlet. The Action Area for direct impacts includes those sections of Topsail
Island where sediment disposal and earthen manipulation will occur – approximately 24,700 lf of
ocean and estuarine shoreline within the construction footprint, and the borrow areas/areas to be
dredged in New Topsail Inlet and the estuary. The Action Area for indirect impacts, however, is
much larger.

Because sea turtles, piping plovers, and red knots 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. Piping plovers
15
that have been documented in the project area on the south end of Topsail Island are known to
migrate through other or over-winter at inlets as far south as Mason Inlet and as far north as Cape
Lookout between Ocracoke Inlet and Ophelia Inlet. However, very little data has been collected on
wintering and migrating piping plovers north of New River Inlet, and it would be difficult to
incorporate all of these areas into an effects analysis without sufficient data. Piping plover
wintering critical habitat unit NC-11 encompasses New Topsail Inlet and Rich Inlet, and many
individual piping plovers have been documented at both inlets. Therefore, the Service defines the
Action Area for this opinion to include the entire length of shoreline from the north end of Figure
Eight Island to New River Inlet, encompassing the inlet shoulder on the north end of Figure Eight
Island, all of Lea-Hutaff Island and Topsail Island, and the north end and inlet shoulder of Topsail
Island (Figure 2-2), particularly for piping plover.

The waters in the Action Area are classified as both SA waters and Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORWs). Class SA waters are surface waters suitable for shellfishing for market purposes. Waters
designated as Class SA have specific water quality standards that must be met, as well as the water
quality standards assigned to both Class SB and SC waters. ORWs include waters of exceptional
water quality.

2.2. Dredging

The Applicant proposes to dredge material from the federally-authorized channels in New Topsail
Inlet, Banks Channel, Topsail Creek and the Banks Channel Connector, including two side channels
(Side Channels 1 and 2) and a “Cut Through Channel.” New Topsail Inlet extends from the 12-ft
contour in the ocean to the intersection of Banks Channel connector and Topsail Creek. The
federally-authorized channel follows deep water rather than being a fixed channel. Banks Channel
is a fixed channel, which extends from immediately southwest of the Corps Dock, to the
intersection of the Atlantic Intracoastal (AIWW) near Disposal Area 186. Topsail Creek extends
from the AIWW Disposal Area 203 to where it intersects the Banks Channel connector and the
New Topsail Inlet channel. Topsail Creek is not a fixed channel and must follow deep water. Banks
Channel connector is a deep-water channel that extends from just immediately southwest of the
Corps Dock, to the intersection of Topsail Creek and New Topsail Inlet. The Applicant proposes to
deepen and/or widen several of the existing channels, and to dredge a new “Cut Through Channel”
which is not included in the federally-authorized channels. A hydraulic or cutterhead dredge is
proposed to be used, with sand pumped by submerged pipeline to the beachfront shoreline. See
Figure 2-3 for the proposed dredging in the vicinity of New Topsail Inlet. Table 2-1, from the BA,
indicates the federally-authorized dimensions and the proposed dimensions for this action for each
of the channels.

2.3. Sand Placement

Sand placement is proposed along 24,700 lf of beach, extending south from approximately
Goodwin Avenue to a point just beyond the Topsail Beach/Surf City town line, similar to previous
projects in 2011 and 2014. A full primary dune will be constructed in front of the existing dune
system, cresting at an elevation of 12 ft NAVD88 and with a dune crest width of 25 lf. A beach
berm of varying width will be constructed to a height of 5 ft (NAVD88) with a 1:25 fill slope
16
extending from the waterward edge of the berm to the intertidal zone of the beach. In the proximity
of the Jolly Roger Pier, dune construction will continue; however, there will be no berm
construction directly adjacent to the pier structure.

Sediment used for sand placement is proposed to be beach compatible as defined in the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Sediment Criteria at 15A NCAC 07H.0312. Sand
will be pumped by submerged pipeline from the dredge to the beachfront shoreline. All work is
proposed to be conducted between November 16 and March 31.

According to the BA, materials and equipment for the project, such as pieces of pipeline, loaders,
bulldozers, off-road vehicles (ORV), and generators, will be located off the beach to the extent
practicable. Construction pipes that are placed on the beach are proposed to be located as far
landward as possible without compromising the integrity of the dune system. Temporary storage of
pipes on the beach is proposed to be in such a manner so as not to compromise the integrity of the
dune systems. There are two permanent, buried pipeline crossings from the estuarine shoreline to
the beach (Drum Avenue and Queens Grant), which allows pipeline alignment from the dredge to
the beach to avoid the inlet shoulder of New Topsail Inlet.

Movement of equipment that may affect listed species includes movement of the dredge and
associated watercraft within the inlet and movement of earth-moving equipment, pipeline, trucks,
and other ORV along the shoreline.

Artificial lighting will be used if work is conducted at night, including lighting on the dredge and
work lights in the sand placement area. After work is completed, the unnatural sloped beach
adjacent to the homes and other structures 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 potentially
higher mortality of hatchlings.

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
2.5. Tables and Figures for Proposed Action

Figure 2-1. Topsail Beach BIS Renourishment Project Location Map from the BA (Land
Management Group 2018).

18

Figure 2-2. Action Area for this Biological Opinion. Large black dots mark the approximate
limits.
19

Figure 2-3. Channel alignment in New Topsail Inlet, Topsail Creek, Banks Channel, Banks
Connector Channel, and Cut Through Channel (TI Coastal Services, Inc. 2018).

20
Table 2-1. Historical federally-authorized dimensions and the proposed dimensions for this action
for each of the channels.

Channel Authorized
Length
Proposed
Length
Authorized
Depth
Proposed
Depth
Authorized
Width
Proposed
Width
Topsail
Inlet 8,500 8,500
8+2
(Corps)
16+2
(Town in
2013)
16+2 150 500
Banks
Connector 4,000 4,000
7+2
(Corps)
16+2
(Town in
2013)
16+2
80 (Corps)
150
(Town in
2013)
300
Banks 28,300 28,300 7+2 12+2 80 200
Topsail
Creek 5,000 5,000
7+2
(Corps)
12+2
(Town in
2013)
12+2 150 150
Cut
Through 1,517 1,536 8+2 8+2 and
16+2 150 150 and
200
Side
Channel 1 2,600 2,600 7+2 7+2 80 90
Side
Channel 2 4,300 4,300 7+2 7+2 80 90

3. LOGGERHEAD, GREEN, AND KEMP’S RIDLEY SEA TURTLES

3.1. Status of Sea Turtle Species

The Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) share Federal jurisdiction for sea turtles under the ESA. The Service has
responsibility for sea turtles on the nesting beach. NMFS has jurisdiction for sea turtles in the
marine environment. In accordance with the ESA, the Service completes consultations with all
Federal agencies for actions that may adversely affect sea turtles on the nesting beach. The
Service’s analysis only addresses activities that may impact nesting sea turtles, their nests and eggs,
and hatchlings as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the sea. NMFS assesses and consults with
Federal agencies concerning potential impacts to sea turtles in the marine environment, including
updrift and downdrift nearshore areas affected by sand placement projects on the beach. This BO
addresses nesting sea turtles, their nests and eggs, and hatchlings as they emerge from the nest and
crawl to the sea.
21
This section summarizes best available data about the biology and current condition of the Kemp’s
ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtle, the North Atlantic Ocean Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), and the Northwest Atlantic (NWA) Ocean DPS of
the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta),throughout the ranges that are relevant to formulating an
opinion about the Action.

3.1.1. Description of Sea Turtle Species

Description – Loggerhead Sea Turtle

The loggerhead sea turtle, which occurs throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, was federally listed worldwide as a threatened species on July
28, 1978 (43 Federal Register (FR) 32800). On September 22, 2011, the loggerhead sea turtle’s
listing under the ESA was revised from a single threatened species to nine DPSs listed as either
threatened or endangered (79 FR 39755).

Loggerheads were named for their relatively large heads, which support powerful jaws and enable
them to feed on hard-shelled prey, such as whelks and conch. The carapace (top shell) is slightly
heart-shaped and reddish-brown in adults and sub-adults, while the plastron (bottom shell) is
generally a pale yellowish color. The neck and flippers are usually dull brown to reddish brown on
top and medium to pale yellow on the sides and bottom. Hatchlings are a dull brown color. Mean
straight carapace length of adults in the southeastern U.S. is approximately 36 inches (in), and mean
weight is about 250 lbs.

Critical habitat for the NWA Ocean DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle is addressed in Section 4.

Description - Green Sea Turtle

The green sea turtle was federally listed on July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800). On April 6, 2016, the
NMFS and Service issued a final rule to list 11 DPSs of the green sea turtle. Three of the DPSs are
endangered species (Central South Pacific, Central West Pacific, and Mediterranean Sea), and eight
are threatened species (81 FR 20058). In North Carolina, the green sea turtle is part of the North
Atlantic Ocean DPS, and is listed as threatened. The green sea turtle has a worldwide distribution
in tropical and subtropical waters.

The green sea turtle grows to a maximum size of about 4 feet (ft) 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 2009). Hatchling green turtles eat a variety of plants and animals, but adults feed almost
exclusively on seagrasses and marine algae.

Critical habitat for the green sea turtle has been designated for the waters surrounding Culebra
Island, Puerto Rico, and its outlying keys. There is no designated critical habitat in North Carolina.

22
Description – Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle

The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle was federally listed as endangered on December 2, 1970 (35 FR
18320). The Kemp's ridley has one of the most geographically restricted distributions 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 in 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 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.

3.1.2. Life History of Sea Turtle Species

Sea turtles 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 sea turtles live are the:

1. Terrestrial zone (supralittoral) - the nesting beach where both oviposition (egg laying) and
embryonic development and hatching occur.

2. Neritic zone - the inshore marine environment (from the surface to the sea floor) where
water depths do not exceed 656 ft. 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 ft.

3. Oceanic zone - the vast open ocean environment (from the surface to the sea floor) where
water depths are greater than 656 ft.

Maximum intrinsic growth rates of sea turtles are limited by the extremely long duration of the
juvenile stage and fecundity. Sea turtles 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).

Life history – Loggerhead Sea Turtle

Table 3-1 summarizes key life history characteristics for loggerheads nesting in the U.S.
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 (nesting
23
beaches), nearshore, and open ocean habitats. The loggerhead feeds on mollusks, crustaceans, fish,
and other marine animals. The species is found hundreds of miles off shore, and in near-shore areas
such as bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large rivers. Coral
reefs, rocky places, and ship wrecks are often used as feeding areas.

Nesting

For the NWA Ocean DPS, most 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
along the coasts of North America, Central America, northern South America, the Antilles,
Bahamas, and Bermuda, but is concentrated in the southeastern United States and the Yucatán
Peninsula of Mexico (Sternberg 1981; Ehrhart 1989; Ehrhart et al. 2003; NMFS and USFWS
2008).

Loggerheads nest on ocean beaches and occasionally on estuarine shorelines with suitable sand.
Females dig nests typically between the high-tide line and the dune front (Routa 1968, 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).

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 of sufficient duration and standardized methods provides a valuable indicator of changes in
the adult female population (Meylan 1982; Gerrodette and Brandon 2000; Reina et al. 2002).

Early Development

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
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
24
emergence from a nest. After an initial emergence, there may be secondary emergences on
subsequent nights (Carr and Ogren 1960, Ernest and Martin 1993, Houghton and Hays 2001).

Hatchlings use a progression of orientation cues to guide their movement from the nest to the
marine environments where they spend their early years (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
(Limpus 1971; Salmon et al. 1992; Witherington and Martin 1996; Witherington 1997; Stewart and
Wyneken 2004).

Life history - Green Sea Turtle

Green sea turtles deposit from one to nine clutches within a nesting season, but the overall average
is about 3.3 nests. The interval between nesting events within a season varies around a mean of
about 13 days (Hirth 1997). Mean clutch size varies widely among populations. Clutch size varies
from 75 to 200 eggs with incubation requiring 48 to 70 days, depending on incubation temperatures.
Only occasionally do females produce clutches in successive years. Usually two or more years
intervene between breeding seasons (NMFS and Service 1991). Age at sexual maturity is believed
to be 20 to 50 years (Hirth 1997).

Life history – Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle

Nesting occurs primarily from April into July. Nesting often occurs in synchronized emergences,
known as “arribadas” or “arribazones,” which may be triggered by high wind speeds, especially
north winds, and changes in barometric pressure (Jimenez et al. 2005). Nesting occurs primarily
during daylight hours. Clutch size averages 100 eggs and eggs typically take 45 to 58 days to hatch
depending on incubation conditions, especially temperatures (Marquez-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,
pers. comm., 2007 as cited in NMFS et al. 2011). 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 in 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). 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).

25
3.1.3. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of Sea Turtle Species

Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution – 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): South 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 Yucatán (Mexico), Cape Verde Islands (Cape
Verde, eastern Atlantic off Africa), and Western 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 1,622 in 2016 (Godfrey, unpublished data; www.seaturtle.org
(accessed August 30, 2018). Total estimated nesting in Florida, where 90 percent of nesting occurs,
has fluctuated between 52,374 and 122,707 nests per year from 2009-2016 (FWC 2018;
http://myfwc.com/media/4326434/loggerheadnestingdata12-16.pdf). 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
Yucatán.

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 Service 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. Within the U.S., four terrestrial recovery units have been designated
for the NWA Ocean DPS of the 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). North Carolina is located within the NRU, which is
defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches from the Florida-Georgia border through
southern Virginia (the northern extent of the nesting range). The mtDNA analyses show that there
is limited exchange of females among 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 produce a relatively
high percentage of males and the more southern nesting beaches produce a relatively high
percentage of females (e.g., Hanson et al. 1998; NMFS 2001; Mrosovsky and Provancha 1989).
The NRU and the 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
26
and southern subpopulations (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 the 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 Ocean DPS. Annual nest
totals from northern beaches averaged 5446 nests from 2006 to 2011, representing approximately
1,328 nesting females per year (4.1 nests per female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984) (NMFS and
Service 2008). Overall, there is strong statistical data to suggest the NRU has experienced a long-
term decline (NMFS and Service 2008). Currently, however, nesting for the NRU is showing
possible signs of stabilizing (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011).

Recovery Criteria for the NRU (only the Demographic Recovery Criteria are presented below; for
the Listing Factor Recovery Criteria, see NMFS and Service 2008)

1. Number of Nests and Number of Nesting Females
a) 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
b) This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in
number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and
remigration interval).

2. Trends in Abundance on Foraging Grounds
A network of in-water sites, both oceanic and neritic across the foraging range is
established and monitoring is implemented to measure abundance. There is statistical
confidence (95 percent) that a composite estimate of relative abundance from these sites
is increasing for at least one generation.

3. Trends in Neritic Strandings Relative to In-water Abundance
Stranding trends are not increasing at a rate greater than the trends in in-water relative
abundance for similar age classes for at least one generation.

Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution - Green Sea Turtle

There are an estimated 150,000 green sea turtle females that nest each year in 46 sites throughout
the world (NMFS and Service 2007). 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
27
and Service 1991). Nests have been documented, in smaller numbers, north of these counties in
Florida, as well as in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and as far north as Delaware in
2011. 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 1998). 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: Eleven DPSs have been listed for the green sea turtle (81FR20058). Three of
the DPSs are listed as endangered, while eight are listed as threatened, including the North Atlantic
Ocean DPS, which is included in the Action Area. The range of the DPS extends from the
boundary of South and Central America, north along the coast to include Panama, Costa Rica,
Nicaragua, Honduras, Belize, Mexico, and the United States, then due east across the Atlantic
Ocean to the Islamic Republic of Mauritania on the African continent. It then extends west to the
Caribbean basin, then due south and west to the boundary of South and Central America. It includes
Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, Cuba, Turks and Caicos Islands, Republic of Haiti, Dominican Republic,
Cayman Islands, and Jamaica. The North Atlantic DPS includes the Florida breeding population,
which was originally listed as endangered under the ESA (43 FR 32800, July 28, 1978).

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. 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 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
28
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 mi) of all available nesting beaches (260 mi) 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.

The Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle was signed in 1991 (NMFS and
Service 1991), and the Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the East Pacific Green Turtle
was signed in 1998 (NMFS and Service 1998).

Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution – Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle

The Kemp’s ridley has a restricted distribution. 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 mi 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 Peña 2011). In addition, 153 and 199 nests were recorded
during 2010 and 2011, respectively, in the U.S., primarily in Texas. Between 2009 and 2017 in
North Carolina, there were typically one or two Kemp’s ridley nests each year, and there were four
in 2016.

Today, under strict protection, the population appears to be in the early stages of recovery. The
recent nesting increase 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, and the requirement to use Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in shrimp trawls
both in the U.S. and Mexico.
29
The Mexico government also prohibits harvesting and is working to increase the population through
more intensive law enforcement, by fencing nest areas to diminish natural predation, and by
relocating most nests into corrals to prevent poaching and predation. While relocation of nests into
corrals is currently a necessary management measure, this relocation and concentration of eggs into
a “safe” area is of concern since it can reduce egg viability.

Recovery Criteria (only the Demographic Recovery Criteria are presented below; for the Listing
Factor Recovery Criteria, see NMFS et al. 2011)
The current recovery goal is for the species to be reduced from endangered to threatened status.
The Recovery Team members feel that the criteria for a complete removal of this species from the
endangered species list need not be considered now, but rather left for future revisions of the plan.
Complete removal from the federal list would certainly necessitate that some other instrument of
protection, similar to the MMPA, be in place and be international in scope. Kemp’s ridley can be
considered for reclassification to threatened status when the following four criteria are met:

1. Continuation of complete and active protection of the known nesting habitat and the
waters adjacent to the nesting beach (concentrating on the Rancho Nuevo area) and
continuation of the bi-national protection project;
2. Elimination of mortality from incidental catch in commercial shrimping in the U.S. and
Mexico through the use of TEDs and achievement of full compliance with the
regulations requiring TED use;
3. Attainment of a population of at least 10,000 females nesting in a season; and
4. Successful implementation of all priority one recovery tasks in the recovery plan.

The Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle was signed in 1992 (USFWS and NMFS
1992). Significant new information on the biology and population status of Kemp’s ridley has
become available since 1992. Consequently, a full revision of the recovery plan has been
completed by the Service and NMFS. The Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea
turtle (2011) provides updated species biology and population status information, objective and
measurable recovery criteria, and updated and prioritized recovery actions.

3.1.4. Conservation Needs of and Threats to Sea Turtle Species

Reason for Listing: All sea turtle species are listed for similar reasons. 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.

Barrier islands and inlets are complex and dynamic coastal systems that are continually responding
to sediment supply, waves, and fluctuations in sea level. The location and shape of the beaches of
barrier islands perpetually adjusts to these physical forces. Waves that strike a barrier island at an
30
angle, for instance, generate a longshore current that carries sediment along the shoreline. Cross-
shore currents carry sediment perpendicular to the shoreline. Wind moves sediment across the dry
beach, dunes and island interior. During storm events, overwash may breach the island at dune
gaps or other weak spots, depositing sediments on the interior and back sides of islands, increasing
island elevation and accreting the soundside shoreline.

Tidal inlets play a vital role in the dynamics and processes of barrier islands. Sediment is
transferred across inlets from island to island via the tidal shoals or deltas. The longshore sediment
transport often causes barrier spits to accrete, shifting inlets towards the neighboring island. Flood
tidal shoals that are left behind by the migrating inlet are typically incorporated into the soundside
shoreline and marshes of the island, widening it considerably. Many inlets have a cycle of inlet
migration, breaching of the barrier spit during a storm, and closure of the old inlet with the new
breach becoming the new inlet. Barrier spits tend to be low in elevation, sparse in vegetation, and
repeatedly submerged by high and storm tides.

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 (NRC 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.

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
31
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 an erosion problem area to be critical there must
be an existing threat to or loss of one of four specific interests – upland development, recreation,
wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources.

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 (Philibosian 1976; Mann 1977; Witherington and
Martin 1996). 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). The emergence from the nest and crawl to the sea is one of the most critical
periods of a sea turtle’s life. Hatchlings that do not make it to the sea quickly become food for
ghost crabs, birds, and other predators, or become dehydrated and may never reach the sea. In
addition, research has documented significant reduction in sea turtle nesting activity on beaches
illuminated with artificial lights (Witherington 1992). During the 2010 sea turtle nesting season in
Florida, over 47,000 turtle hatchlings were documented as being disoriented (FWC/FWRI 2011).

Predation

Predation of sea turtle eggs and hatchlings by native and introduced species occurs on almost all
nesting beaches. Predation by a variety of predators can considerably decrease sea turtle nest
hatching success. The most common predators in the southeastern U.S. are ghost crabs (Ocypode
quadrata), raccoons (Procyon lotor), feral hogs (Sus scrofa), foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus and
Vulpes vulpes), coyotes (Canis latrans), armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), and fire ants
(Solenopsis invicta) (Dodd 1988; Stancyk 1995). In the absence of nest protection programs in a
number of locations throughout the southeast U.S., raccoons may depredate up to 96 percent of all
nests deposited on a beach (Davis and Whiting 1977; Hopkins and Murphy 1980; Stancyk et al.
1980; Talbert et al. 1980; Schroeder 1981; Labisky et al. 1986).
32
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
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
33
consider potential climate change effects as part of their long-range planning activities (USFWS
2007a).

In the southeastern U.S., climatic change could amplify current land management challenges
involving habitat fragmentation, urbanization, invasive species, disease, parasites, and water
management. Global warming will be a particular challenge for endangered, threatened, and other
“at risk” species. It is difficult to estimate, with any degree of precision, which species will be
affected by climate change or exactly how they will be affected. The Service will use Strategic
Habitat Conservation planning, an adaptive science-driven process that begins with explicit trust
resource population objectives, as the framework for adjusting our management strategies in
response to climate change (USFWS 2006). As the level of information increases relative to the
effects of global climate change on sea turtles and their designated critical habitat, the Service will
have a better basis to address the nature and magnitude of this potential threat and will more
effectively evaluate these effects to the range-wide status of sea turtles.

Temperatures are predicted to rise from 1.6°F to 9°F for North America by the end of this century
(IPCC 2007a, b). Alterations of thermal sand characteristics could result in highly female-biased
sex ratios because sea turtles exhibit temperature dependent sex determination (e.g., Glen and
Mrosovsky 2004; Hawkes et al. 2008).

Along developed coastlines, and especially in areas where shoreline protection structures have been
constructed to limit shoreline movement, rising sea levels will cause severe effects on nesting
females and their eggs. Erosion control structures can result in the permanent loss of dry nesting
beach or deter nesting females from reaching suitable nesting sites (NRC 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 or their designated critical habitat. 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
34
beach at night. Sobel (2002) describes nesting turtles being deterred by wooden lounge chairs that
prevented access to the upper beach. In 2018, a dead female Kemp’s ridley sea turtle washed up
Near Fort Morgan Alabama, entangled in a beach chair (USA Today 2018).

Sand Placement

Sand placement projects may result in changes in sand density (compaction), beach shear resistance
(hardness), beach moisture content, beach slope, sand color, sand grain size, sand grain shape, and
sand grain mineral content if the placed sand is dissimilar from the original beach sand (Nelson and
Dickerson 1988a). These changes could result in adverse impacts on sea turtle nest site selection,
digging behavior, clutch viability, and hatchling emergence (Nelson and Dickerson 1987; Nelson
1988).

Beach nourishment projects create an elevated, wider, and unnatural flat slope berm. Sea turtles
nest closer to the water the first few years after nourishment because of the altered profile (and
perhaps unnatural sediment grain size distribution) (Ernest and Martin 1999; Trindell 2005).
Beach compaction and unnatural beach profiles resulting from beach nourishment activities could
negatively impact sea turtles regardless of the timing of projects. Sand compaction may increase
the length of time required for female sea turtles to excavate nests and cause increased
physiological stress to the animals (Nelson and Dickerson 1988b). The placement of rocky material
may have similar effects. These impacts can be minimized by using suitable sand.

A change in sediment color on a beach could change the natural incubation temperatures of sea
turtle nests in an area, which, in turn, could alter natural sex ratios. To provide the most suitable
sediment for nesting sea turtles, the color of the nourished sediments should resemble the natural
beach sand in the area. Natural reworking of sediments and bleaching from exposure to the sun
would help to lighten dark nourishment sediments; however, the timeframe for sediment mixing
and bleaching to occur could be critical to a successful sea turtle nesting season.

During project construction, predators of eggs and nestlings may be attracted to the Action Area
due to food waste from the construction crew.

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 sea turtles. Between 2012 and early
2016, 62.69 mi (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
35
in the channel (Kaufman and Pilkey 1979). Groins are also shore-perpendicular structures designed
to trap sand that would otherwise be transported by longshore currents. These in-water structures
can cause downdrift erosion and cause 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 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.

36
3.1.5. Tables and Figures for Status of Sea Turtle Species

Table 3-1. Typical values of life history parameters for loggerheads nesting in the U.S. (NMFS and
Service 2008).
Life History Trait Data
Clutch size (mean) 100-126 eggs1
Incubation duration (varies depending on time of year and
latitude) Range = 42-75 days2,3
Pivotal temperature (incubation temperature that produces an
equal number of males and females) 84˚F5
Nest productivity (emerged hatchlings/total eggs) x 100
(varies depending on site specific factors) 45-70 percent2,6
Clutch frequency (number of nests/female/season) 3-4 nests7
Internesting interval (number of days between successive
nests within a season) 12-15 days8
Juvenile (<34 in Curved Carapace Length) sex ratio 65-70 percent female4
Remigration interval (number of years between successive
nesting migrations) 2.5-3.7 years9
Nesting season late April-early September
Hatching season late June-early November
Age at sexual maturity 32-35 years10
Life span >57 years11
1 Dodd (1988).
2 Dodd and Mackinnon (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004).
3 Witherington (2006) (information based on nests monitored throughout Florida beaches in 2005,
n = 865).
4 NMFS (2001); Foley (2005).
5 Mrosovsky (1988).
6 Witherington (2006) (information based on nests monitored throughout Florida beaches in 2005,
n = 1,680).
7 Murphy and Hopkins (1984); Frazer and Richardson (1985); Hawkes et al. 2005; Scott 2006.
8 Caldwell (1962), Dodd (1988).
9 Richardson et al. (1978); Bjorndal et al. (1983).
10 Snover (2005).
11 Dahlen et al. (2000).

37
3.2. Environmental Baseline for Loggerhead, Green, and Kemp’s Ridley Sea
Turtles

This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to
the current status of the three sea turtle species, respectively, sea turtle terrestrial habitat, and the
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 Sea Turtles

The loggerhead sea turtle nesting and hatching season for North Carolina beaches extends from
May 1 through November 15. Incubation ranges from about 45 to 95 days. See Table 3-2 for data
on observed loggerhead and green sea turtle nests on Topsail Island. Data was provided from the
BA and from www.seaturtle.org (accessed on August 28, 2018). The BA provided data concerning
sea turtle nests within the sand placement footprint, while data from www.seaturtle.org provides the
number of sea turtle nests along the entire shoreline of Topsail Island.

The green sea turtle nesting and hatching season on North Carolina beaches extends from May 15
through November 15. Incubation ranges from about 45 to 75 days. Since 2009, 11 green sea turtle
nests have been documented on Topsail Island (Table 3-2), and according to the BA, no green sea
turtle nests were documented in the project footprint between 2012 and 2016.

The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle nesting and hatchling season on North Carolina beaches appears to be
similar to other species. Incubation ranges from 45 to 58 days. One Kemp’s ridley nest was
reported within the project footprint in 2016.

3.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs of and Threats to Sea Turtles

A number 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 3-3 lists the most recent projects in the Action Area, within the
past five years, while Table 3-4 lists BOs within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area that have
been issued since 2014 for adverse impacts to sea turtle species. The total take of sea turtle habitat,
issued in these BOs is 415,787 lf (78.75 mi). A State-wide Programmatic BO, issued in 2017,
allows up to an additional 25 mi of take of sea turtle habitat per year for projects which meet the
T&Cs of the BO (62.5 mi during years after named storms). For reference, North Carolina has
approximately 323 mi of sandy shoreline, of which approximately 146 mi has been or is proposed
for modification by sand placement (Rice 2017), so the amount of take allowed in the past four
years in BOs approaches the total amount of historical, current, and anticipated beach placement
within the state.

Nourishment activities: According to the BA, Topsail Beach has been nourished three times in the
past 8 years: in the winter of 2010/2011, winter/spring of 2012, and the winter of 2013/2014.

38
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.

Inlet dredging activities: According to the BA, dredging of New Topsail Inlet has been conducted
on a regular basis for decades. Congressional authorization for dredging of New Topsail Inlet
began as a modification to authorizations for the AIWW in 1966 (USACE 2015). The Corps
conducted maintenance dredging of the shallow-draft channel two or three times per year in many
years, typically using a side-cast dredge.

Beach scraping or bulldozing: Beach scraping or bulldozing has been frequent on North Carolina
beaches in recent years, in response to storms and the continuing retreat of the shoreline with rising
sea level, but data is not available for Topsail Beach.

39
Sandbags and revetments: There are two existing rock revetments along the coast of North
Carolina: one at Fort Fisher (approximately 3,040 lf), and another along Carolina Beach
(approximately 2,050 lf). A sandbag revetment at least 1,800 lf long (with a geotube in front of a
portion) was constructed in 2015 at the north end of North Topsail Beach, and more sandbags were
recently added to protect a parking lot north of the revetment. In 2000 and 2001, sandbag
revetments were installed on the north end of Figure Eight Island along Surf Court, Inlet Hook
Road, and Comber Road. There are over 30 homes on Topsail Beach with existing sandbag
structures.

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.

Beach Driving: Topsail Beach allows vehicles on the beach between October 1 and March 28.
Beach driving permits are limited to the purposes of fishing. Aerial photography indicates that
vehicles frequently access all sandy portions along the inlet shoulders in New Topsail Inlet,
including the estuarine shoreline. See section 3.1.4 for discussion of the impacts of beach driving.
Gibson et al. (2018) estimated the mean number of vehicles per km surveyed during winter and
spring piping plover surveys. By far, Topsail Beach had the highest number of vehicles observed
per km of any other site in the study (including Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina sites),
with almost one vehicle every 2 km.

Sand fencing: There are a few stretches of sand fencing along the shoreline on Topsail Beach.

3.2.3. Tables for Environmental Baseline for Sea Turtles

Table 3-2. Number of loggerhead nests observed between 2009 and 2017 on Topsail Island and
Lea-Hutaff Island. Data from the BA and from www.seaturtle.org (accessed August 28, 2018). NR
= not reported.

Year Number of Loggerhead Nests Number of Green
Sea Turtle Nests
In Project Area On Topsail Island On Topsail Island
2009 NR 59
2010 NR 104
2011 NR 110
2012 13 84 1
2013 20 132 4
2014 7 53 2
2015 12 67 4
2016 14 165
2017 NR 94

40
Table 3-3. Actions that have occurred on Topsail Island and/or in New Topsail Inlet.

Year Species Impacted Project Type Anticipated Take
Various
and
ongoing,
since the
mid-1900s
or earlier
Loggerhead, green,
and Kemp’s ridley
sea turtle, piping
plover, red knot,
seabeach amaranth
Federal Navigation
Projects in New
Topsail Inlet and
associated
channels, some
events with sand
placement on
Topsail Island
Typically 2,500 lf of shoreline, if
sand is placed on beach
2011, 2012,
2015
Loggerhead, green,
and Kemp’s ridley
sea turtle, piping
plover, red knot,
seabeach amaranth
Dredging of
Topsail Creek,
Banks Channel,
Connector
Channel, AIWW,
with sand
placement on
Topsail Beach
24,700 lf of shoreline
Ongoing Loggerhead, green,
and Kemp’s ridley
sea turtle, piping
plover, red knot,
seabeach amaranth
Shallow-draft Inlet
dredging,
sometimes with
placement on
Topsail Beach
Up to 23,900 lf of shoreline

41
Table 3-4. Biological opinions within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area that have been
issued since 2014 for adverse impacts to sea turtle species.

OPINIONS SPECIES HABITAT
Critical Habitat
(loggerhead)
Habitat
Fiscal Year
2014: 1 BO
Loggerhead, leatherback, green, and
Kemp’s ridley sea turtles
12,600 lf
(2.4 mi)
12,600 lf
(2.4 mi)
Fiscal Year
2015: 5 BOs
Loggerhead, leatherback, green,
hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley sea
turtles
50,268 lf
(9.5 mi)
70,268 lf
(13.3 mi)
Fiscal Year
2016: 7 BOs
Loggerhead, leatherback, green,
hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley sea
turtles
133,150 lf
(25.22 mi)
229,469 lf
(45.25 mi)
Fiscal Year
2017: 2 BOs
Loggerhead, leatherback, green,
hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley sea
turtles
up to 25/62.5 mi
annually
27,650 lf
(5.24 mi) plus
up to 25/62.5
mi annually
Fiscal Year 2018
(to date): 2 BOs
Loggerhead, leatherback, green,
hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley sea
turtles
23,000 lf (4.36
mi)
75,800 lf (14.36
mi)
Total: 17 BOs 219,018 lf
(41.48 mi) + up
to 25/62.5 mi
annually
415,787 lf
(78.75 mi) plus
up to 25/62.5
mi annually

3.3. Effects of the Action on Loggerhead, Green, and Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles

This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Action on the three sea turtle species,
including 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. Our analyses are organized according
to the description of the Action in Section 2 of this BO.

As discussed in Section 3.1, the Service and the NMFS share Federal jurisdiction for sea turtles
under the ESA. The Service has responsibility for sea turtles on the nesting beach. NMFS has
jurisdiction for sea turtles in the marine environment. Therefore, this BO will not consider effects
of dredging on sea turtles within the marine environment (as described in Section 2.2).

42
3.3.1. Effects of Sand Placement 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.

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 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).

43
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 Bjorndal 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). For example, in July 2018 in Atlantic Beach,
NC, more than 80 hatchlings from an unmarked loggerhead sea turtle nest were rescued
from the road, parking lots, and dunes after they were disoriented by artificial lights
(Godfrey 2018, pers. comm.). At least one hatchling was crushed by a car on the road.

A significant reduction in sea turtle nesting activity has also been documented on beaches
illuminated with artificial lights (Witherington 1992). 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 Ridge, Boca
Raton, Town of Palm Beach, Longboat Key, and Bonita Beach) indicated disorientation
reporting increased by approximately 300 percent the first nesting season after project
construction and up to 542 percent the second year compared to pre-nourishment reports
(Trindell et al. 2005).

Specific examples of increased lighting disorientations after a sand placement project
include a sand placement project in Brevard County, Florida, completed in 2002. After the
project, there was an increase of 130 percent in disorientations in the nourished area.
Disorientations on beaches in the County that were not nourished remained constant
(Trindell 2007). This same result was also documented in 2003 when another beach in
Brevard County was nourished and the disorientations increased by 480 percent (Trindell
44
2007). 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).

In a 1994 Florida study comparing loggerhead hatching and emerging success of relocated
nests with nests left in their original location, Moody (1998) found that hatching success
was lower in relocated nests at nine of 12 beaches evaluated. In addition, emerging success
was lower in relocated nests at 10 of 12 beaches surveyed in 1993 and 1994.

Indirect Effects: Many of the direct effects of beach nourishment may persist over time and become
indirect impacts. These indirect effects include increased susceptibility of relocated nests to
catastrophic events, the consequences of potential increased beachfront development, changes in the
physical characteristics of the beach, the formation of escarpments, and future sand migration.

a. Changes in the physical environment

Beach nourishment projects create an elevated, wider, and unnatural flat slope berm. Sea
turtles nest closer to the water the first few years after nourishment because of the altered
profile (and perhaps unnatural sediment grain size distribution) (Ernest and Martin 1999;
Trindell 2005).

Beach compaction and unnatural beach profiles resulting from beach nourishment activities
could negatively impact sea turtles regardless of the timing of 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 to the animals (Nelson and
Dickerson 1988b). These impacts can be minimized by using suitable sand.
45
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 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,
46
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.

Responses and Interpretation of Effects

Sand placement activities may impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea turtle nests
occurring along up to 24,000 lf of shoreline in Topsail Beach. 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, 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, although no work during the nesting season is currently
proposed.

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.

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 activity is a one-time activity and may take up to four and a half months to
complete. 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
47
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) the
nourishment project will modify the incubation substrate, beach slope, and sand compaction; and
(3) artificial lighting will deter and/or misdirect nesting hatchling turtles.

3.4. Cumulative Effects on Loggerhead, Green, and Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles

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. The Service is unaware of any future non-Federal
Actions in the Action area that may affect sea turtles. Therefore, cumulative effects are not relevant
to formulating our opinion for the Action.

3.5. Conclusion for Sea Turtle Species

In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections for loggerhead,
green, 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 three sea turtle species may nest or attempt to nest in the Action Area. Between 2009 and 2017,
the annual number of recorded loggerhead turtle nests on Topsail Island has fluctuated from 53 in
48
2014 to 165 in 2016. 11 green sea turtle nests have been documented on Topsail Island since 2009.
One Kemp’s ridley turtle nest was documented within the proposed project footprint along Topsail
Beach in 2016.

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 has become quite developed. According to the Town of Topsail Beach’s website
(accessed August 28, 2018), prior to World War II, the only access to Topsail Island was by boat.
During the war, large temporary Anti-aircraft training base was developed at nearby Holly Ridge,
and a floating bridge was built to the island in order to develop training facilities. After the war, the
Navy used Topsail Island for development of a guided missile program. After the program ended,
the island was returned to the original owners, but the roads and bridge remained.
Residential/commercial development began in the 1960s, and the Town of Topsail Beach was
incorporated in 1963. A large portion of the Action Area is presently lined with structures,
including motels, restaurants, and gift shops, along with residences. No high-rise development is
allowed. Recreational use in the Action Area is quite high from residents and tourists, including
vehicular driving in the winter months.

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 3-3 lists the most recent projects, within the past 5 years.

Effects

Sand placement activities may impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea turtle nests
occurring along up to 24,000 lf of shoreline in Topsail Beach. 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, 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; however, work is currently not proposed within the sea turtle nesting
season.

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
49
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, and Kemp’s ridley
sea turtle.

4. CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NORTHWEST ATLANTIC (NWA)
POPULATION OF LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLES

4.1. 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 (Caretta caretta) that are
relevant to formulating an opinion about the Action. On July 10, 2014, the Service designated
portions North Carolina beaches as critical habitat for the NWA population of loggerhead sea
turtles (79 FR 39756). Topsail Island is located within critical habitat Unit LOGG-T-NC-03
(Topsail Island, Pender County). From the Federal Register (FR) Notice (see
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2012-0103-0001), this unit consists
of 35.0 km (21.8 mi) of island shoreline along the Atlantic Ocean and extends from New River inlet
to New Topsail Inlet.

4.1.1. Description of Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat

The designated units include terrestrial habitats that support nesting of the loggerhead sea turtle. In
total, 1,189.9 kilometers (km) (739.3 mi) of loggerhead sea turtle nesting beaches are designated
critical habitat in the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and
Mississippi. These beaches account for 48 percent of an estimated 2,464 km (1,531 mi) 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.

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 on 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 loggerhead sea turtle that were identified in its critical habitat
designation rule as PCEs.

50
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—Habitats Protected from Disturbance or Representative of the Historical, Geographic,
and Ecological Distributions of the Species.

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 (the process by which sediments move along the shoreline),
onshore and offshore sand transport (natural erosion or accretion cycle), and tides and storm surge.
The integrity of the habitat components depends upon daily tidal events; these processes are
associated with the formation and movement of barrier islands, inlets, and other coastal landforms
throughout the landscape.

4.1.2. Conservation Value of Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat

The most recent comprehensive review of loggerhead terrestrial critical habitat conditions is the
2013 proposed designation of critical habitat for the NWA population of loggerhead sea turtles (78
FR 18000-18082). We summarize in this section key points from these documents that are relevant
to this BO. Please refer to that document for further details.

Characterizing the current conservation value of loggerhead terrestrial critical habitat is difficult,
due to the multi-state scale of the designation and to the dynamic or ephemeral nature of its PBFs.
Waves, tides, currents, storms, terrestrial runoff, and biological communities interacting with
sediments at the land/sea interface form and maintain loggerhead terrestrial habitats. Various human
activities at the land/sea interface (construction, dredging, sand mining, sand placement, inlet
stabilization/relocation/closure, seawalls, revetments, beach cleaning) disrupt these processes and
reduce or degrade the PBFs. Therefore, a common and practical approach to describing the status of
loggerhead terrestrial critical habitat is to quantify the extent of human alteration of features or
PBFs that are easily measured at large scales.

At the time of designation, the entire designated critical habitat is occupied, and all of the
designated critical habitat contains, to different degrees, the PBFs 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
51
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 listed below are discussed in more detail in Section 3.1.2, above, and in the
March 25, 2013 proposed designation (78 FR 18000-18082).

Recreational beach use: beach cleaning (including rock-picking), human presence (e.g., dog beach,
special events, piers, and recreational beach equipment). Beach cleaning is increasing in the
southeastern U.S., especially in Florida. Beach cleaning also occurs in a few locations in South
Carolina, North Carolina, and Alabama. Human presence on the beach at night during the nesting
season may reduce the quality of nesting habitat by deterring or disturbing nesting sea turtles and
causing them to avoid otherwise suitable habitat. Recreational beach equipment, such as lounge
chairs and umbrellas, left 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 false crawls at these obstacles is becoming
increasingly common as more recreational beach equipment is left on the beach at night.

Beach driving: essential and nonessential off-road vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, and recreational
access and use. Beach driving has been found to reduce the quality of loggerhead nesting habitat in
several ways. In the southeastern U.S., vehicle ruts on the beach have been found to prevent or
impede hatchlings from reaching the ocean following emergence from the nest (Hosier et al. 1981;
Cox et al. 1994; Hughes and Caine 1994). Sand compaction by vehicles has been found to hinder
nest construction and hatchling emergence from nests (Mann 1977). Vehicle lights and vehicle
movement on the beach after dark results in reduced habitat suitability, which can deter females
from nesting and disorient hatchlings. If driving occurs at night, sea turtles could be run over and
injured. Additionally, vehicle traffic on nesting beaches contributes to erosion, especially during
high tides or on narrow beaches where driving is concentrated on the high beach and foredune.

Predation: depredation of eggs and hatchlings by native and nonnative predators. Predation of sea
turtle eggs and hatchlings by native and nonnative species occurs on almost all nesting beaches.
Predation by a variety of predators can considerably decrease sea turtle nest hatching success. In
addition, nesting turtles harassed by predators (e.g., coyotes, red foxes) on the beach may abort
nesting attempts (Hope 2012, pers. comm.). Thus, the presence of predators can affect the
suitability of nesting habitat.

Beach sand placement activities: beach nourishment, beach restoration, inlet sand bypassing,
dredge material disposal, dune construction, emergency sand placement after natural disaster, berm
construction, and dune and berm planting. Substantial amounts of sand are deposited along Gulf of
Mexico and Atlantic Ocean beaches to protect coastal properties in anticipation of preventing
erosion and what otherwise would be considered natural processes of overwash and island
migration. Constructed beaches tend to differ from natural beaches in several important ways for
sea turtles. They are typically wider, flatter, and more compact, and the sediments are moister than
those on natural beaches (Nelson et al. 1987; Ackerman et al. 1991; Ernest and Martin 1999). On
52
severely eroded sections of beach, where little or no suitable nesting habitat previously existed,
sand placement can result in increased nesting (Ernest and Martin 1999). There are important
ephemeral impacts associated with beach sand placement activities. In most cases, a significantly
larger proportion of turtles emerging on engineered beaches abandon their nesting attempts than
turtles emerging on natural or pre-nourished beaches, even though more nesting habitat is available
(Trindell et al. 1998; Ernest and Martin 1999; Herren 1999), with nesting success approximately 10
to 34 percent lower on nourished beaches than on control beaches during the first year post-
nourishment. This reduction in nesting success is most pronounced during the first year following
project construction and is most likely the result of changes in physical beach characteristics (beach
profile, sediment grain size, beach compaction, frequency and extent of escarpments) associated
with the nourishment project (Ernest and Martin 1999). During the first post-construction year, the
time required for turtles to excavate an egg chamber on untilled, hard-packed sands increases
significantly relative to natural beach conditions. Also during the first post-construction year, nests
on nourished beaches are deposited significantly more seaward of the toe of the dune 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.

In-water and shoreline alterations: artificial in-water and shoreline stabilization measures (e.g., in-
water erosion control structures, such as groins, breakwaters, jetties), inlet relocation, inlet
dredging, nearshore dredging, and dredging and deepening channels. Many navigable mainland or
barrier island tidal inlets along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts are stabilized with jetties or
groins. 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 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 loggerhead 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.

Coastal development: residential and commercial development and associated activities including
beach armoring (e.g., sea walls, geotextile tubes, rock revetments, sandbags, emergency temporary
armoring); and activities associated with construction, repair, and maintenance of upland structures,
stormwater outfalls, and piers. Coastal development not only causes the loss and degradation of
suitable nesting habitat, but can result in the disruption of powerful coastal processes accelerating
erosion and interrupting the natural shoreline migration. This may in turn cause the need to protect
upland structures and infrastructure by armoring, which causes changes in additional loss of, or
impact to the remaining sea turtle habitat. In the southeastern U.S., numerous armoring or erosion
control structures (e.g., bulkheads, seawalls, soil retaining walls, rock revetments, sandbags,
geotextile tubes) that create barriers to nesting have been constructed to protect upland residential
53
and commercial development. Armoring is any rigid structure placed parallel to the shoreline on
the upper beach to prevent both landward retreat of the shoreline and inundation or loss of upland
property by flooding and wave action (Kraus and McDougal 1996). Although armoring structures
may provide short-term protection to beachfront property, they do little to promote or maintain
sandy beaches used by loggerhead sea turtles for nesting. These structures influence natural
shoreline processes and the physical beach environment, but the effects are not well understood.
However, it is clear that armoring structures prevent long-term recovery of the beach and dune
system by physically prohibiting dune formation from wave uprush and wind-blown sand
movement.

In addition to coastal armoring, there are a variety of other coastal construction activities that may
affect sea turtles and their nesting habitat. These include construction, repair, and maintenance of
upland structures and dune crossovers; installation of utility cables; installation and repair of public
infrastructure (such as coastal highways and emergency evacuation routes); and construction
equipment and lighting associated with any of these activities. Many of these activities alter nesting
habitat, as well as directly harm adults, nests, and hatchlings. Most direct construction-related
impacts can be avoided by requiring that nonemergency activities be performed outside of the
nesting and hatching season.

Artificial lighting: direct and indirect lighting, skyglow, and bonfires. Coastal development
contributes to habitat degradation by increasing light pollution (Witherington and Martin 1996).
Experimental studies have shown that artificial lighting deters adult female turtles from emerging
from the ocean to nest (Witherington 1992). Witherington (1986) also found that loggerheads
aborted nesting attempts at a greater frequency in lighted areas. In addition, because adult females
rely on visual brightness cues to find their way back to the ocean after nesting, those turtles that nest
on lighted beaches may become disoriented by artificial lighting and have difficulty finding their
way back to the ocean. Hatchlings, unable to find the ocean or delayed in reaching it, are likely to
incur high mortality from dehydration, exhaustion, or predation (Carr and Ogren 1960; Ehrhart and
Witherington 1987; Witherington and Martin 1996). Based on hatchling orientation index surveys
at nests located at 23 representative beaches in six counties around Florida in 1993 and 1994,
Witherington et al. (1996) found that, by county, approximately 10 to 30 percent of nests showed
evidence of hatchlings disoriented by lighting. Mortality of disoriented hatchlings is likely very
high (NMFS and USFWS 2008).

Beach erosion: erosion due to aperiodic, short-term weather-related erosion events, such as
atmospheric fronts, northeasters, tropical storms, and hurricanes. Natural beach erosion events may
influence the quality of nesting habitat. Short-term erosion events (e.g., atmospheric fronts,
northeasters, tropical storms, and hurricanes) are common phenomena throughout the NWA
loggerhead nesting range and may vary considerably from year to year. Although these erosion
events may affect loggerhead hatchling production, the results are generally localized and they
rarely result in whole-scale losses over multiple nesting seasons. The negative effects of hurricanes
on low-lying and developed shorelines used for nesting by loggerheads may be longer-lasting and a
greater threat overall. Hurricanes and other storm events 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 affect sea turtles by causing the
loss of nesting habitat. Depending on their frequency, storms can affect sea turtles on either a short-
54
or long-term basis. 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. When combined with the
effects of sea level rise (see the threat category for climate change below for additional
information), there may be increased cumulative impacts from future storms.

Climate change: including sea level rise. Climate change has the potential to impact loggerhead sea
turtles in the Northwest Atlantic. The decline in loggerhead nesting in Florida from 1998 to 2007,
as well as the recent increase, appears to be tied to climatic conditions (Van Houtan and Halley
2011). Global sea level during the 20th century rose at an estimated rate of about 1.7 millimeters
(mm) (0.7 in) per year or an estimated 17 centimeter (cm) (6.7 in) over the entire 100-year period, a
rate that is an order of magnitude greater than that seen during the several millennia that followed
the end of the last ice age (Bindoff et al. 2007). Potential impacts of climate change to NWA
loggerheads include beach erosion from rising sea levels, repeated inundation of nests, skewed
hatchling sex ratios from rising incubation temperatures, and abrupt disruption of ocean currents
used for natural dispersal during the complex life cycle (Fish et al. 2005; Hawkes et al. 2009).
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 loggerhead
nesting habitat and nesting females and their eggs. The loss of habitat as a result of climate change
could be accelerated due to a combination of other environmental and oceanographic changes such
as an increase in the intensity of storms and/ or changes in prevailing currents, both of which could
lead to increased beach loss via erosion (Kennedy et al. 2002; Meehl et al. 2007).

Habitat obstructions: tree stumps, fallen trees, and other debris on the beach; nearshore sand bars;
and ponding along beachfront seaward of dry beach. Both natural and anthropogenic features can
act as barriers or deterrents to adult females attempting to access a beach. In addition, hatchlings
often must navigate through a variety of obstacles before reaching the ocean. These include natural
and human-made debris. Research has shown that travel times of hatchlings from the nest to the
water may be extended when traversing areas of heavy foot traffic or vehicular ruts (Hosier et al.
1981); the same is true of debris on the beach. Hatchlings may be upended and spend both time and
energy in righting themselves. Some beach debris may have the potential to trap hatchlings and
prevent them from successfully reaching the ocean. In addition, debris over the tops of nests may
impede or prevent hatchling emergence.

Human-caused disasters and response to natural and human-caused disasters: oil spills, oil spill
response including beach cleaning and berm construction, and debris cleanup after natural disasters.
Oil spills threaten loggerhead sea turtles in the Northwest Atlantic. Oil spills in the vicinity of
nesting beaches just prior to or during the nesting season place nesting females, incubating egg
clutches, and hatchlings at significant risk from direct exposure to contaminants (Fritts and
McGehee 1982; Lutcavage et al. 1997; Witherington 1999), as well as negative impacts on nesting
habitat. Oil cleanup activities can also be harmful. Earth-moving equipment can dissuade females
from nesting and destroy nests, containment booms can entrap hatchlings, and lighting from
nighttime activities can misdirect turtles (Witherington 1999)

Military testing and training activities: troop presence, pyrotechnics and nighttime lighting,
vehicles and amphibious watercraft usage on the beach, helicopter drops and extractions, live fire
55
exercises, and placement and removal of objects on the beach. The presence of soldiers and other
personnel on the beach, particularly at night during nesting and hatching season, could result in
harm or death to individual nesting turtles or hatchlings, as well as deter females from nesting.
Training exercises require concentration and often involve inherently dangerous activities. A
nesting sea turtle or emerging hatchling could be overlooked and injured or killed by training
activities on the beach. Training activities also may require the use of pyrotechnics and lighting, and
both nesting and hatchling sea turtles are adversely affected by the presence of artificial lighting on
or near the beach (Witherington and Martin 1996). The use of vehicles for amphibious assault
training, troop transport, helicopter landing drops and extraction, search and rescue, and unmanned
aerial vehicle use all have the potential to injure or kill nesting females and emerging hatchlings. In
addition, heavy vehicles have the potential to compact sand that may affect the ability of hatchlings
to climb out of nests or create ruts that entrap hatchlings after emergence. Live fire exercises are
inherently dangerous, and spent ammunition could injure or kill sea turtles and hatchlings,
particularly at night. A nesting sea turtle or emerging hatchling could approach the beach area
during an exercise and be harmed or killed. Digging into the sand to place or remove objects (e.g.,
mine placement and extraction) could result in direct mortality of developing embryos in nests
within the training area for those nests that are missed during daily nesting surveys and thus not
marked for avoidance.

4.1.3. Conservation Needs for Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat

Under the definition of critical habitat in the ESA, 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 critical habitat 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 more difficult to maintain protected habitats from disturbance or habitats
representative of the historical, geographic, and ecological distributions of the species (PBF 2) on a
large scale. Across the southeastern U.S., areas where natural coastal processes are allowed to
occur are almost exclusively located on protected state and federal lands; however, even these areas
are subject to increasing pressure to nourish beaches and allow beach driving or other forms of
increased recreational access.

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.
56

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 ESA 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. 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.

4.2. 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.

4.2.1. Action Area Conservation Value of Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat

For the NRU, the Service has designated 393.7 km (244.7 mi) of Atlantic Ocean shoreline in North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, encompassing approximately 86 percent of the documented
number of nests within the recovery unit. The eight critical habitat units in North Carolina total
96.1 mi (154.6 km) of beach. 15.1 mi (24.3 km) are located within state-owned lands, while 81 mi
(130.3 km) are on land owned by private parties or others, such as counties and municipalities.

As stated in Section 4.1, Topsail Beach is located within critical habitat Unit LOGG-T-NC-03. This
unit has high-density nesting by loggerhead sea turtles in North Carolina. This critical habitat unit
is one of 38 designated critical habitat units for the Northern Recovery Unit of the NWA Ocean
DPS. Up to a quarter of this acreage has been affected recently by activities such as beach
nourishment and sandbag revetment construction, or is proposed for such activities. However, with
the exception of beach nourishment activities, sandbags, groin construction, and recreational
activities, most of the critical habitat units in North Carolina remain relatively unaffected by
development

57
The units in North Carolina contain both of the PBFs, although some have more stressors than
others. The critical habitat unit in the Action Area provides 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.

4.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs for and Threats to Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical
Habitat

The Action Area is developed and most of it is under private ownership that may support new
coastal development. Residential and commercial development began in the mid-1960’s. Large
portions of the Action Area are presently lined with structures. Recreational use in the Action Area
is quite high from residents and tourists, including beach driving in the winter. The Action Area
and adjacent beaches are managed in order to protect sea turtle nesting habitat by prohibiting beach
driving within the nesting season, and local ordinances requiring the removal of beach equipment
and chairs after sundown. A local volunteer organization conducts daily monitoring of sea turtle
nests during the nesting season.

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 3-3 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 those to sea turtles
in general. See Section 3.2.2 for threats within the Action Area.

4.3. Effects of the Action on Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat

This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Action on critical habitat for loggerhead
sea turtles, 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 on Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat

Sand placement activities may impact loggerhead terrestrial critical habitat along up to 24,000 lf of
shoreline in Topsail Beach. Sand placement activities would occur within designated critical
habitat.

The sand placement activity is a one-time activity and is expected to take up to four and a half
months to complete. Thus, the direct effects would be expected to be short-term in duration.
Indirect effects from the activity may continue to loggerhead terrestrial critical habitat in subsequent
nesting seasons.

58
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 3.3.1. Placement of sand on a beach may
adversely affect PBFs 1 and 2. Driving on the beach can also 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).

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 PBFs
1 and 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 PBFs 1 and 2. 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).

Incompatible sediment and unnatural beach profiles resulting from beach nourishment activities
could negatively impact PBFs 1 and 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). Large
amounts of rock or gravel can also cause issues for females attempting to construct a nest and
hatchlings attempting to egress a nest. 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 and sediment grain size 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 PBFs 1 and 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.

Increased beachfront development may adversely affect PBF 2. 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.
59
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.

4.4. Cumulative Effects on 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. The Service is unaware of any future non-Federal
Actions in the Action area that may affect loggerhead critical habitat. Therefore, cumulative effects
are not relevant to formulating our opinion for the Action.

4.5. Conclusion for Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat

In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections for 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:
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.

“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

The entire designated critical habitat for the NWA Population of the loggerhead sea turtle is
occupied, and all of the designated critical habitat contains the PBFs 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.

Baseline

This critical habitat unit (LOGG-T-NC-03; Topsail Island) is one of 38 designated critical habitat
units for the Northern Recovery Unit of the NWA Ocean DPS. In North Carolina, 96.1 shoreline
mi (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 and sandbag revetment
60
construction. However, with the exception of beach nourishment activities, sandbags, 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 relatively 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
placement of incompatible sediment, 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
Ocean DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle.

5. PIPING PLOVER

5.1. 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).

Multiple recovery plans and 5-year reviews have been developed for the three piping plover
populations since listing, including a 1988 recovery plan and 1994 revised draft recovery plan for
the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains populations (USFWS 1998; USFWS 1994), a 1996
revised recovery plan for the Atlantic Coast breeding population (USFWS 1996a), a 2003 recovery
plan for the Great Lakes population (USFWS 2003a), a document outlining the comprehensive
conservation strategy (CCS) for the piping plover in its coastal migration and wintering range
(USFWS 2012), and a 2016 recovery plan for the Northern Great Plains piping plover (USFWS
2015), which incorporates an updated CCS.

Our most recent 5-year status review of the species recommended retaining the current ESA
classification (USFWS 2009c). The status review also summarized data that would support
classifying the piping plover for ESA purposes as two subspecies, C. m. melodus (Atlantic Coast
61
breeding population), and C. m. circumcinctus. Additional data would support classifying the latter
as two discrete breeding populations: (a) the Northern Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada, and (b)
the Great Lakes watershed of the U.S. and Canada. However, the review concludes that revising the
classification accordingly would have little regulatory or conservation effect, because the current
classification appropriately represents the status of the three breeding populations.

5.1.1. 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).

North Carolina is one of the only states where piping plovers’ 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. 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.

5.1.2. Life History of Piping Plover

Named for its melodic mating call, the piping plover is a pale-colored shorebird about the size of a
robin. Length is 17–18 cm; weight is 43–63 g. Plumage, bill, and leg coloration are slightly
different between the breeding season and winter, between juveniles and adults, and between males
and females. 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 Society 2017). Plovers are known to begin breeding as early
as one year of age (MacIvor 1990; Haig 1992). In studies with large numbers of marked interior
breeding piping plovers, Saunders et al. (2014) found that 56 percent of female Great Lakes piping
plovers mated in their first season post-hatch, while 68 percent of female yearlings mated in
Saskatchewan in 2001-2006 (Gratto-Trevor et al. 2010). Both studies found that probability of
breeding in the first year was lower for males than females, but Great Lakes males that had not bred
earlier were more likely than females to recruit into the breeding population in years two and three.
Virtually all surviving Great Lakes piping plovers began breeding by year three (Saunders et al.
2014). Piping plover breeding activity begins in mid-March when birds begin returning to their
nesting areas (Coutu et al. 1990; Cross 1990; Goldin et al. 1990; MacIvor 1990; Hake 1993). Piping
62
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).

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. The species requires broad, open, sand flats for feeding, and undisturbed flats with low
dunes and sparse dune grasses for nesting. 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). Following establishment of nesting territories and courtship
rituals, the pair forms a depression in the sand, where the female lays her eggs. Egg-laying begins
around mid-April with nesting and brood rearing activities continuing through July. They lay three
to four eggs in shallow, scraped depressions lined with light colored pebbles and shell fragments.
The eggs are well camouflaged and blend extremely well with their surroundings. Chicks are
precocial, often leaving the nest within hours of hatching, but are tended by adults who lead the
chicks to and from feeding areas, shelter them from harsh weather, and protect the young from
perceived predators. Chicks remain together with one or both parents until they fledge (are able to
fly) at 25 to 35 days of age. 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). Behavioral observations of piping plovers on the wintering grounds
suggest that they spend the majority of their time foraging and roosting (Nicholls and Baldassarre
1990; Drake 1999a; 1999b; Maddock et al. 2009). Feeding activities may occur during all hours of
the day and night (Staine and Burger 1994; Zonick 1997), and at all stages in the tidal cycle (Goldin
1993; Hoopes 1993). Wintering plovers primarily feed on invertebrates such as polychaete marine
worms, various crustaceans, fly larvae, beetles, and occasionally bivalve mollusks found on top of
the soil or just beneath the surface (Bent 1929; Cairns 1977; Nicholls 1989; Zonick and Ryan
63
1996). 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.

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 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. 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.

Piping plovers exhibit a high degree of intra- and interannual wintering site fidelity (Nicholls and
Baldassarre 1990b; Drake et al. 2001; Noel and Chandler 2008; Stucker and Cuthbert 2006; Gibson
et al. 2017). However, local movements during winter are more common. In South Carolina,
Maddock et al. (2009) documented many cross-inlet movements by wintering banded piping
plovers as well as occasional movements of up to 11.2 mi by approximately 10 percent of the
banded population. Larger movements within South Carolina were seen during fall and spring
migration.

5.1.3. 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).

The most consistent finding in the various population viability analyses conducted for piping
plovers (Ryan et al. 1993; Melvin and Gibbs 1996; Plissner and Haig 2000; Amirault et al. 2005;
Calvert et al. 2006; Brault 2007; Gibson et al. 2018) indicates even small declines in adult and
juvenile survival rates will cause increases in extinction risk. A banding study conducted between
1998 and 2004 in Atlantic Canada concluded lower return rates of juvenile (first year) birds to the
breeding grounds than was documented for Massachusetts (Melvin and Gibbs 1996), Maryland
(Loegering 1992), and Virginia (Cross 1996) breeding populations in the mid-1980s and very early
1990s. This is consistent with failure of the Atlantic Canada population to increase in abundance
despite high productivity (relative to other breeding populations) and extremely low rates of
dispersal to the U.S. over the last 15 plus years (Amirault et al. 2005). This suggests maximizing
productivity does not ensure population increases. However, Drake et al. (2001) observed no
mortality among 49 radio-marked piping plovers (total of 2,704 transmitter-days) in Texas in the
64
1990s. Cohen et al. (2008) also reported no mortality among a small sample (n=7) of radio-marked
piping plovers at Oregon Inlet, North Carolina in 2005-2006.

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 Northern Great Plains breeding population is geographically widespread, with many birds in
very remote places, especially in the U.S. and Canadian alkali lakes. The decline of piping plovers
on rivers in the Northern Great Plains has been largely attributed to the loss of sandbar island
habitat and forage base due to dam construction and operation. Nesting occurs on sand flats or bare
shorelines of rivers and lakes, including sandbar islands in the upper Missouri River system, and
patches of sand, gravel, or pebbly-mud on the alkali lakes of the northern Great Plains. Plovers do
nest on shorelines of reservoirs created by the dams, but reproductive success is often low and
reservoir habitat is not available in many years due to high water levels or vegetation. Dams
operated with steady constant flows allow vegetation to grow on potential nesting islands, making
these sites unsuitable for nesting. Population declines in alkali wetlands are attributed to wetland
drainage, contaminants, and predation.

Every fifth year since 1991, the USGS has coordinated a range wide International Piping Plover
Census (IPPC) on both the species’ wintering and breeding grounds. Results from the most recent
census in 2016 are not yet published. The IPPC numbers indicate that the Northern Great Plains
breeding population (including Canada) declined from 1991 through 2001, and then increased
dramatically in 2006. This increase corresponded with a multi-year drought in the Missouri River
basin that exposed a great deal of nesting habitat, suggesting that the population can respond fairly
rapidly to changes in habitat quantity and quality. Despite this improvement, we do not consider
the elements of the population recovery criteria achieved.

As the Missouri River basin emerged from drought and breeding habitat was inundated in
subsequent years after 2006, the population declined (Figure 5-1). Combined with the numbers
from Canada, the IPPC numbers suggest that the population declined from 1991 through 2001, then
increased almost 58% between 2001 and 2006 (Elliott-Smith et al. 2009). The 2011 breeding
census count was substantially lower than the count in 2006 (over 4,500 birds in 2006 and 2,249 in
2011) (Elliott-Smith et al. 2015). It is unknown if the decrease in counts is an accurate accounting
of the piping plover population numbers, or if birds were not counted due to displacement from
flooding in the region that made traditional habitat unsuitable. The management activities carried
out in many areas during drought conditions undoubtedly helped to maintain and increase the
piping plover population, especially to mitigate for otherwise poor reproductive success during wet
years when habitat is limited.

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
65
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
(Figure 5-2) (Cuthbert and Roche 2007; Cuthbert and Roche 2006; Westbrock et al. 2005; Stucker
and Cuthbert 2004; Stucker et al. 2003; Cuthbert and Saunders 2013). The Great Lakes piping
plover recovery plan documents the 2002 population at 51 breeding pairs (USFWS 2003a), and in
2016, 75 breeding pairs were estimated (Cavalieri pers. comm. 2016a). The total of 75 breeding
pairs represents 50% of the current recovery goal of 150 breeding pairs for the Great Lakes
breeding population. Productivity goals, as specified in the 2003 recovery plan, have been met over
the past 5 years. During this time period the average annual fledging rate has varied, but averages
about 1.7, well above the 1.5 fledglings per breeding pair recovery goal (Cavalieri pers. comm.
2016d). The total estimated population in 2016, including breeding pairs, non-breeding adults, and
2016 chicks, was approximately 330 individuals. Approximately 130 of those were 2016 chicks.
However, that number is expected to have declined quickly over the winter months with the
expected mortality of some hatch-year and after-hatch year adults (Cavalieri pers. comm. 2016b).
Survival of fledged hatch-year individuals has been estimated at approximately 37% (Roche et al.
2008; Saunders et al. 2014). Analyses of banded piping plovers in the Great Lakes suggests that
after-hatch year (adult) survival rates are declining, although management of merlin (Falco
columbarius) predation on the breeding grounds appears to have allowed the survival rate to
stabilize (Roche et al. 2010a; 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.

The Great Lakes annual monitoring program is an intensive survey effort with nearly daily
monitoring of active breeding locations. Virtually all of the Great Lakes individuals are banded,
unlike individuals from the Atlantic Coast or Northern Great Plains breeding populations. Chicks
also receive bands identifying the brood to which they belong, and receive an individual band when
returning to the breeding grounds after surviving their first year. Banding of Great Lakes birds
began in 1993 (University of Minnesota 2017). The probability of detection of adults during the
breeding season is near perfect (95-97%). Several years of population growth is evidence of the
66
effectiveness of the ongoing Great Lakes piping plover recovery program. However, the average
annual growth of just less than 2.3% in this small population typically results in only 3 or 4
additional surviving individuals each year (Catlin pers. comm. 2016a).

A single breeding pair discovered in 2007 in the Great Lakes region of Canada represented the first
confirmed piping plover nest there in over 30 years. The number of nesting pairs in Canada
increased to four in 2008, six in 2011, and 15 in 2016 (Cavalieri pers. comm. 2016a; 2016d). These
15 nesting pairs are included in the total population of 75 breeding pairs above.

Survival rates in general for Great Lakes piping plovers have declined over 20 percentage points
since 1994 (Saunders pers. comm. 2016). The estimated annual survival rates in 1994 for males in
the Great Lakes breeding population was 0.878 (or almost 88%), while the survival rate for females
was a bit lower at 0.87. The survival rates have fallen steadily since then, and by 2012, the survival
rate was 0.667 for males and 0.650 for females (Saunders pers. comm. 2016). During this time,
adult predation by merlins increased as a result of a general increase in merlin population numbers
and a range expansion that began in the 1980s (Haas 2011; Cava et al. 2014). Management of
merlin predation on the breeding grounds appears to have allowed the survival rate to stabilize
(Roche et al. 2010a; Saunders pers. comm. 2016). Fluctuations in the number of breeding pairs
between 2009 and 2016 may have been caused by weather conditions or merlin predation (Elliott-
Smith et al. 2015).

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 20th 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 (see Table 4, USFWS 1996a). There was little focus on
gathering quantitative data on piping plovers in Massachusetts through the late 1960s because the
species was commonly observed and presumed to be secure. However, numbers of piping plover
67
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
(Tables 5-1 and 5-2). 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 population was over 182
percent between 1989 and 2015, but the subpopulation recovery 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.

Twenty years of relatively steady population growth, driven by productivity gains, 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 remain or 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).

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
68
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. 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; 2018). 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. In South Carolina, Maddock et al. (2009) documented many
cross-inlet movements by wintering banded piping plovers as well as occasional movements of up
to 18 km by approximately 10% of the banded population; larger movements within South Carolina
were seen during fall and spring migration. Similarly, eight banded piping plovers that were
observed in two locations during 2006-2007 surveys in Louisiana and Texas were all in close
proximity to their original location, such as on the bay and ocean side of the same island or on
adjoining islands (Maddock 2008). In Cape Lookout National Seashore, wintering banded birds
were surveyed along Shackleford Banks. Individual birds were always observed in the same
general area over multiple seasons, indicating that the wintering birds are very site-specific and
return to the same area in consecutive years (NPS 2003).

The majority of birds from the Canadian Prairie were observed in Texas (particularly southern
Texas), while individuals from the U.S. Great Plains were more widely distributed on the Gulf
Coast from Texas to Florida. Seventy-nine percent of 57 piping plovers banded in the Bahamas in
2010 were reported breeding on the Atlantic Coast; one was resighted in the Northern Great Plains
(Catlin pers. comm. 2012a). Furthermore, consistent with patterns observed in other parts of the
wintering range, a few individuals banded in the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains breeding
populations have been observed in the Bahamas (Gratto-Trevor pers. comm. 2012; Catlin pers.
comm. 2012a). Collectively, these studies demonstrate an intermediate level of connectivity
between breeding and wintering areas. Specific breeding populations will be disproportionately
affected by habitat and threats occurring where they are most concentrated in the winter (USFWS
2015).

69
Five rangewide mid-winter IPPCs are summarized in Table 5-3. 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.

IPPC surveys may substantially underestimate the abundance of nonbreeding piping plovers using a
site or region during other months. In late September 2007, 104 piping plovers were counted at the
south end of Ocracoke Island, North Carolina (NPS 2007), where none were seen during the 2006
International Piping Plover January Winter Census (Elliott-Smith et al. 2009). Noel et al. (2007)
observed up to 100 piping plovers during peak migration at Little St. Simons Island, Georgia, where
approximately 40 piping plovers wintered in 2003–2005. Differences among fall, winter, and
spring counts in South Carolina were less pronounced, but inter-year fluctuations (e.g., 108 piping
plovers in spring 2007 versus 174 piping plovers in spring 2008) at 28 sites were striking (Maddock
et al. 2009). Even as far south as the Florida Panhandle, monthly counts at Phipps Preserve in
Franklin County ranged from a mid-winter low of four piping plovers in December 2006 to peak
counts of 47 in October 2006 and March 2007 (Smith 2007).

5.1.4. Conservation Needs of and Threats to Piping Plover

Reason for Listing

Piping plovers were listed principally because of habitat destruction and degradation, predation, and
human disturbance. 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. The final rule also stated, in addition to extensive breeding area problems, the loss and
modification of wintering habitat was a significant threat to the piping plover.

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).

70
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)

1. Increase and maintain for 5 years a total of 2,000 breeding pairs, distributed among 4 recovery
units.

Recovery Unit Minimum Subpopulation
Atlantic (eastern) Canada 400 pairs
New England 625 pairs
New York-New Jersey 575 pairs
Southern (DE-MD-VA-NC) 400 pairs

2. Verify the adequacy of a 2,000 pair population of piping plovers to maintain heterozygosity and
allelic diversity over the long term.
3. Achieve a 5-year average productivity of 1.5 fledged chicks per pair in each of the 4 recovery
units described in criterion 1, based on data from sites that collectively support at least 90% of
the recovery unit’s population.
4. Institute long-term agreements to assure protection and management sufficient to maintain the
population targets and average productivity in each recovery unit.
5. Ensure long-term maintenance of wintering habitat, sufficient in quantity, quality, and
distribution to maintain survival rates for a 2,000-pair population.

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.
71
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 Piping Plovers

The three recovery plans state that shoreline development throughout the wintering range poses a
threat to all populations of piping plovers. The plans further state that beach maintenance and
nourishment, inlet dredging, and artificial structures, such as jetties, groins, and revetments, could
eliminate wintering areas and alter sedimentation patterns leading to the loss of nearby habitat.
Unregulated motorized and pedestrian recreational use, inlet and shoreline stabilization projects,
beach maintenance and nourishment, and pollution affect most winter and migration areas. Data
from studies at Hilton Head, Kiawah Island, and other locations in South Carolina and Georgia
demonstrate that impacts from poor winter habitat conditions can be seen the following year on the
breeding grounds (Saunders et al. 2014; Gibson et al. 2016). Piping plovers wintering at areas with
fewer anthropogenic disturbances had higher survival, recruitment, and population growth rates
than areas with greater disturbance.

Important components of ecologically sound barrier beach management include perpetuation of
natural dynamic coastal formation processes. Structural development along the shoreline or
manipulation of natural inlets upsets the dynamic processes and results in habitat loss or
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. As discussed in more detail
below, all these efforts result in loss of piping plover habitat. 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.
Construction 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
72
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. The 2016 draft CCS includes a table to help
the reader determine the relative importance of each threat, ranked as low, medium, or high based
on how much of a threat they are to the wintering population (Table 5-4).

Table 5-5 lists biological opinions since 2014 within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area that
have been issued for adverse impacts to piping plovers and 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.

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.

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.

There are approximately 2,119 mi of sandy beaches within the U.S. continental wintering range of
the piping plover (Rice 2012b). Approximately 40% (856 mi) 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.

Rice (2012b) has identified over 900 mi (43%) of sandy beaches in the wintering range that are
currently “preserved” through public ownership, ownership by non-governmental conservation
organizations, or conservation easements. This means that the remaining 17% of shoreline habitat
(that which is currently undeveloped but not preserved) is susceptible to future loss to development
and the attendant threats from shoreline stabilization activities and sea level rise. These preserved
73
beaches may be subject to some erosion as they migrate in response to sea level rise or if sediment
is removed from the coastal system, and they are vulnerable to recreational disturbance. However,
they are the areas most likely to maintain the geomorphic characteristics of suitable piping plover
habitat.

Inlet 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).
Inlet shoals consist of ebb shoals, formed by wave action interacting with the ebb tidal flow, and
flood shoals, formed through supply and deposition from the littoral system into the bay during
flood tide. Sediment initially is deposited in the near-field flood zone, closest to the inlet entrance.
A far-field zone forms through the spreading of sediment from the near-field zone farther into the
bay (Carr de Betts, 1999). 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. There are very few studies on the impacts of flood shoal
mining.

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 a
schedule ranging from quarterly to every two to three years, resulting in continual perturbations and
modifications to inlet and adjacent shoreline habitat. The volumes of sediment removed in the
larger projects can be significant, 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 five 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
74
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.

As sand sources for beach nourishment projects have become more limited, the mining of ebb tidal
shoals for sediment has increased (Cialone and Stauble 1998). This is a problem because exposed
ebb and flood tidal shoals and sandbars are prime roosting and foraging habitats for piping plovers.
In general, such areas are only accessible by boat; and as a result, they tend to receive less human
recreational use than nearby mainland beaches. Rice (2012a) found that the ebb shoal complexes of
at least 20 inlets within the wintering range of the piping plover have been mined for beach fill.
Ebb shoals are especially important because they act as “sand bridges” that connect beaches and
islands by transporting sediment via longshore transport from one side (updrift) to the other
(downdrift) side of an inlet. The mining of sediment from these shoals upsets the inlet system
equilibrium and can lead to increased erosion of the adjacent inlet shorelines (Cialone and Stauble
1998). Rice (2012a) noted that this mining of material from inlet shoals for use as beach fill is not
equivalent to the natural sediment bypassing that occurs at unmodified inlets for several reasons,
most notably for the massive volumes involved that are “transported” virtually instantaneously
instead of gradually and continuously and for the placement of the material outside of the
immediate inlet vicinity, where it would naturally bypass. The mining of inlet shoals can remove
massive amounts of sediment, with 1.98 mcy mined for beach fill from Longboat Pass (Florida) in
1998, 1.7 mcy from Shallotte Inlet (North Carolina) in 2001 and 1.6 mcy from Redfish Pass
(Florida) in 1988 (Cialone and Stauble 1998, USACE 2004). Cialone and Stauble (1998) found that
monitoring of the impacts of ebb shoal mining has been insufficient, and in one case the mining pit
was only 66% recovered after five years; they conclude that the larger the volume of sediment
mined from the shoals, the larger the perturbation to the system and the longer the recovery period.

Compared to ebb shoals, flood shoals have received much less attention and study, perhaps because
flood shoals are often more complex (particularly where the source of sediment may be oceanic as
well as riverine) and are modified by dredging of navigation channels (Carr de Betts 1999; Militello
and Kraus 2001). The mined or channelized portions of these flood channels would experience
greater sediment deposition as compared to the existing condition because the deeper water would
reduce the speed of the current within. When examining a proposal to mine the sand from the flood
shoal in Shinnecock Bay, Militello and Kraus (2001) determined that the flood shoal could take a
decade or longer to regenerate.

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
75
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, 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 mi. A shorebird would have to fly nearly 344 mi 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 mi. 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-Januar y surveys documented a continuing decline in wintering
76
plover numbers from 20 birds pre-project (2005-2006) to three birds during the 2009 - 2011 seasons
on Kiawah Island (SCDNR 2011). Subsequent decline in the wintering population on Kiawah is
strongly correlated with the decline in polychaete worm densities, suggesting that plovers may have
emigrated to other sites as foraging opportunities in these habitats became less profitable (SCDNR
2011). At least eight inlets in the migration and wintering range have been relocated; a new inlet
was cut and the old inlet was closed with fill. In other cases, inlets have been relocated without the
old channels being artificially filled.

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 19th century. The cumulative effects are ongoing and increasing in intensity, with
hard structures built as recently as 2015 and others proposed for the near future. 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 others.

Invertebrate communities may also be affected by changes in the physical environment resulting
from shoreline stabilization activities that alter the sediment composition or degree of exposure.
For example, in 2006 on Bird Key, South Carolina, rapid habitat changes occurred within the
sheltered lagoon habitat following dredge disposal activities, and piping plovers shifted to more
exposed areas. Their diet also appeared to have shifted to haustoriid amphipods, based on analysis
of fecal samples containing pieces of amphipod species which were also found during the
invertebrate sampling at that location (SCDNR 2011).

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 (Table 5-6) (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.

77
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.
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 mi 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
78
24 mi (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 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 mi (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 mi 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.

Wintering and migrating piping plovers depend on the availability and abundance of
macroinvertebrates as an important food item. Polychaete worms comprise the majority of the
shorebird diet (Kalejta 1992; Mercier and McNeil 1994; Tsipoura and Burger 1999; Verkuil et al.
79
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 mi 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 (m)) 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).

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. Uncertainty persists about the
impacts of various projects to invertebrate communities and how these impacts affect shorebirds,
particularly the piping plover.

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.

Invasive Vegetation

The spread of invasive plants into suitable wintering piping plover habitat is a relatively recently
identified threat (USFWS 2009a). Such plants tend to reproduce and spread quickly and to exhibit
dense growth habits, often outcompeting native plants. Uncontrolled invasive plants can shift
habitat from open or sparsely vegetated sand to dense vegetation, resulting in the loss or
degradation of piping plover roosting habitat, which is especially important during high tides and
migration periods. The propensity of invasive species to spread, and their tenacity once established,
make them a persistent threat that is only partially countered by increasing landowner awareness
and willingness to undertake eradication activities. Many invasive species are either currently
affecting or have the potential to affect coastal beaches and thus plover habitat, including beach
vitex (Vitex rotundifolia), crowfootgrass (Dactyloctenium aegyptium), Australian pine (Casuarina
equisetifolia), and Japanese sedge (Carex kobomugi). Defeo et al. (2009) cite biological invasions
of both plants and animals as global threats to sandy beaches, with the potential to alter the food
web, nutrient cycling and invertebrate assemblages. Although the extent of the threat is uncertain,
this may be due to poor survey coverage more than an absence of invasions.

80
Wrack Removal and Beach Cleaning

Wrack on beaches and baysides provides important foraging and roosting habitat for piping plovers
(Drake 1999a; Smith 2007; Maddock et al. 2009; Lott et al. 2009b) and for many other shorebirds.
Because shorebird numbers are positively correlated both with wrack cover and the biomass of their
invertebrate prey that feed on wrack (Tarr and Tarr 1987; Hubbard and Dugan 2003; Dugan et al.
2003), beach grooming has been shown to decrease bird numbers (Defeo et al. 2009).

Although beach cleaning and raking machines effectively remove human-made debris, they 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. As noted in the previous section, threats from sea level rise are tightly
intertwined with artificial coastal stabilization activities that modify and degrade habitat. If climate
change increases the frequency or magnitude of extreme temperatures, piping plover survival rates
may be affected.

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). 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). Gutierrez et al.
(2011) found that along the Atlantic coast, the central and southern Florida coast is the most likely
Atlantic portion of the wintering and migration range to experience moderate to severe erosion with
sea level rise.

Inundation of piping plover habitat by rising seas could lead to permanent loss of habitat, especially
if those shorelines are armored with hardened structures (Brown and McLachlan 2002; Dugan and
Hubbard 2006; 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.

81
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. 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).

Adverse effects attributed to storms alone are sometimes actually due to a combination of storms
and other environmental changes or human use patterns. Storm-induced adverse effects include
post-storm acceleration of human activities such as beach nourishment, sand scraping, closure of
new inlets, and berm and seawall construction. Such stabilization activities can result in the loss
and degradation of feeding and resting habitats. Land managers sometimes face public pressure
after big storm events to plant vegetation, install sandfences, and bulldoze artificial “dunes.”
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).

Some available information indicates that birds may be resilient, even during major storms, and
move to unaffected areas without harm. Other reports suggest that birds may perish in or following
storm events. Noel and Chandler (2005) suspected that changes in habitat caused by multiple
hurricanes along the Georgia coastline altered the spatial distribution of piping plovers and may
have contributed to the winter mortality of three individuals. Wilkinson and Spinks (1994)
suggested that low plover numbers in South Carolina in January 1990 could have been partially
influenced by effects on habitat from Hurricane Hugo the previous fall, while Johnson and
Baldassarre (1988) found a redistribution of piping plovers in Alabama following Hurricane Elena
in 1985.

82
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) and Gibson et al. (2018) implicate anthropogenic disturbance as a factor in the long-term
decline of migrating shorebirds at staging areas and overwintering areas. Disturbance can cause
shorebirds to spend less time roosting or foraging and more time in alert postures or fleeing from
the disturbances (Burger 1991; 1994; Elliott and Teas 1996; Lafferty 2001a, 2001b; Thomas et al.
2003). Shorebirds that are repeatedly flushed in response to disturbance expend energy on costly
short flights (Nudds and Bryant 2000).

Shorebirds are more likely to flush from the presence of dogs than people, and breeding and
nonbreeding shorebirds react to dogs from farther distances than people (Lafferty 2001a, 2001b;
Lord et al. 2001; Thomas et al. 2003). Off-road vehicles can disrupt piping plover’s normal
behavior patterns. The density of off-road vehicles negatively correlated with abundance of piping
plovers on the ocean beach in Texas (Zonick 2000). Cohen et al. (2008) found that radio-tagged
wintering piping plovers using ocean beach habitat at Oregon Inlet in North Carolina were far less
likely to use the north side of the inlet where off-road vehicle use was allowed. Ninety-six percent
of piping plover detections occurred on the south side of the inlet even though it was more than four
times farther away from foraging sites, prompting a recommendation that controlled management
experiments be conducted to determine if recreational disturbance drives roost site selection (Cohen
et al. 2008).

Recreational activities, especially off-road vehicles, may degrade piping plover habitat. Tires that
crush wrack into the sand render it unavailable as a roosting habitat or foraging substrate (Goldin
1993; Hoopes 1993). Off-road vehicles significantly lessened densities of invertebrates on
intertidal flats on the Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts (Wheeler 1979).

Various local and regional examples also illustrate threats from recreation. On a 12-km stretch of
Mustang Island in Texas, Foster et al. (2009) observed a 25% decline in piping plover abundance
83
and a simultaneous five-fold increase in human use over a 29-year study period, 1979 – 2007. This
trend was marginally significant, but declines in two other plover species were significant;
declining shorebird abundance was attributed to a combination of human disturbance and overall
declines in shorebird populations (Foster et al. 2009). In South Carolina, almost half of sites with
five or more piping plovers had ten or more people present during surveys conducted in 2007-2008
and more than 60% allow dogs (Maddock and Bimbi unpubl. data). Zdravkovic and Durkin (2011)
noted disturbance to piping plovers in Texas from kite-boarding, windsurfing, and horseback riding.

LeDee et al. (2010a) surveyed land managers of designated critical habitat sites across seven
southern states and documented the extent of beach access and recreation. All but four of the 43
reporting sites owned or managed by federal, state, and local governmental agencies or by non-
governmental organizations allowed public beach access year-round (88% of the sites). At the sites
allowing public access, 62% of site managers reported more than 10,000 visitors during September-
March, and 31% reported more than 100,000 visitors in this period. However, more than 80% of
the sites allowing public access did not allow vehicles on the beach and half did not allow dogs
during the winter season.

Oil spills

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). 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.

Following the Ixtoc spill, which began on June 3, 1979 off the coast of Mexico, approximately 350
metric tons of oil accumulated on South Texas barrier beaches, resulting in a 79% decrease in the
total number of infaunal organisms on contaminated portions of the beach (Kindinger 1981; Tunnell
et al. 1982). Shorebirds avoided the intertidal area of the beach, occupying the backshore or
moving to estuarine habitats when most of the beach was coated (Chapman 1984). Chapman
(1984) surmised that the decline in infauna probably contributed to the observed shifts in habitats
used. His observations indicated that all the shorebirds, including piping plovers, avoided the
contaminated sediments and concentrated in oil-free areas.

According to government estimates, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Mississippi Canyon Well #252
oil spill discharged more than 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico (U.S. Government
2010). Containment activities, recovery of oil-water mix, and controlled burning removed some oil,
but additional impacts to natural resources may have been caused by the 1.84 million gallons of
dispersant that were applied to the spill (U.S. Government 2010). At the end of July 2010,
approximately 625 mi of Gulf of Mexico shoreline was oiled.

84
Efforts to prevent shoreline oiling and cleanup response activities can disturb piping plovers and
their habitat. Although most piping plovers were on their breeding grounds in May, June, and early
July when the Deepwater well was discharging oil, oil was still washing onto Gulf beaches when
the plovers began arriving back on the Gulf in mid-July. Ninety percent of piping plovers detected
during the prior four years of surveys in Louisiana were in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill impact
zone, and Louisiana’s Department of Wildlife and Fisheries reported significant disturbance to birds
and their habitat from response activities. Surface oil collection methods in these areas involved
rakes, shovels, boats, all-terrain-vehicles, mechanical raking, chain raking, and surface sifters. Sub-
surface collection methods from some beaches and vegetated coastlines involved auguring and
digging pits/trenches using various beach-cleaning machines, excavators, track hoes, and
wheeled/tracked vehicles. Responders deployed barriers to oil movement along beaches and
vegetated coastlines. Using boats, pumps, walk ways, and hoses, responders flushed oil from
vegetated coastlines. Front-end loaders facilitated oil washing from beaches by surf action. In some
segments, responders modified habitat features to prevent or reduce the impacts of oiling. Potential
long-term adverse effects stem from the construction of sand berms and closing of at least 32 inlets
(Rice 2012a). A study by Gibson et al. (2017) found that piping plover demographics did not
appear to be negatively influenced by the magnitude of oil observed in impacted areas. Also, piping
plovers that were observed to be oiled did not appear to have lower survival probabilities following
the oil spill relative to non-oiled individuals from the same winter population.

Subtler but cumulatively damaging sources of oil and other contaminants are leaking vessels,
offshore oil rigs and undersea pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico, pipelines buried under the bay
bottoms, and onshore facilities such as petroleum refineries and petrochemical plants. In Louisiana,
about 2,500-3,000 oil spills are reported in the Gulf region each year, ranging in size from very
small to thousands of barrels (Carver pers. comm. 2011). The oil from these smaller leaks and
seeps, if they occur far enough from land, will tend to wash ashore as tar balls.

Pesticides and Other Contaminants

A piping plover was found among dead shorebirds discovered on a sandbar near Marco Island,
Florida following the county’s aerial application of the organophosphate pesticide Fenthion for
mosquito control in 1997 (Pittman 2001; Williams 2001). Subsequent to further investigations of
bird mortalities associated with pesticide applications and to a lawsuit being filed against the
Environmental Protection Agency in 2002, the manufacturer withdrew Fenthion from the market,
and Environmental Protection Agency banned all use after November 30, 2004 (American Bird
Conservancy 2007). Absent identification of contaminated substrates or observation of direct
mortality of shorebirds on a site used by migrating and wintering piping plovers, detection of
contaminants threats is most likely to occur through analysis of unhatched eggs. Contaminants in
eggs can originate from any point in the bird’s annual cycle, and considerable effort may be
required to ascertain where in the annual cycle exposure occurred (see, for example, Dickerson et
al. 2011 characterizing contaminant exposure of mountain plovers).

There has been limited opportunistic testing of piping plover eggs. Polychlorinated biphenol (PCB)
concentrations in several composites of Great Lakes piping plover eggs tested in the 1990s had
potential to cause reproductive harm. Analysis of prey available to piping plovers at representative
Michigan breeding sites indicated that breeding areas along the upper Great Lakes region were not
85
likely the major source of contaminants to this population (Best pers. comm. 1999 in USFWS
2003a). Relatively high levels of PCB, dichloro diphenyl dichloroethylene (DDE), and
polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) were detected in one of two clutches of Ontario piping
plover eggs analyzed in 2009 (Cavalieri pers. comm. 2011). Results of opportunistic egg analyses
to date from Atlantic Coast piping plovers did not warrant follow-up investigation (Mierzykowski
2009; 2010; 2012; Mierzykowski pers. comm. 2012). No recent testing has been conducted for
contaminants in the Northern Great Plains piping plover population.

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, Loss et al. 2012).

Predatory birds, including peregrine falcons (F. peregrinus), 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 1999a; Drake et al. 2001). Drake (1999a) theorized that
this piping plover behavior enhances concealment associated with roosting in depressions and
debris in Texas.

Nonbreeding piping plovers may reap some collateral benefits from predator management
conducted for the primary benefit of other species. Florida Keys Refuges National Wildlife Refuge
(USFWS 2011a), for example, released a draft integrated predator management plan that targets
predators, including cats, for the benefit of native fauna and flora. Other predator control programs
are ongoing in North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Texas beach ecosystems (USFWS
2009a).

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). Informal consultations with three Florida bases (Naval Station Mayport, Eglin
Air Force Base, and Tyndall Air Force Base) addressed training activities that included beach
exercises and occasional use of motorized equipment on beaches and bayside habitats. Eglin Air
Force Base conducts twice-monthly surveys for piping plovers, and habitats consistently used by
86
piping plovers are posted with avoidance requirements to minimize direct disturbance from troop
activities. Operations at Tyndall Air Force Base and Naval Station Mayport were determined to
occur outside optimal piping plover habitats. A 2001 consultation with the Navy for one-time
training operations on Peveto Beach in Louisiana concluded informally (USFWS 2010b). Current
threats to wintering and migrating piping plovers posed by military activities appear minimal.

Disease

No instances of disease have been documented in piping plovers outside the breeding range. 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.

Modeling to determine average annual true survival and site fidelity

Researchers at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) have developed a
demographic model incorporating observations of marked individuals within a study area with out-
of-area observations of the same individuals throughout the species’ breeding and nonbreeding
ranges. This model can be used to estimate true survival and site fidelity of piping plovers (Gibson
et al. 2018). The model can be used to estimate multiple seasonal and annual demographic
processes based on individuals wintering at specific sites from all three breeding populations. In
Gibson et al. (2018), the model was used to derive true survival at wintering sites in Georgia, South
Carolina, and North Carolina, including Rich Inlet and New Topsail Inlet (from 2010 to 2016).

In order to compare survival and site fidelity rates between sites impacted by shoreline stabilization
projects and sites not impacted, birds were trapped and banded by Gibson et al. (2018) at several
locations in Georgia and South Carolina. Banded birds have been re-sighted on both the breeding
and wintering grounds for five or six years. These sites had varying degrees of modification, from
unmodified to highly disturbed. The sites in South Carolina are Hilton Head Island (terminal groin
and beach nourishment), Kiawah Island East (inlet relocation)/Seabrook Island (inlet relocation),
Harbor Island, Deveaux Banks, while the Georgia sites are Little Saint Simons Island and
Cumberland Island. Hilton Head Island is a highly disturbed area due to multiple beach
renourishment projects within a short timeframe, construction of a terminal groin, and high
recreational use; Kiawah and Seabrook are considered to be moderately disturbed by inlet
relocation projects. The southeast end of Harbor Island and Deveaux Banks sites are considered
low disturbance areas, with relatively little man-made modification, and Little Saint Simons Island
and Cumberland Island are considered unmodified, but have a certain level of ongoing disturbance
from recreational use (Bimbi, pers. comm. 2016; Virginia Tech 2013; 2014; 2015). In North
Carolina, survey data collected at Rich Inlet and New Topsail Inlet from 2010 to 2016 were also
incorporated into the model. Plover observation data from outside of the study area from 2012 to
2016 were used to elucidate true survival and site fidelity, allowed by several intense ongoing
research projects and monitoring efforts throughout the species’ nonbreeding and breeding ranges
(Gibson et al. 2018). True survival and site fidelity rates for the eight sites are shown in Table 5-7.

Pre- and post-monitoring of the east end of Kiawah Island in South Carolina, required under a
biological opinion, documented a decline in the local piping plover winter population and linked the
decline of bird numbers to the decline and shift of invertebrate populations at a key site. This local
87
population remains very low and new recruits are not selecting this site, suggesting that shoreline
stabilization projects can have lasting impacts on coastal migration and winter habitat. Post-project
monitoring for the Hilton Head renourishment and groin installation project and pre-project
monitoring for the Captain Sam’s Inlet (located between Seabrook and Kiawah Islands) relocation
documented similar declines in piping plover use (Virginia Tech 2013; SCDNR 2011).

Further, there is a correlation between level of disturbance and body weight at the Georgia and
South Carolina sites. Birds at the highly disturbed sites weighed 3.74 grams (7%) less on average
than birds at the low disturbance sites (Gibson et al. 2018). 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.

Conservation Efforts

The 2012 CCS (USFWS 2012; 2015) synthesizes conservation needs across the shared coastal
migration and wintering ranges of the three piping plover populations, and presents recommended
conservation actions for protection of nonbreeding piping plovers that are contained in the approved
recovery plans (USFWS 1988b, 1996, 2003) and recommendations for future action in the 2009 5-
Year Review (USFWS 2009a). Implementation of actions described in the CCS will support
attainment of relevant reclassification and delisting criteria (USFWS 1996; 2003).

Conservation efforts on behalf of piping plovers in their non-breeding range have increased since
the species listing and further accelerated since the early 2000s. Diverse conservation tools are
selectively used to address protection needs across federal, state, municipal, and private land
ownership.

5.1.5. 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. 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.

It appears that the Northern Great Plains breeding population (including Canada) declined from
1991 through 2001, increased dramatically in 2006, and then declined again in 2011 (Elliott-Smith
et al. 2015).

The Great Lakes population has shown significant growth, from approximately 17 pairs at the time
of listing in 1986, to 75 pairs in 2016 (Cavalieri pers. comm. 2016a). The total of 75 breeding pairs
represents 50% of the current recovery goal of 150 breeding pairs for the Great Lakes population.

88
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. 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. 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.

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 additional threat.

89
5.1.6. Tables and Figures for Status of Piping Plover

Figure 5-1. The number of adults reported for the U.S. and Canada Northern Great Plains breeding
population during the International Censuses from 1991 to 2011. Data from Elliott-Smith et al.
2009, Elliott-Smith et al. 2015, Ferland and Haig 2002, Haig and Plissner 1993, Plissner and Haig
2000.

Figure 5-2. Annual Breeding Pair Estimates for Great Lakes Piping Plovers (2003-2016). Data
from Cuthbert and Saunders 2013, Cavalieri pers. comm. 2016a; 2016c.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1991 1996 2001 2006 2011
Nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

A
d
u
l
t

P
i
p
i
n
g

P
l
o
v
e
r
s
International Census Year
U.S. and
Canada
CombinedPrairie Canada
U.S. Northern
Great Plains
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
No
.

o
f

P
a
i
r
s
Year
90
Table 5-1. Estimated abundance of Atlantic Coast piping plovers, 1986 to 2000. Unpublished data from the Service (2016).

State or
Recovery Unit Number of pairs /year
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Maine 15 12 20 16 17 18 24 32 35 40 60 47 60 56 50
New Hampshire 5 5 6 6
Massachusetts 139 126 134 137 140 160 213 289 352 441 454 483 495 501 496
Rhode Island 10 17 19 19 28 26 20 31 32 40 50 51 46 39 49
Connecticut 20 24 27 34 43 36 40 24 30 31 26 26 21 22 22

New York 106 135 172 191 197 191 187 193 209 249 256 256 245 243 289
New Jersey 102 93 105 128 126 126 134 127 124 132 127 115 93 107 112

Delaware 8 7 3 3 6 5 2 2 4 5 6 4 6 4 3
Maryland 17 23 25 20 14 17 24 19 32 44 61 60 56 58 60
Virginia 100 100 103 121 125 131 97 106 96 118 87 88 95 89 96
North Carolina 30 30 40 55 55 40 49 53 54 50 35 52 46 31 24
South Carolina 3 0 1 1 1 0

U.S. Total 550 567 648 724 752 751 790 877 968 1150 1162 1187 1168 1156 1207

Eastern Canada 240 223 238 233 230 252 223 223 194 200 202 199 211 236 230

Atlantic Coast
Total
790 790 886 957 982 1003 1013 1100 1162 1350 1364 1386 1379 1392 1437

91
Table 5-2. Estimated abundance of Atlantic Coast piping plovers, 2001 to 2014, with Preliminary data from 2015. Unpublished data
from the Service (2016). *Numbers in parentheses are preliminary estimates, subject to revision.

State or
Recovery Unit Number of pairs /year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015*
Maine 55 66 61 55 49 40 35 24 27 30 33 42 44 50 62
New Hampshire 7 7 7 4 3 3 3 3 5 4 4 6 7 6 8
Massachusetts 495 538 511 488 467 482 558 566 593 591 656 676 666 663 687
Rhode Island 52 58 71 70 69 72 73 77 84 85 86 90 92 91 99
Connecticut 32 31 37 40 34 37 36 41 44 43 52 51 45 51 62

New York 309 369 386 384 374 422 457 443 437 390 318 342 289 268 (303)
New Jersey 122 138 144 135 111 116 129 111 105 108 111 121 108 92 108

Delaware 6 6 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 6 6
Maryland 60 60 59 66 63 64 64 49 45 44 36 41 45 38 36
Virginia 119 120 114 152 192 202 199 208 193 192 188 259 251 245 256
North Carolina 23 23 24 20 37 46 61 64 54 61 62 70 56 65 64
South Carolina 0 0

U.S. Total 1280 1416 1420 1421 1407 1493 1624 1596 1597 1557 1554 1705 1609 1593 (1691)

Eastern Canada 250 274 256 237 217 256 266 253 252 225 209 179 184 186 179

Atlantic Coast
Total
1530 1690 1676 1658 1624 1749 1890 1849 1849 1782 1763 1884 1793 1779 (1870)
92
Table 5-3. Results of the 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, and 2011 International Piping Plover Winter
Censuses (Haig and Plissner 1993; Plissner and Haig 2000; Ferland and Haig 2002; Haig et al.
2005; Elliott-Smith et al. 2009; Elliott-Smith et al. 2015).

Location 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011
Virginia not surveyed
(ns) ns ns 1 1
North Carolina 20 50 87 84 43
South Carolina 51 78 78 100 86
Georgia 37 124 111 212 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%

93
Table 5-4. Piping plover wintering grounds threats matrix. The threats are ranked according to
their overall potential impact on the population. The Service acknowledges there are differences
in relative importance of each threat at a regional scale; the chart represents an overall ranking on
the wintering population based on the amount of information currently known, the amount of
habitat affected, and the difficulty in ameliorating the threat.

Threat Level
Low Medium High Unknown
Loss, modification, and degradation of
habitat
Development and construction X
Dredging and sand mining X
Inlet stabilization and relocation X
Groins X
Seawalls and revetments X
Sand placement projects X1
Loss of macroinvertebrate prey base due
to shoreline stabilization X
Invasive vegetation X2
Wrack removal and beach cleaning X
Accelerating sea level rise and other
climate change impacts X
Weather events
Storm events X
Severe cold weather X
Disturbance from recreational activities X3
Oil spills and other contaminants
Oil Spills X
Pesticides and Other Contaminants X
Energy development
Land-based oil and gas exploration and
development X
Wind turbines X
Predation X
Military operations X
Disease X

1 The threat level of sand placement projects varies among sites and projects. In areas where the
loss of critical habitat is imminent due to sea level rise and subsidence, well-designed, infrequent
sand placement projects can provide overall benefits to critical habitat once the benthic fauna
recovers and natural processes are allowed to reshape the beach and dune system.
2 The impact and extent of invasive vegetation varies across the range. Regionally, invasive plant
growth can have a large impact on habitat availability, while in other parts of the wintering
range, invasive species are not an issue.
3 At some sites recreational disturbance would be considered a higher level of threat if the
disturbance in essence makes the site unavailable or marginally useful to the plovers.
94
Table 5-5. Biological opinions issued since 2014 within the Raleigh Field Office geographic
area, for adverse impacts to piping plovers and red knots.

Opinions Piping Plover
Critical Habitat
Piping Plover and
Red Knot Habitat
Fiscal Year 2014: 1 BO n/a 12,600 lf
(2.4 mi)
Fiscal Year 2015: 5 BOs Approx. 33.49 acres, 2,200
lf
70,268 lf
(13.3 mi)
Fiscal Year 2016: 8 BOs 9,696 lf
(1.83 mi)
231,437 lf
(43.83 mi)
Fiscal Year 2017: 2 BOs
including Statewide
Programmatic
Unknown amount discussed
in Statewide Programmatic
BO
27,650 lf (5.24 mi)
Plus up to
25 mi/62.5 mi per year
Fiscal Year 2018 (to date): 2
BOs n/a 75,800 lf (14.36 mi)
Total: 18 BOs
11,896 lf (2.25 mi), approx.
33.49 acres, plus
unknown amount from
utilization of Statewide
Programmatic BO.
417,755 lf
(79.12 mi)
Plus up to
25 mi/62.5 mi per year

95
Table 5-6. Open tidal inlets from north to south along the North Carolina coast in 2015 with
actual (X) and proposed (P) habitat modification(s) at each. Note that an X in the Jetties column
indicates one jetty is present and a D indicates two (dual) jetties. Table from Rice (2016).

Order

Inlet
Type of Habitat Modification

Artifi
ciall
y
cr
eat
e
d

Je
tties
Ter
min
a
l
gr
oin
s

/
g
r
o
in field
Se
a
walls

/

re
v
etmen
t
Bre
a
k
wat
ers

Dre
d
g
i
n
g

Reloc
ati
o
n
of

ch
a
n
nel
or

il

Min
ed fo
r be
ach

fi
l
l

1 Oregon Inlet1 X X X
2 Hatteras Inlet X
3 Ocracoke Inlet X
4 New Old Drum Inlet
5 Ophelia Inlet
6 Barden Inlet X X X
7 Beaufort Inlet X X X
8 Bogue Inlet X X X X
9 Bear Inlet
10 Brown’s Inlet
11 New River Inlet X X X X
12 New Topsail Inlet X X
13 Rich Inlet P X P X
14 Mason Inlet X X X X
15 Masonboro Inlet X D X X X
16 Carolina Beach Inlet X X X
17 Cape Fear River X X
18 Lockwoods Folly Inlet P X 19 Shallotte Inlet P X X
20 Tubbs Inlet X X X X 1 – The NCDOT mined ~33,000 cy of sediment from within Oregon Inlet to fill a scour hole adjacent to the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge across the inlet in December 2013, which had destabilized the bridge and led to its emergency closure.

96
Table 5-7. Average annual piping plover true survival and site fidelity rates at eight inlets from
North Carolina to Georgia (Gibson et al. 2018).

Study Region Relative
Disturbance
True Survival
(+ SD)
Site Fidelity
(+ SD)
New Topsail Inlet High 0.66 + 0.08 0.74 + 0.08
Rich Inlet Low 0.92 + 0.08 0.80 + 0.08
Kiawah and Seabrook Islands High 0.55 + 0.09 0.91 + 0.06
Deveaux Bank Low 0.50 + 0.07 0.85 + 0.07
Harbor Island Low 0.77 + 0.06 0.91 + 0.04
Hilton Head Island High 0.62 + 0.07 0.81 + 0.07
Little Saint Simons Island Low 0.67 + 0.04 0.91 + 0.03
Cumberland Island National
Seashore Low 0.68 + 0.05 0.73 + 0.06

5.2. 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.

5.2.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of Piping Plover

Although there are some efforts to post breeding areas, there do not appear to be any organized
management actions to protect wintering and migrating piping plovers in the Action Area.
Survey efforts conducted by NCWRC, third parties (Audubon North Carolina), or by permittees
provide information on the piping plover populations that are present in the critical habitat unit.

Breeding Piping Plovers

The NCWRC conducted coast-wide surveys for breeding piping plovers in North Carolina
between June 1 and June 9 of 2010 through 2018. Breeding piping plovers were documented on
Topsail Beach (www.ncpaws.org, accessed August 20, 2018), including one nest at North
Topsail Beach in 2018, from which four chicks fledged, and a nest on the south end of Topsail
Beach which fledged one chick (Jennings pers. comm. 2018). Data provided by the BA indicate
that one breeding pair was also seen in the vicinity of the project footprint in 2017. Data from
NCWRC’s database indicate that one breeding pair was documented at New Topsail Inlet in
2010, 2011, 2013, 2017, and 2018, but 2018 is the first year for a successful nest during this
time. A nest with two eggs was documented on Topsail Beach in 2016, but no chicks fledged
(Suiter pers. comm. 2016, Schweitzer 2016). It is unclear whether the nesting pair includes the
same individuals from year to year or different individuals. On Figure Eight Island at Rich
Inlet, at least one breeding pair of piping plovers has been documented for many of the past few
years. During the summers of 2014, 2015, and 2016, a piping plover nest was recorded on the
97
north end of Figure Eight Island. One chick fledged in the summer of 2016 (Schweitzer pers.
comm. 2016). Only eight chicks fledged in the state of North Carolina in 2016, including two
(2) at Cape Hatteras National Seashore and five (5) at Cape Lookout National Seashore
(Schweitzer 2016). The IPPC breeding survey documented no piping plovers on Figure Eight
Island and two breeding pairs (five adults) on Lea-Hutaff Island in 2001 (Ferland and Haig
2002), and 11 breeding piping plover adults (including five breeding pairs) on Lea/Hutaff Island
in 2006 (Elliott-Smith et al. 2009).

South Carolina has historically been the most southern Atlantic state where piping plover nesting
occurs. Nesting habitat for piping plovers is being lost incrementally in the Carolinas. In recent
years, no piping plover nests have been observed in South Carolina. The nests on Figure Eight
Island at Rich Inlet currently represent the southernmost documented. Because of the relatively
undisturbed nature of Figure Eight Island at Rich Inlet, the area provides one of the best
remaining nesting habitats in North Carolina, outside of the National Seashores.

Nonbreeding Piping Plovers

Surveys by multiple groups have documented many banded piping plovers during migration and
winter within the Action Area. The migrant population is larger than the winter population.
Reports from the National Seashores, and unpublished data from NCWRC’s PAWS database
(www.ncpaws.org) and Audubon North Carolina provide banded piping plover data for most
coastal areas of North Carolina. The majority of banded piping plovers are recorded on Cape
Hatteras and Cape Lookout National Seashores, and the islands and inlet complexes from Cape
Lookout south to Masonboro Island. Only a few banded birds have been recorded in North
Carolina south of Carolina Beach Inlet, in part because there are fewer records due to
development of these areas, and also focus by the bird community on areas north. Banded piping
plovers from all three breeding populations have been recorded on the National Seashores and
south to Masonboro Inlet. This region of North Carolina, from Cape Lookout to Masonboro
Inlet, is extremely important to the survival and recovery of the piping plover, particularly the
Great Lakes piping plover.

Piping plovers that winter at sites (meaning they spend the majority of their nonbreeding season
at one location) can arrive at their winter site as early as August and depart as late as April
(Maddock et al. 2009). However, because plovers are also migrating through North Carolina
from late summer through early winter and again from late winter through early spring the best
winter population estimate is determined in December and/or January. Results of a band re-
sighting analysis for birds documented at sites in South Carolina showed zero immigration or
emigration during the months of December and January (Cohen, pers. comm. 2009). Therefore,
the Service determines the local winter population by using the single highest count of birds
observed during surveys conducted between December 1 and January 31.

Between 2007 and 2016, Audubon North Carolina identified approximately 122 individually-
banded piping plovers along the North Carolina coast from Topsail Island south to Masonboro
Island (Addison pers. comm. 2016). This area encompasses four inlets and five islands: Topsail
Island, (New) Topsail Inlet, Lea-Hutaff Island, Rich Inlet, Figure Eight Island, Mason Inlet,
Wrightsville Beach, Masonboro Inlet, and Masonboro Island. Seventy-nine of these banded
98
plovers are from the Great Lakes breeding population, 28 from the Atlantic Coast breeding
population, and nine are from the Northern Great Plains population. Only six are from an
unidentified population.

The number or percentage of banded birds in each of the three populations depends on active
banding projects. Virtually all of the Great Lakes individuals are banded, unlike individuals
from the Atlantic Coast or Northern Great Plains breeding populations; the larger Atlantic Coast
and Northern Great Plain populations only have banding projects at a few sites across their broad
breeding ranges (Gratto-Trevor et al. 2012). Banding of the Great Lakes population began in
1993. Adults are banded with aluminum Service bands and three-color bands to uniquely identify
the individual. Chicks are banded with aluminum Service bands and a single color band to
identify the hatch site (University of Minnesota 2017). Most of the unbanded birds are expected
to be from the Atlantic Coast population.

Data from Audubon North Carolina and NCWRC indicate that as many as 12 piping plovers
(banded and unbanded) were documented in New Topsail Inlet on March 17, 2011, and as many
as 15 on March 25, 2011. As many as 18 were documented on one day in the winter of
2008/2009. In 2016, the IPPC surveys on February 1 documented 11 piping plovers, three of
which were banded. Table 5-8 provides the highest number of observed piping plovers on a
single date between December 1 and January 31 at New Topsail and Rich Inlets, from 2006-2016
(Addison pers. comm. 2016; www.ncpaws.org).

Table 5-9 provides the total numbers of banded piping plovers at New Topsail Inlet from the
three populations. As many as 15 individually banded piping plovers utilized the inlet area
annually between 2008 and 2010. This number dropped to five in 2010/2011 (the same year as
the first of the most recent dredging projects), but increased to between seven and ten individuals
from 2011/2012 to 2015/2016. In the winter of 2016/2017, only four individuals were recorded
during the migration and wintering season (three of those during the winter months of December
and January).

Table 5-10 provides the total numbers of banded piping plovers at Rich Inlet from the three
populations. Unpublished data from NCWRC’s PAWS database (www.ncpaws.org) and others
indicate that at least 54 banded piping plovers have been documented on either side of Rich Inlet
or on Figure Eight Island since 2006, including at least 32 individuals from the endangered Great
Lakes breeding population. The area has been monitored or surveyed by several different
parties, and large numbers of banded and unbanded piping plovers have been observed
throughout the migration and wintering season. Based on these observations, Rich Inlet appears
to have some of the highest observations of piping plovers in North Carolina south of Cape
Lookout National Seashore (particularly during spring and fall migration).

According to the Audubon North Carolina data, since 2006, 43 individual piping plovers from
the Great Lakes population have been recorded at New Topsail Inlet, along with three banded
individuals from the Northern Great Plains population and nine banded individuals from the
Atlantic Coast breeding population. Table 5-11 lists the banded individuals that have been
observed by year at New Topsail Inlet, along with whether the individual wintered at New
Topsail Inlet or only used the area as a migration stopover. The number of individually banded
99
Great Lakes piping plovers has dropped from 14 or 15 in 2008-2010 to only one individual in
2015-2017. This individual (“-X,-L:-Of,GG”) was the only documented wintering Great Lakes
bird at New Topsail Inlet in the winters of 2014/2015, 2015/2016, and 2016/2017, and the only
Great Lakes individual documented at any time of year in the latter two nonbreeding seasons.
The individual “-X,-L:-Of,GG” hatched in 2011 in Vermillion, Michigan, so as of 2018, it is
seven years old. It may have utilized New Topsail Inlet in the years before 2014; however, the
unique bands that identify it were not placed on it until 2014.

Six of the 43 banded individuals from the Great Lakes population seen at New Topsail Inlet have
also been recorded as wintering or migrating through Rich Inlet, and six of the 43 Great Lakes
banded individuals have also been documented on Core Banks, in Cape Lookout National
Seashore. Table 5-12 lists the banded individuals that have been observed by year at Rich Inlet.
Of the six individuals recorded at Rich Inlet, three have also been documented at Mason Inlet to
the south. One individual that wintered at New Topsail Inlet and Rich Inlet in 2009/2010 (-X,-
G/O/G:-O,--) has been documented at Mason Inlet, Rich Inlet, New Topsail Inlet, and South
Core Banks in various years, most recently at South Core Banks in 2015. Very few nonbreeding
surveys have been conducted along the coastline between New Topsail Inlet and Shackleford
Banks (the closest end of Cape Lookout National Seashore), so it is likely that individuals utilize
other nearby inlets for migration or wintering, but are not documented at those locations.

In Section 5.1.4, demographic modeling of the non-breeding piping plovers in North Carolina
and elsewhere is presented, along with true survival and site fidelity rates for New Topsail Inlet
and other inlets along the east coast of the U.S. (Table 5-5). The true survival rate calculated by
Gibson et al. (2018) for New Topsail Inlet piping plovers is approximately 66%. The site
fidelity rate (the rate at which individual plovers return to the site year after year) is higher, at
approximately 74%. At New Topsail Inlet, many of the 53 documented banded plovers returned
for at least three years. One individual, “-Of,gY:-X,-b,” wintered at New Topsail Inlet for seven
consecutive nonbreeding seasons (2007/2008 to 2013/2014). This individual from the Great
Lakes population hatched in 2005, and so spent at least seven of its nine years wintering at New
Topsail Inlet.

5.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs of and Threats to Piping Plover

The Action Area is developed, mainly with residences. Residential and commercial
development began in the mid-1960’s. Large portions of the Action Area are presently lined
with structures. Recreational use in the Action Area is quite high from residents and tourists,
including beach driving. 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 3-3 lists the most recent projects, within
the past 5 years.

Inlet dredging and sand mining: New Topsail Inlet has been dredged by the Corps typically two
to three times a year, while the inlet crossings and connecting channels have been typically
dredged every 1-2 years (NCDENR, 2015). The Town of Topsail Beach has received
authorization to also conduct maintenance dredging of this inlet on the same general schedule,
with beach disposal during the winter work window.
100
Nourishment activities widen beaches, change their sedimentology and stratigraphy, alter coastal
processes and often plug dune gaps and remove overwash areas. According to the BA, Topsail
Beach has been nourished three times in the past 8 years: in the winter of 2010/2011,
winter/spring of 2012, and the winter of 2013/2014.

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 and rock-picking: 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 Town of North Topsail Beach
conducted significant rock-picking activities during the 2015 beach nourishment project, due to
large amounts of rock and gravel. Rock-picking activities have continued within the North
Topsail Beach project area annually since 2015, in order to remove larger material that continues
to wash onto the beach as the dune and/or berm erodes.

Pedestrian Use of the Beach: There are a number of potential sources of pedestrians and pets,
including those individuals originating from boats, beachfront, and nearby residences. Gibson et
al. (2018) rated the project area as receiving moderate levels of recreational use from boaters and
beachgoers, compared to other inlets in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina used by
overwintering and migrating piping plovers. Although the mean number of people observed per
km of survey area was relatively low compared to other sites (below 4), the number of dogs
observed per km surveyed was the highest of all of the sites at almost three dogs per km.

Beach Driving: Topsail Beach allows vehicles on the beach between October 1 and March 28.
Beach driving permits are limited to the purposes of fishing. Aerial photography indicates that
vehicles frequently access all sandy portions along the inlet shoulders in New Topsail Inlet,
including the estuarine shoreline. Impacts to piping plovers and piping plover habitat are
discussed at length in Section 5.1.4. By far, Topsail Beach had the highest number of vehicles
observed per km of any other site in Gibson et al. (2018), with almost one vehicle every 2 km.
101
Shoreline stabilization: Sandbags and revetments are vertical structures built parallel to the
beach in front of buildings, roads, and other facilities to protect them from erosion. However,
these structures often accelerate erosion by causing scouring in front of and downdrift from the
structure (Hayes and Michel 2008), which can eliminate piping plover habitat. Sand geotubes
and sandbag revetments are softer alternatives, but act as barriers by preventing overwash. There
are two existing rock revetments along the coast of North Carolina: one at Fort Fisher
(approximately 3,040 lf), and another along Carolina Beach (approximately 2,050 lf). A sandbag
revetment at least 1,800 lf long (with a geotube in front of a portion) was constructed in 2015 at
the north end of North Topsail Beach, and more sandbags were recently added to protect a
parking lot north of the revetment. In 2000 and 2001, sandbag revetments were installed on the
north end of Figure Eight Island along Surf Court, Inlet Hook Road, and Comber Road. There
are over 30 homes on Topsail Beach with existing sandbag structures.

Sand fencing: There are a few stretches of sand fencing along the shoreline on Topsail Beach.

5.2.3. Tables for Environmental Baseline for Piping Plover

Table 5-8. Highest number of observed piping plovers on a single date between December 1
and January 31 at New Topsail and Rich Inlets, 2006-2016. Data from Audubon North Carolina
(Addison pers. comm. 2016) and NCWRC.

Season/Year Inlet
Topsail Rich
2006/2007 NR 5
2007/2008 4 8
2008/2009 18 7
2009/2010 13 5
2010/2011 NR 1
2011/2012 1 NR
2012/2013 1 7
2013/2014 7 10
2014/2015 9 11
2015/2016 7 8
NR = not reported

102
Table 5-9. Number of Individually Banded Piping Plovers Observed at New Topsail Inlet Each
Year, 2006/2007 to 2016/2017. Data from Audubon NC (Chapin pers. comm. 2018) and
NCWRC.

Year Great Lakes NGP Atlantic Total
2006/2007 2 2
2007/2008 6 (4 wintering*) 6 (4 wintering)
2008/2009 14 (7 wintering) 14 (7 wintering)
2009/2010 15 (7 wintering) 1 16 (7 wintering)
2010/2011 4 (2 wintering) 1 5 (2 wintering)
2011/2012 9 (2 wintering) 2 11 (2 wintering)
2012/2013 8 (2 wintering) 2 10 (2 wintering)
2013/2014 5 (1 wintering) 1 (wintering) 2 (1 wintering) 8 (3 wintering)
2014/2015 3 (1 wintering) 1 (wintering) 3 (1 wintering) 7 (3 wintering)
2015/2016 1 (wintering) 1 (wintering) 5 (1 wintering) 7 (3 wintering)
2016/2017 1 (wintering) 1 (wintering) 2 (1 wintering) 4 (3 wintering)
*wintering = present in December or January

Table 5-10. Number of Individually Banded Piping Plovers Observed at Rich Inlet Each Year,
2005/06 to 2015/16. Data from Audubon NC (Chapin pers. comm. 2018), and NCWRC.

Year Great Lakes NGP Atlantic Total
2005/06 0 1 0 1
2006/07 2 1 0 3
2007/08 0 1 0 1
2008/09 0 1 0 1
2009/10 6 1 0 7
2010/11 3 0 2 5
2011/12 3 0 0 3
2012/13 5 0 0 5
2013/14 8 2 3 13
2014/15 12 2 7 21
2015/16 9 1 7 17

103
Table 5-11. Banded piping plovers at New Topsail Inlet from 2006 to 2017. Data from
Audubon NC (Chaplin pers. comm. 2018) and NCWRC (ncpaws.org, accessed 08/20/2018).

Ban
d

Co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

Mi
g
r
a
n
t
/
Wi
n
t
e
r

Br
e
e
d
i
n
g

Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

20
0
6
/
2
0
0
7

20
0
7
/
2
0
0
8

20
0
8
/
2
0
0
9

20
0
9
/
2
0
1
0

20
1
0
/
2
0
1
1

20
1
1
/
2
0
1
2

20
1
2
/
2
0
1
3

20
1
3
/
2
0
1
4

20
1
4
/
2
0
1
5

20
1
5
/
2
0
1
6

20
1
6
/
2
0
1
7

--,--:-g/O,-X M GL X
--,--:-X,-b M GL X
--,--:-X,-b/O M GL X X
--,--:-X,-g/O M GL X
--,-O:-X,-Y/O M GL X
--,RX:-Of,LG W GL X X
--,-X:-Of,LG W GL X X X
--,--:-O,-b/O M GL X
--,-O:-X,-b/O/b M GL X
--,-L:-Of,GG M GL X
-O,--:-X,-b M GL X X X X X
-O,--:-X,-g W GL X X X X
-O,--:-X,-G M GL X
-O,--:-X,-g/O/g W GL X
-O,--:-X,-L(74) M GL X
-O,--:-X,-Y M GL X
-O,--:-X,-Y/O M GL X X
-O,--:-X,-g(133) M GL X
-O,-g:-X,-g/O M GL X
-Of,BR:-X,-B M GL X
-Of,GL:-X,-g M GL X
-Of,gY:-X,-b W GL X X X X X X X
104
-Of,O L/O/L:-X,-g M GL X X
-Of,Y B/O:-X,-g M GL X
-Of,YB:-X,-g M GL X
-Of,YG:-X,-O M GL X
-X,--:-O,-B M GL X
-X,--:-O,-B(42) M GL X
-X,--:-O,-B/O/B M GL X
-X,-B:-Of,BO W GL X X X
-X,-g:--,-O M GL X
-X,-g:--,OY W GL X X X
-X,-G:-Of,YG M GL X X
-X,-G/O/G:-O,-- W GL X
-X,-L:-O,-- M GL X X
-X,-L:-Of,bO M GL X
-X,-L:-Of,GG W GL X X X
-X,-O:-Of,BG M GL X
-X,-O/G:-O,-- M GL X
-X,-R:-O,-- M GL X X
-X,-R:-Of,Rg M GL X
-X,-b:-Yf,YO M NGP X
--,BW:Yf,YP M NGP X
-Yf(A48),LW:-X,LO W NGP X X X X
-X,-- :-P(94), -- M ATL X
-X,--:-Lf(K1),-- M ATL X
-R,--:-Y,-- M ATL X X
GR,--:AY,-- M ATL X
-Gf(UN9),--:-B,-- M ATL X
-Gf(CMP),--:-O,-- M ATL X X
105
-Gf(72),--:-O,-- W ATL X X X X
-Af(E9),--:-X,-- M ATL X X X
-Lf,YB:--,-W M ATL X

106
Table 5-12. Banded piping plovers at Rich Inlet, from 2005/2006 to 2016/2017. Data for 2016/2017 is preliminary. Data from
Audubon NC (Chaplin pers. comm. 2018) and NCWRC (ncpaws.org, accessed 08/20/2018).

Ba
n
d

Co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

Br
o
o
d

M
a
r
k
e
r

ID

Un
i
q
u
e

Co
m
b
o

Mi
g
r
a
n
t

o
r

Wi
n
t
e
r

Br
e
e
d
i
n
g

Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

20
0
5
/
2
0
0
6

20
0
6
/
2
0
0
7

20
0
7
/
2
0
0
8

20
0
8
/
2
0
0
9

20
0
9
/
2
0
1
0

20
1
0
/
2
0
1
1

20
1
1
/
2
0
1
2

20
1
2
/
2
0
1
3

20
1
3
/
2
0
1
4

20
1
4
/
2
0
1
5

20
1
5
/
2
0
1
6

20
1
6
/
2
0
1
7

-,Af(EK),--:-X,-- Yes M ATL Canada X
-bf(09),--:-Y,-- Yes M NGP US X
-G,--:-Gf(0V3),-- Yes M ATL US X X
-Gf(09),--:-Y,-- Yes M ATL US X X
-Gf(6XW),--:-B,-- Yes M ATL US X X
-Gf(CAK),--:-B,-- Yes M ATL US X
-Gf(V64),--:-O,-- Yes M ATL US X X
-Gf,GB:--,YG Yes M ATL US X X X
-Gf,YG:--,YB Yes M ATL US X X X X
-Lf(KV),--:-X,-- Yes M ATL Canada X
-Lf,gY:-X,-G Yes W NGP C X X X X X
-Lf,LO:--,-W Yes M ATL US X
-Lf,YB:--,-W Yes M ATL US X
-O,--:-X,-G(005) G(005),
red dot
Yes M GL US X
107
-O,-b(036):-X,-b/O b(036), O
yellow dot
Yes W GL US X
-O,-b:-X,-b/O 037 Yes W GL US X
-O,-G/O/G:-X,-G No M GL US X
-O,-g:-X,-g/O Yes W GL US X X
-O,-G:-X,-G/O Yes W GL US X X
-O,-O/g:-X,-- No M GL US X
-O,-Y/O:-X,-- blue dot
on Y/O
Yes M GL US X
-Of,B/O L:-X,-b Yes W GL US X
-Of,GG:-X,-R Yes W GL US X
-Of,gY:-X,-g Yes M GL US X
-Of,Lb:-X,-b Yes M GL US X
-Of,LB:-X,-L Yes M GL US X
-Of,OL/O/L:-X,-g Yes M GL US X
-Of,RB:-b,-Y Yes W GL US X X
-Of,YB:-X,-g Yes W GL US X X X X X X X X
-Of,YG:-X,-O Yes M GL US X
-X,--:-Lf(E0),-- Yes M ATL Canada X
-X,--:-Lf(KK),-- Yes M ATL Canada X
-X,--:-O,-B/O/B Yes W GL US X X X X X
-X,--:-O,-G/O/G Yes M GL US X X
108
-X,--:-Pf(26),-- Yes M ATL US X
-X,--:-Pf(52),-- Yes M ATL US X
-X,-B(115):--,-O B(115) Yes M GL US X
-X,-b:-O,-- No M GL US X X
-X,-b:-O,-b No M GL US X
-X,-b:-Of,BR Yes M GL US X
-X,-G/O/G:-O,-- Yes W GL US X
-X,g:-O,-Y No M GL US X
-X,-G:-Yf,PL Yes W NGP US X X
-X,-L:-Of,YL Yes W GL US X X X
-X,-O/g:-O,-- No M GL US X
-X,-O/G:-O,-- Yes W GL US X X X
-X,-O/Y:-O,-- Yes W GL US X
-X,-R(100):--,-O R(100),
green dot
Yes M GL US X
-X,-Y/O/Y:-O,-- Yes M GL US X X
-X,-Y:--,-O No M GL C X
-X,YR:-Yf(0E5),LW Yes W NGP US X X
-Yf(A48),LW:-X,LO Yes M NGP US X
-Yf(N36),--:-X,-- Yes M NGP US X
YG,--:RR,-- Yes M ATL US X
109
5.3. 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.

5.3.1. Effects of Dredging on Piping Plover

Applicable Science and Response Pathways

The Service expects the Action will result in direct and indirect, long-term effects to piping
plovers.

Direct Effects:

Short-term and temporary impacts to piping plovers could result from project activities
disturbing roosting plovers and degrading or removing currently occupied adjacent foraging
areas.

The construction window will extend through the piping plover migration and winter season and
into the nesting season. Since piping plovers can be present on these beaches year-round,
construction is likely to occur while this species is utilizing these intertidal shoals, beaches and
associated habitats. Dredges operating in the Action Area may adversely affect piping plovers
by disturbance and disruption of normal activities such as roosting and foraging, and possibly
forcing birds to expend valuable energy reserves to seek available habitat elsewhere.

Dredging of this channel appears to require the removal of emergent shoals that may have
formed over time. In this case, the dredging activities will result in a complete take of that
habitat, at least until the area recovers a similar amount of sand and the shoals reform. After
each dredging event, the loss of optimal habitat in the intertidal shoals will not be recovered
unless and until sand movement again creates shoals in the project area. The mean linear
distance moved by wintering plovers from their core area is estimated to be approximately 2.1 mi
(Drake et al. 2001), suggesting they could be negatively impacted by temporary disturbances
anywhere in their core habitat area.

In the construction area where shoals above MLLW are dredged, there will be direct loss of
piping plover critical habitat in Unit NC-11, and of foraging and roosting habitat. 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.

The timing of project construction could directly and indirectly impact migrating and wintering
piping plovers. Piping plovers may be present year-round in the Action Area; however, the
timing of project activities will likely occur during the migration and wintering period.
110
Indirect Effects:

Long-term and permanent impacts could preclude the creation of new habitat and increase
recreational disturbance. The effects of the project construction include a long-term reduction in
foraging habitat and a long-term decreased rate of change in coastal dynamics (e.g. sand
movement to form shoals and other intertidal habitats) that may preclude habitat creation.

Indirect effects include reducing the potential for the formation of optimal habitats. The
proposed project may limit the creation of optimal foraging and roosting habitat, and may
increase the attractiveness of these beaches for recreation increasing recreational pressures
within the Action Area. Recreational activities that potentially adversely affect plovers on the
inlet shoals include disturbance by boats, unleashed pets and pedestrians.

Responses and Interpretation of Effects

The Service anticipates potential adverse effects throughout the Action Area by limiting
proximity to roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat and by removing or degrading occupied
foraging habitat.

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).
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. 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. Even small declines in adult and juvenile survival
rates will cause increases in extinction risk (Ryan et al. 1993; Melvin and Gibbs 1996; Plissner
and Haig 2000; Amirault et al. 2005; Calvert et al. 2006; Brault 2007; Gibson et al. 2018).

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.

The dredging of intertidal shoals in New Topsail Inlet will immediately destroy an unknown
amount of piping plover critical habitat, directly in the path of the dredge. The dredging will
also cause a long-term reduction in foraging and roosting habitat, and long-term decreased rate
of change in coastal dynamics that may preclude creation of new optimal habitat. The Service
estimates that the total amount of critical habitat removed or otherwise adversely affected is up
to 200 acres, and the actual amount will be based on the amount of intertidal shoals dredged.
However, the rest of the critical habitat unit and other critical habitat units should remain
functional to serve the intended conservation role for the piping plover.

111
5.3.2. Effects of Sand Placement 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. The stabilization of the shoreline may
also result in less suitable nesting habitat for all shorebirds, including the piping plover.

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 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
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 use by beach drivers and pedestrians.

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 plovers encountering
pedestrians spend proportionately more time in non-foraging behavior. This study suggests that
interactions with pedestrians on beaches cause birds to shift their activities from calorie
112
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
and a long-term decreased rate of change in coastal dynamics (e.g. sand movement that forms
shoals and other intertidal habitats) 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 24,000 lf 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).

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.

113
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.

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 24,000 lf 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;
however, the location of project activities will likely occur in areas used by migrating and
wintering plovers. Sand nourishment under this authorization is expected to be a one-time event,
taking up to four and a half months to complete. 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 for over 10 years.

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:

(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 breed, 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;

114
(3) increased levels of pedestrian and vehicular disturbance may be expected; and
(4) a temporary reduction of food base will occur.

5.4. 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. Potential cumulative
effects are unknown at this time. Therefore, cumulative effects are not relevant to formulating
our opinion for the Action.

5.5. 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. 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.

Overall, it appears that the Northern Great Plains breeding population (including Canada)
declined from 1991 through 2001, increased dramatically in 2006, and then declined again in
2011. The 2011 breeding census count was substantially lower than the count in 2006 (over
4,500 birds in 2006 and 2,249 in 2011) (Elliott-Smith et al. 2015).

The Great Lakes population has shown significant growth, from approximately 17 pairs at the
time of listing in 1986, to 75 pairs in 2016 (Cavalieri pers. comm. 2016a). The total of 75
115
breeding pairs represents 50% of the current recovery goal of 150 breeding pairs for the Great
Lakes population.

Baseline

Within the Action Area, wintering, migrating, and breeding piping plovers are documented every
year. There have been as many as 15 documented piping plovers on one day during the winter
and migration seasons, and typically one breeding pair during the breeding season.
Overwintering and migrating piping plover individuals are most likely to be found in the estuary
or far-field flood shoals of New Topsail Inlet, while breeding individuals and nests are typically
found on the south end of Topsail Island. As many as 15 individually banded piping plovers
utilized the inlet area annually between 2008 and 2010. This number dropped to five in
2010/2011 (the same year as the first of the most recent dredging projects), but increased to
between seven and ten individuals from 2011/2012 to 2015/2016. In the winter of 2016/2017,
only four individuals were recorded during the migration and wintering season (three of those
during the winter months of December and January) (Chaplin pers. comm. 2018).

According to the Audubon North Carolina data, since 2006, 43 individual piping plovers from
the Great Lakes population have been recorded at New Topsail Inlet, along with three banded
individuals from the Northern Great Plains population and nine banded individuals from the
Atlantic Coast breeding population (Chaplin pers. comm. 2018).

Effects

The Service anticipates potential adverse effects throughout the Action Area by limiting
proximity to roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat and by removing or degrading occupied
foraging habitat.

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).
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. 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. Even small declines in adult and juvenile survival
rates will cause increases in extinction risk (Ryan et al. 1993; Melvin and Gibbs 1996; Plissner
and Haig 2000; Amirault et al. 2005; Calvert et al. 2006; Brault 2007; Gibson et al. 2018).

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.

116
The dredging of intertidal shoals in New Topsail Inlet will immediately destroy an unknown
amount of piping plover critical habitat, up to 200 acres, directly in the path of the dredge. The
dredging will also cause a long-term reduction in foraging and roosting habitat, and long-term
decreased rate of change in coastal dynamics that may preclude creation of new optimal habitat.
However, the rest of the critical habitat unit and other critical habitat units should remain
functional to serve the intended conservation role for the piping plover.

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 24,000 lf of beach will occur within habitat for piping plovers. Piping
plovers may be present year-round in the Action Area; however, the location of project activities
will likely occur in areas used by migrating and wintering plovers. Sand nourishment under this
authorization is expected to be a one-time event, taking up to four and a half months to complete.
The Service expects the Action will result in direct and indirect, long-term effects to piping
plovers. Although the area of sand placement developed for decades, with regular nourishment
activities and a high level of recreational activity, the area to be dredged provides optimal habitat
for wintering and migrating piping plovers. Therefore, piping plover presence in the Action
Area is often quite high.

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. 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.

6. CRITICAL HABITAT FOR PIPING PLOVER

6.1. Status of Piping Plover Critical Habitat

This section summarizes best available data about the current condition of all designated units of
critical habitat for piping plover (Charadrius melodus) that are relevant to formulating an
opinion about the Action. In 2001, critical habitat was designated for the breeding population in
the Great Lakes region (USFWS 2001a), while a separate rule determined critical habitat for the
U.S. portion of the Northern Great Plains breeding population in 2002 (USFWS 2002). No
critical habitat has been proposed or designated for the Atlantic Coast breeding population, but
the needs of all three breeding populations were considered in the 2001 critical habitat
designation for wintering piping plovers (USFWS 2001b) and in subsequent re-designations
(USFWS 2008b; 2009c).

As discussed in Section 5.1 multiple recovery plans have been developed for the three piping
plover populations and their migration/wintering habitat, along with a document outlining the

117
CCS for the piping plover in its coastal migration and wintering range (USFWS 2012; 2015).

6.1.1. Description of Piping Plover Wintering Critical Habitat

Critical habitat for wintering piping plovers currently comprises 141 units totaling 256,513 acres
along the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Texas. The original designation included 142 units (the rule erroneously states
137 units) encompassing approximately 1,798 mi of mapped shoreline and 165,211 acres of
mapped areas (USFWS 2001b). A revised designation for four North Carolina units was
published in 2008 (USFWS 2008b). Eighteen revised Texas critical habitat units were
designated in 2009, replacing 19 units that were vacated and remanded by a 2006 court order
(USFWS 2009b). Designated areas include habitats that support roosting, foraging, and
sheltering activities of piping plovers.

Critical habitat designation for the piping plover used the term 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 on the term
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 piping plover that were identified in its critical
habitat designation rule as PCEs.

The PBFs of piping plover critical habitat are (73 FR 62816-62841):

1. Intertidal sand beaches (including sand flats) or mud flats (between annual low tide and
annual high tide) with no or very sparse emergent vegetation for feeding. In some cases,
these flats may be covered or partially covered by a mat of blue-green algae.
2. Unvegetated or sparsely vegetated sand, mud, or algal flats above annual high tide for
roosting. Such sites may have debris or detritus and may have micro-topographic relief
(less than 20 in (50 cm) above substrate surface) offering refuge from high winds and
cold weather.
3. Surf-cast algae for feeding.
4. Sparsely vegetated backbeach, which is the beach area above mean high tide seaward of
the dune line, or in cases where no dunes exist, seaward of a delineating feature such as a
vegetation line, structure, or road. Backbeach is used by plovers for roosting and refuge
during storms.
5. Spits, especially sand, running into water for foraging and roosting.
6. Salterns, or bare sand flats in the center of mangrove ecosystems that are found above
mean high water and are only irregularly flushed with sea water.
7. Unvegetated washover areas with little or no topographic relief for feeding and roosting.
Washover areas are formed and maintained by the action of hurricanes, storm surges, or
other extreme wave actions.
118
8. Natural conditions of sparse vegetation and little or no topographic relief mimicked in
artificial habitat types (e.g., dredge spoil sites).

A designated unit contains one or more of these PBFs. The seaward edge of each unit is the
contour of the mean lower low water (MLLW) elevation of each tidal day, as observed over the
National Tidal Datum Epoch. The breadth of each unit extends landward from the seaward edge
to where PBFs no longer occur, generally to the toe of stable, densely-vegetated dunes. The
seaward and landward edges may shift over time with the movement of coastal landforms. Unit
boundaries generally exclude developed areas, because these areas do not contain the PBFs.
Buildings, marinas, paved areas, boat ramps, exposed oil and gas pipelines, and similar structures
that may occur within unit boundaries do not contain the PBFs and are not considered critical
habitat.

6.1.2. Conservation Value of Piping Plover Wintering Critical Habitat

The most recent comprehensive reviews of plover winter habitat conditions are the 2009 5-year
status review (USFWS 2009a) and the 2015 winter/migration CCS (USFWS 2015). We
summarize in this section key points from these documents that are relevant to this BO. Please
refer to these documents for further details.

Characterizing the current conservation value of piping plover critical habitat is difficult, due to
the multi-state scale of the designation and to the dynamic or ephemeral nature of its PBFs.
Waves, tides, currents, storms, terrestrial runoff, and biological communities interacting with
sediments at the land/sea interface form and maintain piping plover winter habitats. Various
human activities at the land/sea interface (construction, dredging, sand mining, sand placement,
inlet stabilization/relocation/closure, seawalls, revetments, beach cleaning) disrupt these
processes and reduce or degrade the PBFs. Therefore, a common and practical approach to
describing the status of plover critical habitat is to quantify the extent of human alteration of
features or PBF surrogates that are easily measured at large scales. Beaches and inlets encompass
multiple PBFs.

Not all units are equally important depending on the presence, juxtaposition, and acreage of
components contributing to the PBFs, and not all units are equally important to the three
breeding populations. Piping plovers from the three breeding populations are not evenly
distributed throughout their nonbreeding range (Gratto-Trevor et al. 2012). The 141 critical
habitat units vary from units which provide all of the PBFs, including a few that have very little
human presence or disturbance, to very disturbed units where very few of the PBFs remain and
piping plovers are rarely seen. There are many threats that degrade or remove PBFs of piping
plover wintering critical habitat, including but not limited to those below. Section 5.1.4
discusses many of these threats in more detail. The 2015 CCS includes a table to help the reader
determine the relative importance of each threat, ranked as low, medium, or high based on how
much of a threat they are to the wintering population (Table 5-4).

There are many man-made activities that threaten the PBFs. 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
119
development and shoreline stabilization efforts. As described below and in Section 5.1.4, 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.

Using information provided on inlets in Rice (2012a), the Service determined that there are 151
inlets in the non-breeding range of the Great Lakes piping plover population (including inlets
from North Carolina to the Florida Gulf of Mexico shoreline). Based on Rice (2012a), 19% of
the inlets in piping plover critical habitat in this region have been modified by dredging/mining,
shoreline hardening, or relocation. Of these modified inlets, approximately 34% are within
piping plover critical habitat. In North Carolina, 16 of the 20 (75%) existing inlets are modified
in some manner, most often by dredging (Table 5-6) (Rice 2016). This is higher than any other
state in the non-breeding range of the Great Lakes piping plover population (Rice 2012a).

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 (PBFs 2, 4, and 7 -
see list in Section 6.1.1) 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 (PBFs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8). High-value plover habitat becomes fragmented as
lots are developed or coastal roads are built between oceanside and bayside habitats.

At present, there are approximately 2,119 mi of sandy beaches within the U.S. continental
wintering range of the piping plover (Rice 2012b). Approximately 40% (856 mi) 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.

Sand Placement

Sand placement projects threaten migration and wintering habitat of the piping plover in every
state throughout the range (Rice 2012b). At least 684.8 mi (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
mi 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.
See Section 5.1.4 for information on impacts to wintering habitat. These impacts threaten PBFs
1, 2, 3, 7, and potentially others, due to an increase in elevation of flats, removal of
microtopography, and burial of surf-cast algae and wrack.
120
Sand mining/dredging

Sand mining, the practice of extracting (dredging) sand from sand bars, shoals, and inlets in the
nearshore zone, is a less expensive source of sand than obtaining sand from offshore shoals for
beach nourishment. Sand bars and shoals are sand sources that move onshore over time and act
as natural breakwaters. Inlet dredging reduces the formation of exposed ebb and flood tidal
shoals considered to be primary or optimal piping plover roosting and foraging habitat (PBFs 1,
2, 3, and also 5, when a sand spit is mined). Removing these sand sources can alter depth
contours and change wave refraction as well as cause localized erosion (Hayes and Michel
2008). Exposed shoals and sandbars are also valuable to piping plovers, as they tend to receive
less human recreational use (because they are only accessible by boat) and therefore provide
relatively less disturbed habitats for birds. Most jettied inlets need maintenance dredging, but
non-hardened inlets are often dredged as well. According to Rice (2012; 2016), approximately
44% of the inlets in the non-breeding range have been dredged or mined.

Shoreline Stabilization

Many navigable mainland or barrier island tidal inlets along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
coasts are stabilized with jetties, groins, or by seawalls and/or adjacent industrial or residential
development. This includes seawalls or adjacent development, which lock the inlets in place and
affect the formation of shoals within the inlet. Rice (2012a) created database of the inlets within
the migration and wintering range of the piping plover, including identification of existing hard
structures or other habitat modifications. Several studies highlight concerns about adverse
effects of development and coastline stabilization on the quantity and quality of habitat for
migrating and wintering piping plovers and other shorebirds. Shoreline stabilization activities
may affect PBFs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Groins (structures built perpendicular to the beach in order to trap sand) are typically found on
developed beaches with severe erosion. Although groins can be individual structures, they are
often clustered along the shoreline. Groins can act as barriers to longshore sand transport and
cause downdrift erosion (Hayes and Michel 2008), resulting in the loss of habitat and preventing
future piping plover habitat creation by limiting sediment deposition and accretion. As sand fills
the area updrift from the groin or jetty, some littoral drift and sand deposition on adjacent
downdrift beaches may occur due to spillover. However, these groins and jetties often force the
stream of sand into deeper offshore water where it is lost from the system (Kaufman and Pilkey
1979). The loss of sand from the inlet system can be exacerbated by inlet dredging and disposal
outside of the inlet. Groins deflect longshore currents offshore. This aggravates downdrift
erosion and erosion escarpments are common on the downdrift side of groins (Humiston and
Moore 2001). Rice (2016) found that several inlets along the Atlantic Coast have hard
stabilization structures such as jetties or groins along the entire inlet shoreline that have
eliminated all sandy beach habitat from the inlet shoulders. Terminal groins along adjacent
developed areas can alter erosion and accretion patterns and diminish the magnitude of the inlet
cycle. As an example, the stabilization and dredging of Shinnecock Inlet on Long Island’s South
Shore in New York has directly negatively affected the inlet’s ebb shoal equilibrium since
construction in 1940. Buonaiuto et al. (2008) found that these impacts will persist for nearly 150
years and possibly longer. As of 2008, the ebb shoal had only reached approximately 60% of its
121
estimated equilibrium volume and it is expected to take another 75 years to reach full
equilibrium. If the ebb shoal is mined or dredged, the time for recovery will increase.

These structures are found throughout the southeastern Atlantic Coast, and installation of new
groins continues to occur. 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 2014,
but the other two (Oregon Inlet and Fort Macon) were installed decades ago, and downdrift
erosion has been severe at both, requiring frequent nourishment (Pietrafesa 2012; Riggs et al
2009). The Oregon Inlet and Fort Macon Groins are located on the updrift side of the island, but
accretion in these areas is not significant due to scour. At Oregon Inlet, there is no sandy habitat
on the inlet shoulder updrift of the groin and revetment, and there has not been for decades.
There are two degraded groin/jetty structures in Dare County, adjacent to the old location of the
Cape Hatteras lighthouse. The Service has issued BOs for the authorization of two other
terminal groins (Towns of Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach), and these projects are
considered in the environmental baseline for the proposed project. The Figure Eight
Homeowners Association has recently sought authorization to place a terminal groin on the north
end of Figure Eight Island, on Rich Inlet. Also, in 2015, the North Carolina legislature revised
state regulations to allow additional terminal groins to be constructed at New River Inlet and
Bogue Inlet. However, it is unclear whether the local governments in the vicinity of these two
inlets will propose the construction of a terminal groin.

Seawalls and revetments are vertical hard structures built parallel to the beach in front of
buildings, roads, and other facilities to protect them from erosion. However, these structures
often accelerate erosion by causing scouring in front of and downdrift from the structure (Hayes
and Michel 2008), which can eliminate intertidal foraging habitat and adjacent roosting habitat
(PBFs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). Seawalls confine the wave energy and intensify the erosion by
concentrating the sediment transport processes in an increasingly narrow zone. Eventually, the
beach disappears, leaving the seawall directly exposed to the full force of the waves (Williams et
al 1995). Physical characteristics that determine microhabitats and biological communities can
be altered after installation of a seawall or revetment, thereby depleting or changing composition
of benthic communities that serve as the prey base for piping plovers. Sand geotubes and
sandbag revetments are softer alternatives, but act as barriers by preventing overwash. There are
two existing rock revetments along the coast of North Carolina: one at Fort Fisher
(approximately 3,040 lf), and another along Carolina Beach (approximately 2,050 lf). In
2014/2015, a sandbag revetment was constructed on over 1,800 lf of shoreline at the north end of
Topsail Island, including portions along the New River Inlet shoreline. The intertidal areas and
sand flats along the inlet were used as a sand source. The inlet shoreline north of the sandbag
revetment has eroded significantly since installation. In 2016, the Town of North Topsail also
placed a sandbag revetment above the MHWL along inlet shoulders of New River Inlet.

Inlet Relocation

Tidal inlet relocation can cause loss and/or degradation of piping plover habitat; although less
permanent than construction of hard structures, effects can persist for years. Service biologists
are aware of at least seven inlet relocation projects (two in North Carolina, three in South
122
Carolina, two in Florida), but this number likely under-represents the extent of this activity. This
activity may affect PBFs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, by direct and indirect loss of intertidal shoal and
adjacent shoreline habitat within the unit.

Exotic/invasive vegetation

The spread of coastal invasive plants is a threat to suitable piping plover habitat. Like most
invasive species, coastal exotic plants reproduce and spread quickly and exhibit dense growth
habits, often outcompeting native plant species. If left uncontrolled, invasive plants cause a
habitat shift from open or sparsely vegetated sand to dense vegetation, resulting in the loss or
degradation of piping plover roosting habitat, which is especially important during high tides and
migration periods. The loss or degradation of this habitat may affect PBFs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Wrack removal and beach cleaning or rock-picking

Wrack on beaches and baysides provides important foraging and roosting habitat for piping
plovers (Drake 1999a; Smith 2007; Maddock et al. 2009; Lott et al. 2009b) and many other
shorebirds on their winter, breeding, and migration grounds. There is increasing popularity in
the Southeast, especially in Florida, for beach communities to carry out “beach cleaning” and
“beach raking” actions. Beach cleaning occurs on private beaches, where piping plover use is
not well documented, and on some municipal or county beaches that are used by piping plovers.
Most wrack removal on state and federal lands is limited to post-storm cleanup and does not
occur regularly.

Man-made beach cleaning and raking machines effectively remove accumulated wrack,
topographic depressions, and sparse vegetation nodes used by roosting and foraging piping
plovers (PBFs 1, 2, 3, and 4). Removal of wrack also eliminates a beach’s natural sand-trapping
abilities, further destabilizing the beach. In addition, sand adhering to seaweed and trapped in
the cracks and crevices of wrack is removed from the beach. Although the amount of sand lost
due to single sweeping actions may be small, it adds up considerably over a period of years
(Nordstrom et al. 2006; Neal et al. 2007). Beach cleaning or grooming can result in abnormally
broad unvegetated zones that are inhospitable to dune formation or plant colonization, thereby
enhancing the likelihood of erosion (Defreo et al. 2009). The Town of Carolina Beach rakes the
beach front in Freeman Park at least twice per year, including areas in piping plover critical
habitat unit NC-14. The Town of North Topsail Beach utilizes a rock-picker as needed, typically
annually, to remove rocky material from the beach berm along portions of its shoreline.

6.1.3. Conservation Needs for Piping Plover Wintering Critical Habitat

The 2012 CCS (USFWS 2012) synthesizes conservation needs across the shared coastal migration
and wintering ranges of the three piping plover populations. Implementation of actions described in
the CCS will support attainment of relevant reclassification and delisting criteria contained in the
approved USFWS piping plover recovery plans for the Great Lakes and Atlantic Coast
populations (USFWS 1996; 2003). Conservation efforts on behalf of piping plovers in their
non-breeding range have increased since the species listing and further accelerated since the
early 2000s. Diverse conservation tools are selectively used to address protection needs across
123
federal, state, municipal, and private land ownership. Current efforts toward conservation and
recovery of piping plovers are discussed in Section 5.1.4. Most of these efforts also support the
needs for conservation of critical habitat, including international treaties, regulatory protections,
federal lands, and non-regulatory actions. State parks, wildlife management areas, and other
lands furnish important habitat and protection for migrating and wintering piping plovers,
including 23 percent of the 2001 critical habitat designation for wintering piping plovers
(USFWS 2001b). Management protecting piping plovers has been implemented at various state
parks in the wintering range.

Further, many of the proposed conservation and recovery actions outlined in the 2012 CCS for
piping plover also support the needs for conservation of critical habitat. Please see Table 5-8 for
a complete list of the recommended actions from the Conservation Action Outline.

6.2. Environmental Baseline for Piping Plover Wintering 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 piping plover 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 habitat 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 Piping Plover Wintering Critical Habitat

In North Carolina, there are 18 designated critical habitat units for wintering piping plover, from
Oregon Inlet to Mad Inlet. Piping plover critical habitat unit NC-11 (Topsail – Pender and New
Hanover Counties) is located within the Action Area. Portions of this 451 hectare (ha) (1,114 ac)
unit are privately owned, while other portions are state-owned. This unit extends southwest from
1.0 km (0.65 mi) northeast of MLLW of New Topsail Inlet on Topsail Island to 0.53 km (0.33
mi) southwest of MLLW of Rich Inlet on Figure Eight Island. It includes both Rich Inlet and
New Topsail Inlet and the former Old Topsail Inlet. This unit includes all land, including
emergent sandbars, from MLLW on the Atlantic Ocean and sound side to where densely
vegetated habitat, not used by the piping plover, begins and where the constituent elements no
longer occur (Figure 6-1). In Topsail Sound, the unit stops as the entrance to tidal creeks
becomes narrow and channelized. Critical habitat unit NC-11 includes two inlets, New Topsail
Inlet and Rich Inlet, the inlet shoulders on both sides of the inlets, and all of Lea-Hutaff Island
(Figure 6-1). The unit supports all of the PBFs listed in Section 6.1.1 with the exception of PBFs 6
and 8. Salterns are not common in North Carolina, and there are no dredge spoil islands or other
artificial habitats in the unit.

As of 2016 Unit NC-11 is providing wintering/migrating habitat for 10 plovers from the
endangered Great Lakes breeding population, when individuals from Rich Inlet and Lea-Hutaff
Island are included with those documented at New Topsail Inlet (Tables 5-12 and 5-13). The
inlet shoulders also typically provide nesting habitat in most years for at least one breeding pair
from the Atlantic Coast breeding population. The better the habitat quality, which is correlated
with the amount of acres and juxtaposition of the PBFs, the more valuable the unit is. Higher
quality units can attract higher numbers of piping plovers, particularly hatch-year birds, to
124
stopover or spend the winter. The project may have a larger impact on the local winter
population, particularly plovers from the Great Lakes breeding population due to the high site
fidelity of adult birds.

The majority of critical habitat unit NC-11 supports the PBFs for the piping plover, and the unit
is of very high quality due to the relatively low level of human disturbance within much of the
area – specifically along Lea-Hutaff Island and at Rich Inlet. Within New Topsail Inlet, the
estuarine shoreline and intertidal shoals that are not attached to Topsail Island appear to support
the PBFs more strongly than Topsail Island itself, likely due to threats that are discussed below.

In Section 5.1.4 demographic modeling of the non-breeding piping plovers in North Carolina
and elsewhere is presented, along with true survival and site fidelity rates for New Topsail Inlet,
Rich Inlet, and other inlets along the east coast of the U.S. (Table 5-5). The true survival rate
calculated by Gibson et al. (2018) for New Topsail Inlet piping plovers is approximately 66%
(not dissimilar to other disturbed inlet areas), while the true survival for Rich Inlet piping plovers
is 92%, the highest by far of any inlet that was studied in Georgia, South Carolina, and North
Carolina. The site fidelity rate (the rate at which individual plovers return to the site year after
year) at New Topsail Inlet is higher than the survival rate, at approximately 74%. The site
fidelity rate at Rich Inlet is 80%. The high survivorship of piping plovers using Unit NC-11,
largely because of the high quality of the habitat within the entire unit and low disturbance along
Rich Inlet and Lea-Hutaff Island, demonstrates the superior conservation potential and value of
the critical habitat unit. It is possible that severe impacts to this wintering unit alone could cause
a significant impact to the conservation and recovery of the Great Lakes piping plover
population.

6.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs for and Threats to Piping Plover Wintering
Critical Habitat

Within critical habitat Unit NC-11, there are no specific management actions currently
conducted to maintain the PBFs. The PBFs are typically maintained by natural coastal
processes. Other than federal and state regulations, there are no additional protections of the
PBFs in the unit. However, despite the lack of active management and protection, as stated
above, the habitat within the majority of the unit is generally of high quality and subject to less
overall disturbance than other units.

There are currently only a few regular threats to Unit NC-11, and most of them are associated
with activities along New Topsail Inlet and the shoreline of Topsail Beach. Table 3-3 lists the
most recent projects within the past 5 years. Table 5-6 lists impacts to inlets in North Carolina,
including those in the Action Area. Impacts to the PBFs by these types of activities are
discussed in Section 6.1.2.

Inlet dredging and sand mining: New Topsail Inlet has been dredged by the Corps typically two
to three times a year, while the inlet crossings and connecting channels have been typically
dredged every 1-2 years (NCDENR, 2015). The Town of Topsail Beach has received
authorization to also conduct maintenance dredging of this inlet on the same general schedule,
125
with beach disposal during the winter work window. Rich Inlet and its associated channels have
been dredged much less often; three times in the past 20 years.

Nourishment activities: According to the BA, Topsail Beach has been nourished three times in
the past 8 years: in the winter of 2010/2011, winter/spring of 2012, and the winter of 2013/2014.
The beaches of Figure Eight Island are regularly nourished with sand from Mason Inlet, and
historically from Nixon Channel. Between 1993 and 2011, the northern end of Figure Eight
Island was nourished with sand on six different occasions with sand from various sources,
including Mason Inlet, Nixon Channel, Banks Channel, and Rich Inlet (CP&E of NC, Inc. 2016).

Beach scraping: 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 has been conducted 13 times on Figure Eight Island since 1977,
including four times in the year 2000 alone (CP&E of NC, Inc. 2016). Data for beach scraping
on Topsail Beach was not available.

Beach Driving: Topsail Beach allows vehicles on the beach between October 1 and March 28.
Beach driving permits are limited to the purposes of fishing. Aerial photography indicates that
vehicles frequently access all sandy portions along the inlet shoulders in New Topsail Inlet,
including the estuarine shoreline. By far, Topsail Beach had the highest number of vehicles
observed per km of any other site in Gibson et al. (2018), with almost one vehicle every 2 km.
No beach driving is allowed on Rich Inlet, and Lea-Hutaff Island is not accessible to wheeled
vehicles.

Shoreline stabilization: There are two existing rock revetments along the coast of North
Carolina: one at Fort Fisher (approximately 3,040 lf), and another along Carolina Beach
(approximately 2,050 lf). A sandbag revetment at least 1,800 lf long (with a geotube in front of a
portion) was constructed in 2015 at the north end of North Topsail Beach, and more sandbags
were recently added to protect a parking lot north of the revetment. In 2000 and 2001, sandbag
revetments were installed on the north end of Figure Eight Island along Surf Court, Inlet Hook
Road, and Comber Road. There are over 30 homes on Topsail Beach with existing sandbag
structures. Figure Eight Island Homeowners Association has sought authorization from the
Corps for construction of a terminal groin on the north end of Figure Eight Island, but the project
has not yet been authorized.

126
6.2.3. Figures for Action Area Conservation Needs for and Threats to Piping Plover
Critical Habitat

Figure 6-1. General location of piping plover critical habitat unit NC-11. Figure is not to scale.

127
6.3. Effects of the Action on Piping Plover Wintering Critical Habitat

This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Action on critical habitat for 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. Our analyses are
organized according to the description of the Action in Section 2 of this BO.

6.3.1. Effects of Dredging on Piping Plover Wintering Critical Habitat

Applicable Science and Response Pathways

Direct Effects:

Dredging of this channel appears to require the removal of emergent shoals that may have
formed over time. In this case, the dredging activities will result in an elimination of PBFs 1, 2,
and 3 in those areas, at least until the area recovers a similar amount of sand and the shoals
reform. After each dredging event, the loss of optimal habitat in the intertidal shoals will not be
recovered unless and until sand movement again creates shoals in the project area. In the
construction area where shoals above MLLW are dredged, there will be direct loss of piping
plover critical habitat in Unit NC-11, and of foraging and roosting habitat. The Service expects
there may be morphological changes to the PBFs in adjacent piping plover habitat in the Unit,
including PBFs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. 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:

Long-term and permanent impacts could preclude the creation of new habitat and increase
recreational disturbance (though this type of disturbance is not relevant to the PBFs). The effects
of the project construction include a long-term reduction in foraging habitat and a long-term
decreased rate of change in coastal dynamics that may preclude the creation or restoration of
optimal foraging and roosting habitat.

Responses and Interpretation of Effects

The Service anticipates potential adverse effects to six of the eight PBFs of piping plover
wintering critical habitat throughout the Action Area, by removing or degrading occupied
foraging and roosting habitat.

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. 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.

128
The dredging of intertidal shoals in New Topsail Inlet will immediately destroy an unknown
amount of piping plover critical habitat and PBFs, directly in the path of the dredge. The Service
has estimated that as much as 200 acres of critical habitat may be destroyed or adversely
affected. The dredging will also cause a long-term reduction in foraging and roosting habitat, and
long-term decreased rate of change in coastal dynamics that may preclude creation of new
optimal habitat. However, the rest of the critical habitat unit and other critical habitat units
should remain functional to serve the intended conservation role for the piping plover.

6.3.2. Effects of Sand Placement on Piping Plover Wintering Critical Habitat

The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect piping plover wintering critical habitat
within a portion of the Action Area. Potential effects to six of the eight PBFs include direct loss
of preferred foraging and roosting habitat in the Action Area and less suitable foraging and
roosting habitat as a result of indirect, long-term impacts.

Applicable Science and Response Pathways

Direct effects:

The Action involves heavy machinery and equipment (e.g., dredges, trucks and bulldozers
operating in Action Area) and placement of sand that may adversely affect PBFs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and
7 in a portion of the critical habitat unit. Crushing from equipment or burial by sand placement
may degrade or modify by degrading or modifying the prey base in the intertidal zone. Sand
placement will affect the presence of wrack, surf-cast algae, and micro-topographic features.

Indirect effects:

The Service anticipates potential adverse effects throughout the Action Area by limiting
proximity to roosting and foraging habitat and degrading occupied habitat within the critical
habitat unit (PBFs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7). Indirect effects include long-term degradation in PBFs
and a reduction in the potential for the formation of PBFs.

Overwash is an essential process, necessary to maintain the integrity of many barrier islands and
to create new habitat (Donnelly et al. 2006). The proposed project may limit overwash and the
creation of optimal foraging and roosting habitat.

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 degrading currently occupied adjacent foraging and roosting areas. The effects of
the project construction include a long-term reduction in foraging habitat, a long-term decreased
rate of change in coastal dynamics that may preclude habitat creation.

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 24,000 lf of shoreline. 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
129
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 (PBFs 1, 3, 5, 7). 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.

Responses and Interpretation of Effects

Sand placement activities bury food items, alter coastal processes, often plug dune gaps and
remove overwash areas, and increase other forms of disturbance.

The proposed placement of sand on 24,000 lf of beach will occur within critical habitat for
migrating and wintering piping plovers and construction will occur during a portion of the
nesting, migration, and winter seasons. The Service expects the Action will result in direct and
indirect, long-term effects to six of the eight PBFs, due to direct impacts from equipment on the
beach, burial of prey items, and creating a long-term decreased rate of change in coastal
dynamics that may degrade the PBFs or preclude PBF creation. However, the sand placement
area is largely outside of the critical habitat unit.

6.4. Cumulative Effects on Piping Plover Wintering 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. 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. Potential cumulative
effects are unknown at this time. Therefore, cumulative effects are not relevant to formulating
our opinion for the Action.

6.5. Conclusion for Piping Plover Wintering Critical Habitat

In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections for piping plover
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:
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.
130

“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).

Baseline

This critical habitat unit is one of 141designated critical habitat units for wintering piping plovers
and one of 18 in North Carolina.

All designated critical habitat for wintering piping plovers in North Carolina is occupied,
although some of the designated critical habitat units contain little to none of the components
supporting the PBFs essential to the conservation of the species. There are many threats that
degrade or remove PBFs of piping plover wintering critical habitat.

The 18 units in North Carolina vary in conservation value; though more than half support at least
six of the PBFs (salterns are rare, as are dredge spoil sites with high usage by piping plover).
The critical habitat unit in the Action Area provides very high quality wintering habitat for all
three piping plover populations, and is of very high conservation value to the species, despite
recreational pressures on the northern end of the unit. Many of the units in North Carolina have
been affected historically or recently by activities such as dredging, inlet relocation, beach
nourishment, and shoreline stabilization.

Effects

The Service anticipates potential adverse effects to six of the eight PBFs of piping plover
wintering critical habitat throughout the Action Area, by removing or degrading occupied
foraging and nesting habitat.

The dredging of intertidal shoals in New Topsail Inlet will immediately destroy as much as 200
acres of piping plover critical habitat directly in the path of the dredge, thereby affecting PBFs 1,
2, and 3 until shoals return. The dredging will also cause a long-term reduction in foraging and
roosting habitat, and long-term decreased rate of change in coastal dynamics that may preclude
creation of new optimal habitat (PBFs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7). However, the rest of the critical
habitat unit and other critical habitat units should remain functional to serve the intended
conservation role for the piping plover.

The proposed placement of sand on 24,000 lf 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. The Service expects the Action will result in direct and indirect,
long-term effects to six of the eight PBFs, due to direct impacts from equipment on the beach,
burial of prey items, immediate and long-term physical changes in habitat availability and
quality, and creating a long-term decreased rate of change in coastal dynamics that may preclude
habitat creation. However, the Action Area has been developed for decades, with regular
131
nourishment activities and a high level of recreational activity for over 10 years. The sand
placement should affect a relatively small portion of the critical habitat unit. The rest of the
critical habitat unit and other critical habitat units should remain functional to serve the intended
conservation role for the piping plover.

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
wintering piping plovers.

7. RED KNOT

7.1. 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

7.1.1. Description of Red Knot

The red knot is a medium-sized shorebird about 9 to 11 in (23 to 28 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 seasons (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.

7.1.2. 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 mi (30,000 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
132
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 areas in Patagonia,
Argentina; eastern Brazil; 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; González 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
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 mi 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).
133
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 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; Donax and Darina clams; snails 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.

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.

7.1.3. 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 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)
134
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).

Counts in wintering areas are useful in estimating red knot populations and trends because the
birds generally remain within a given wintering area for a longer period of time compared to the
areas used during migration. This eliminates errors associated with turnover or double-counting
that can occur during migration counts. Harrington et al. (1988) reported that the mean count of
birds wintering in Florida was 6,300 birds (± 3,400) based on 4 aerial surveys conducted from
October to January in 1980 to 1982. Based on these surveys and other work, the Southeast
wintering group was estimated at roughly 10,000 birds in the 1970s and 1980s (Harrington
2005a).

Based on resightings of birds banded in South Carolina and Georgia from 1999 to 2002, the
Southeast wintering population was estimated at 11,700 ± 1,000 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 7-1). 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
attributed to varying geographic survey coverage (Dey et al. 2011); thus, we do not consider any
apparent trends in these data before 2010.

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 route prior to the survey window. Thus, greater numbers of red knots may
utilize Southeastern stopovers than suggested by the data in Table 7-1. For example, a peak
count of over 8,000 red knots was documented in South Carolina during spring 2012 (SCDNR
135
2012). Dinsmore et al. (1998) found a mean of 1,363 (±725) red knots in North Carolina during
spring 1992 and 1993, with a peak count of 2,764 birds.

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, 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. 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 is thought to shift from year to year among Florida,
Georgia, and South Carolina (Niles et al. 2008). However, the geographic limits of this
wintering region are poorly defined. Although only small numbers are known, wintering knots
extend along the Atlantic coast as far north as Virginia (L. Patrick pers. comm. August 31, 2012;
Niles et al. 2006), Maryland (Burger et al. 2012), and New Jersey (BandedBirds.org 2012; H.
Hanlon pers. comm. November 22, 2012; A. Dey pers. comm. November 19, 2012). Still
smaller numbers of red knots have been reported between December and February from Long
Island, New York, through Massachusetts and as far north as Nova Scotia, Canada (eBird.org
2012).

7.1.4. 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.

136
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 Lindström 2004; Rehfisch
and Crick 2003; Piersma and Baker 2000; Zöckler and Lysenko 2000; Lindström 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 between the timing of their annual breeding, migration,
and wintering cycles and the windows of peak food availability on which the birds depend
(Smith et al. 2011; McGowan et al. 2011; Meltofte et al. 2007; van Gils et al. 2005a; Baker et al.
2004).

With arctic warming, vegetation conditions in the red knot’s breeding grounds are expected to
change, causing the zone of nesting habitat to shift and perhaps contract, but this process may
take decades to unfold (Feng et al. 2012; Meltofte et al. 2007; Kaplan et al. 2003). Ecological
shifts in the Arctic may appear sooner. High uncertainty exists about when and how changing
interactions among vegetation, predators, competitors, prey, parasites, and pathogens may affect
the red knot, but the impacts are potentially profound (Fraser et al. 2013; Schmidt et al. 2012;
Meltofte et al. 2007; Ims and Fuglei 2005).

For most of the year, red knots live in or immediately adjacent to intertidal areas. These habitats
are naturally dynamic, as shorelines are continually reshaped by tides, currents, wind, and
storms. Coastal habitats are susceptible to both abrupt (storm-related) and long-term (sea level
rise) changes. Outside of the breeding grounds, red knots rely entirely on these coastal areas to
fulfill their roosting and foraging needs, making the birds vulnerable to the effects of habitat loss
from rising sea levels. Because conditions in coastal habitats are also critical for building up
nutrient and energy stores for the long migration to the breeding grounds, sea level rise affecting
conditions on staging areas also has the potential to impact the red knot’s ability to breed
successfully in the Arctic (Meltofte et al. 2007).

According to the NRC (2010), the rate of global sea level rise has increased from about 0.02 in
(0.6 mm) per year in the late 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
137
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 ft (0.18 to 0.59 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 or uplift of the land, and because of differences in
ocean circulation (NRC 2010). In the last century, for example, sea level rise along the U.S. mid-
Atlantic and Gulf coasts exceeded the global average by 5 to 6 in (13 to 15 cm) because coastal
lands in these areas are subsiding (USEPA 2013). Land subsidence also occurs in some areas of
the Northeast, at current rates of 0.02 to 0.04 in (0.5 to 1 mm) per year across this region (Ashton
et al. 2007); primarily the result of slow, natural geologic processes (NOAA 2013). Due to
regional differences, a 2-ft (0.6-m) rise in global sea level by the end of this century would result
in a relative sea level rise of 2.3 ft (0.7 m) at New York City, 2.9 ft (0.9 m) at Hampton Roads,
Virginia, and 3.5 ft (1.1 m) at Galveston, Texas (U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) 2009). Table 7-2 shows that local rates of sea level rise in the range of the red knot
over the second half of the 20th century were generally higher than the global rate of 0.07 in (1.8
mm) per year.

Data from along the U.S. Atlantic coast suggest a relationship between rates of sea level rise and
long-term erosion rates; thus, long-term coastal erosion rates may increase as sea level rises
(Florida Oceans and Coastal Council 2010). However, even if such a correlation is borne out,
predicting the effect of sea level rise on beaches is more complex. Even if wetland or upland
coastal lands are lost, sandy or muddy intertidal habitats can often migrate or reform. However,
forecasting how such changes may unfold is complex and uncertain. Potential effects of sea level
rise on beaches vary regionally due to subsidence or uplift of the land, as well as the geological
character of the coast and nearshore (CCSP 2009; Galbraith et al. 2002). Precisely forecasting
the effects of sea level rise on particular coastal habitats will require integration of diverse
information on local rates of sea level rise, tidal ranges, subsurface and coastal topography,
sediment accretion rates, coastal processes, and other factors that is beyond the capability of
current models (CCSP 2009; Frumhoff et al. 2007; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 2000; Thieler and
Hammar-Klose 1999).

Long-term shoreline changes will involve contributions from inundation and erosion, as well as
changes to other coastal environments such as wetland losses. Most portions of the open coast of
the U.S. will be subject to significant physical changes and erosion over the next century because
the majority of coastlines consist of sandy beaches, which are highly mobile and in a state of
continual change (CCSP 2009). By altering coastal geomorphology, sea level rise will cause
significant and often dramatic changes to coastal landforms including barrier islands, beaches,
and intertidal flats (CCSP 2009; Rehfisch and Crick 2003), primary red knot habitats. Due to
increasing sea levels, storm-surge-driven floods now qualifying as 100-year events are projected
to occur as often as every 10 to 20 years along most of the U.S. Atlantic coast by 2050, with
138
even higher frequencies of such large floods in certain localized areas (Tebaldi et al. 2012).
Rising sea level not only increases the likelihood of coastal flooding, but also changes the
template for waves and tides to sculpt the coast, which can lead to loss of land orders of
magnitude greater than that from direct inundation alone (Ashton et al. 2007).

Climate change is also resulting in asynchronies during the annual cycle of the red knot. 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.

For unknown reasons, more red knots arrived late in Delaware Bay in the early 2000s, which is
generally accepted as a key causative factor (along with reduced supplies of horseshoe crab eggs)
behind red knot population declines that were observed over this same timeframe. Thus, the red
knot’s sensitivity to timing asynchronies has been demonstrated through a population-level
response. Both adequate supplies of horseshoe crab eggs and high-quality foraging habitat in
Delaware Bay can serve to partially mitigate minor asynchronies at this key stopover site.
However, the factors that caused delays in the spring migrations of red knots from Argentina and
Chile are still unknown, and we have no information to indicate if this delay will reverse, persist,
or intensify. Superimposed on this existing threat of late arrivals in Delaware Bay are new
threats of asynchronies emerging due to climate change. Climate change is likely to affect the
reproductive timing of horseshoe crabs in Delaware Bay, mollusk prey species at other stopover
sites, or both, possibly pushing the peak seasonal availability of food outside of the windows
when red knots rely on them. In addition, both field studies and modeling have shown strong
links between the red knot’s reproductive output and conditions in the Arctic including insect
abundance and snow cover. Climate change may also cause shifts in the period of optimal arctic
conditions relative to the time period when red knots currently breed.

Shoreline stabilization

Structural development along the shoreline and manipulation of natural inlets upset the naturally
dynamic coastal processes and result in loss or degradation of beach habitat (Melvin et al. 1991).
Threats to the red knot from shoreline stabilization are similar to those for the wintering piping
plover (Section 5.1.4). As beaches narrow, the reduced habitat can directly lower the diversity
and abundance of biota, 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.
139
In a few isolated locations, however, hard structures may enhance red knot habitat, or may
provide artificial habitat. In Delaware Bay, for example, Botton et al. (1994) found that, in the
same manner as natural shoreline discontinuities like creek mouths, jetties and other artificial
obstructions can act to concentrate drifting horseshoe crab eggs and thereby attract shorebirds.
Another example comes from the Delaware side of the bay, where a seawall and jetty at
Mispillion Harbor protect the confluence of the Mispillion River and Cedar Creek. These
structures create a low energy environment in the harbor, which seems to provide highly suitable
conditions for horseshoe crab spawning over a wider variation of weather and sea conditions
than anywhere else in the bay (G. Breese pers. comm. March 25, 2013). Notwithstanding
localized red knot use of artificial structures, and the isolated case of hard structures improving
foraging habitat at Mispillion Harbor, the nearly universal effect of such structures is the
degradation or loss of red knot habitat.

Sand Placement

Where shorebird habitat has been severely reduced or eliminated by hard stabilization structures,
beach nourishment may be the only means available to replace any habitat for as long as the hard
structures are maintained (Nordstrom and Mauriello 2001), although such habitat will persist
only with regular nourishment episodes (typically 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 (Greene 2002).

The artificial beach created by nourishment may provide only suboptimal habitat for red knots.
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.
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
140
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 to obtain sand for beach nourishment. Regardless
of the purpose, inlet and nearshore dredging can affect red knot habitats. Dredging often involves
removal of sediment from sand bars, shoals, and inlets in the nearshore zone, directly impacting
optimal red knot roosting and foraging habitats (Harrington in Guilfoyle et al. 2007; Winn and
Harrington in Guilfoyle et al. 2006). These ephemeral habitats are even more valuable to red
knots because they tend to receive less recreational use than the main beach strand. In addition to
causing this direct habitat loss, the dredging of sand bars and shoals can preclude the creation
and maintenance of red knot habitats by removing sand sources that would otherwise act as
natural breakwaters and weld onto the shore over time (Hayes and Michel 2008; Morton 2003).
Further, removing these sand features can cause or worsen localized erosion by altering depth
contours and changing wave refraction (Hayes and Michel 2008), potentially degrading other
nearby red knot habitats indirectly because inlet dynamics exert a strong influence on the
adjacent shorelines. Studying barrier islands in Virginia and North Carolina, Fenster and Dolan
(1996) found that inlet influences extend 3.4 to 8.1 mi (5.4 to 13.0 km), and that inlets dominate
shoreline changes for up to 2.7 mi (4.3 km). Changing the location of dominant channels at inlets
can create profound alterations to the adjacent shoreline (Nordstrom 2000).

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) 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
141
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 limits. Failure to recolonize southern regions
will occur when reproducing populations at higher latitudes are beyond dispersal distance (Jones
et al. 2010). Thus, this key prey resource may soon disappear from the red knot’s Virginia spring
stopover habitats (Karpanty et al. 2012).

Reduced food availability at the Delaware Bay stopover site due to commercial harvest and
subsequent population decline of the horseshoe crab is considered a primary causal factor in the
decline of the rufa subspecies in the 2000s (Escudero et al. 2012; McGowan et al. 2011; CAFF
2010; Niles et al. 2008; COSEWIC 2007; González 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. Most data suggest that the volume of horseshoe crab eggs is
currently sufficient to support the Delaware Bay’s stopover population of red knots at its present
size. However, because of the uncertain trajectory of horseshoe crab population growth, it is not
yet known if the egg resource will continue to adequately support red knot populations over the
next 5 to 10 years. In addition, implementation of the ARM could be impeded by insufficient
funding for the shorebird and horseshoe crab monitoring programs that are necessary for the
functioning of the ARM models. Many studies have established that red knots stopping over in
Delaware Bay during spring migration achieve remarkable and important weight gains to
complete their migrations to the breeding grounds by feeding almost exclusively on a
superabundance of horseshoe crab eggs. A temporal correlation occurred between increased
horseshoe crab harvests in the 1990s and declining red knot counts in both Delaware Bay and
Tierra del Fuego by the 2000s. Other shorebird species that rely on Delaware Bay also declined
over this period (Mizrahi and Peters in Tanacredi et al. 2009), although some shorebird declines
began before the peak expansion of the horseshoe crab fishery (Botton et al. in Shuster et al.
2003).

Hunting

Legal and illegal sport and market hunting in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast U.S. substantially
reduced red knot populations in the 1800s, and we do not know if the subspecies ever fully
142
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.
Hunting pressure on red knots and other shorebirds in the northern Caribbean and on Trinidad is
unknown. Hunting pressure on shorebirds in the Lesser Antilles is very high, but only small
numbers of red knots have been documented on these islands, so past mortality may not have
exceeded tens of birds per year. Subsistence shorebird hunting was common in northern Brazil,
but has decreased in recent decades. We have no evidence that hunting was a driving factor in
red knot population declines in the 2000s, or that hunting pressure is increasing.

Predation

In wintering and migration areas, the most common predators of red knots are peregrine falcons,
harriers (Circus spp.), accipiters (Family Accipitridae), merlins, 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 (Larus argentatus) and glaucous gulls (Larus hyperboreus), gyrfalcon (F.
rusticolus), peregrine falcon, and snowy owl (Bubo scandiacus). Mammalian predators include
arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) and sometimes arctic wolves (Canis lupus arctos) (Niles et al. 2008;
COSEWIC 2007). Predation pressure on Arctic-nesting shorebird clutches varies widely
regionally, interannually, and even within each nesting season, with nest losses to predators
ranging from close to 0 percent to near 100 percent (Meltofte et al. 2007), depending on
ecological factors. Abundance of arctic rodents, such as lemmings, is often cyclical, although
less so in North America than in Eurasia. In the Arctic, 3- to 4-year lemming cycles give rise to
similar cycles in the predation of shorebird nests. When lemmings are abundant, predators
concentrate on the lemmings, and shorebirds breed successfully. When lemmings are in short
supply, predators switch to shorebird eggs and chicks (Niles et al. 2008; COSEWIC 2007;
Meltofte et al. 2007; USFWS 2003b; Blomqvist et al. 2002; Summers and Underhill 1987).

Recreational disturbance

In some wintering and stopover areas, red knots and recreational users 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.
143
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. Between 2012 and early 2016, 62.69 mi (19%) of sandy beach habitat in
North Carolina was modified by sand fencing.

Table 5-5 lists biological opinions since 2014 within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area
that have been issued for adverse impacts to piping plovers and 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.

7.1.5. 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 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.

144
7.1.6. Tables for Status of Red Knot

Table 7-1. 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).

State 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
New Jersey 7,860 4,445 10,045 16,229 8,945 7,737 23,525
Delaware 820 2,950 5,350 5,530 5,067 3,433
Maryland 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 868 800 41 10
Total 15,494 15,918 27,532 21,844 25,328 24,377 40,429

Table 7-2. Local sea level trends from within the range of the red knot (NOAA 2012).

Station Mean Local Sea Level Trend
(mm per year) Data Period
Pointe-Au-Père, Canada -0.36 ± 0.40 1900–1983
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 2.61 ± 0.20 1932–2006
Cape May, New Jersey 4.06 ± 0.74 1965–2006
Lewes, Delaware 3.20 ± 0.28 1919–2006
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, Virginia 6.05 ± 1.14 1975–2006
Beaufort, North Carolina 2.57 ± 0.44 1953–2006
Clearwater Beach, Florida 2.43 ± 0.80 1973–2006
Padre Island, Texas 3.48 ± 0.75 1958–2006
Punto Deseado, Argentina -0.06 ± 1.93 1970–2002

7.2. 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.

145
7.2.1. 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).

There have been only a handful of surveys for red knots at New Topsail Inlet since 2010. Data
from NCWRC (ncpaws.org, accessed August 20, 2018) indicate that 123 red knots were
documented in the New Topsail Inlet area (on the south end of Topsail Beach, in New Topsail
Inlet, or on the north end of Lea Island) on January 26, 2016, and 109 were documented on
February 1, 2016. Other surveys in 2010 and 2011 document fewer individuals, as many as 18
on one day.

7.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs of and Threats to Red Knot

The Action Area is developed, mainly with residences. Residential and commercial
development began in the mid-1960’s. Large portions of the Action Area are presently lined
with structures. Recreational use in the Action Area is quite high from residents and tourists,
including beach driving. In recent years, piping plover nests on the south end of Topsail Beach
have been protected during the breeding season, using posts and rope. These roped off areas
may also provide areas for red knots to be free from human disturbance for a small portion of the
year.

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 3-3 lists the most recent projects, within the past 5
years.

Nourishment activities: According to the BA, Topsail Beach has been nourished three times in
the past 8 years: in the winter of 2010/2011, winter/spring of 2012, and the winter of 2013/2014.

Beach scraping: 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: The Town of North Topsail Beach conducted significant rock-picking activities
during the 2015 beach nourishment project, due to large amounts of rock and gravel. Rock-
picking activities have continued within the North Topsail Beach project area annually since
2015, in order to remove larger material that continues to wash onto the beach as the dune and/or
berm erodes.

146
Pedestrian use of the beach: There are a number of potential sources of pedestrians and pets,
including those individuals originating from boats, beachfront, and nearby residences. Gibson et
al. (2018) rated the project area as receiving moderate levels of recreational use from boaters and
beachgoers, compared to other inlets in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina used by
overwintering and migrating red knots. Although the mean number of people observed per km
of survey area was relatively low compared to other sites (below 4), the number of dogs
observed per km surveyed was the highest of all of the sites at almost three dogs per km.

Beach driving: Topsail Beach allows vehicles on the beach between October 1 and March 28.
Beach driving permits are limited to the purposes of fishing. Aerial photography indicates that
vehicles frequently access all sandy portions along the inlet shoulders in New Topsail Inlet,
including the estuarine shoreline. Impacts to red knots are similar to those of piping plover,
discussed at length in Section 5.1.4. By far, Topsail Beach had the highest number of vehicles
observed per km of any other site in Gibson et al. (2018), with almost one vehicle every 2 km.

Shoreline stabilization: There are two existing rock revetments along the coast of North
Carolina: one at Fort Fisher (approximately 3,040 lf), and another along Carolina Beach
(approximately 2,050 lf). A sandbag revetment at least 1,800 lf long (with a geotube in front of a
portion) was constructed in 2015 at the north end of North Topsail Beach, and more sandbags
were recently added to protect a parking lot north of the revetment. In 2000 and 2001, sandbag
revetments were installed on the north end of Figure Eight Island along Surf Court, Inlet Hook
Road, and Comber Road. There are over 30 homes on Topsail Beach with existing sandbag
structures.

Sand fencing: There are a few stretches of sand fencing along the shoreline on Topsail Beach.

7.3. 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. Our analyses are organized according to the
description of the Action in Section 2 of this BO.

7.3.1. Effects of Dredging 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
the Action Area due to dredging of intertidal habitats and placement of sandy material.

147
Applicable Science and Response Pathways

The Service expects the Action will result in direct and indirect, long-term effects to red knots.

Direct Effects:

Short-term and temporary impacts to red knots could result from project activities disturbing
roosting red knots and degrading or removing currently occupied adjacent foraging and roosting
areas.

The construction window will extend through the red knot migration and winter season. Since
red knots can be present on these beaches year-round, construction is likely to occur while this
species is utilizing these intertidal shoals, beaches and associated habitats. Dredges operating in
the Action Area may adversely affect red knots by disturbance and disruption of normal
activities such as roosting and foraging, and possibly forcing birds to expend valuable energy
reserves to seek available habitat elsewhere.

Dredging of this channel appears to require the removal of emergent shoals that may have
formed over time. In this case, the dredging activities will result in a complete take of that
habitat, at least until the area recovers a similar amount of sand and the shoals reform. After
each dredging event, the loss of optimal habitat in the intertidal shoals will not be recovered
unless and until sand movement again creates shoals in the project area. These areas are
important during the migration and wintering season, as the inlet shoulder on Topsail Beach is
typically subject to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, which may push red knots to utilize inlet
shoals that are less disturbed by human presence.

In the construction area where shoals above MLLW are dredged, there will be direct loss of
foraging and roosting habitat. The Service expects there may be morphological changes to
adjacent red knot 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 red knot.

The timing of project construction could directly and indirectly impact migrating and wintering
red knot. Red knots may be present year-round in the Action Area, however, the timing of
project activities will likely occur during the migration and wintering period.

Indirect Effects:

Long-term and permanent impacts could preclude the creation of new habitat and increase
recreational disturbance. The effects of the project construction include a long-term reduction in
foraging habitat and a long-term decreased rate of change in coastal dynamics that may preclude
habitat creation.

Indirect effects include reducing the potential for the formation of optimal habitats. The
proposed project may limit the creation of optimal foraging and roosting habitat, and may
increase the attractiveness of these beaches for recreation increasing recreational pressures
148
within the Action Area. Recreational activities that potentially adversely affect red knots on the
inlet shoals include disturbance by boats, unleashed pets and pedestrians.

Responses and Interpretation of Effects

The Service anticipates potential adverse effects throughout the Action Area by limiting
proximity to roosting and foraging and by removing or degrading occupied foraging habitat.

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 of the species. Threats on the wintering grounds
may impact red knots’ breeding success if they start migration or arrive at the breeding grounds
with a poor body condition. 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. Information about the energetics of avian
migration indicates that this might be a particularly critical time in the species’ life cycle.

The dredging of intertidal shoals in New Topsail Inlet will immediately destroy as much as 200
acres of red knot foraging and roosting habitat, directly in the path of the dredge. The dredging
will also cause a long-term reduction in foraging and roosting habitat, and long-term decreased
rate of change in coastal dynamics that may preclude creation of new optimal habitat.

7.3.2. Effects of Sand Placement 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 degradation of foraging habitat and destruction
of the prey base from sand disposal, and attraction of predators due to food waste from the
construction crew. Like the piping plover, red knots face predation by avian and mammalian
predators that are present year-round on the migration and wintering grounds.

Applicable Science and Response Pathways

Placement of sand will occur within and adjacent to red knot roosting and foraging habitat along
24,000 lf 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 in coastal
dynamics 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.

Dredging and b each nourishment will be a one-time activity, which will take up to four and a
half months to complete. 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
149
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. 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).
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.

Beneficial 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
150
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 24,000 lf 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 24,000 lf of
shoreline. Indirect effects include reducing the potential for the formation of optimal roosting
and foraging habitats (coastal marine and estuarine habitats with large areas of exposed intertidal
sediments). The proposed project may also 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 or beach vehicle use.

Responses and Interpretation of Effects

The proposed placement of sand on 24,000 lf 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. Sand nourishment under this authorization is expected to be a one-time event, taking up
to four and a half months to complete. 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. The area of sand placement has been developed for decades, with regular
nourishment activities and a high level of recreational activity.

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 amount of red knots along
24,000 lf 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
151
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 or vehicular disturbance may be expected; and
(4) a temporary reduction of food base will occur.

7.4. 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.

7.5. 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:
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

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 in the timing of the birds’ annual migratory cycle relative to favorable
food and weather conditions.
152
Baseline

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). Data from NCWRC (ncpaws.org, accessed August 20,
2018) indicate that 123 red knots were documented in the New Topsail Inlet area (on the south
end of Topsail Beach, in New Topsail Inlet, or on the north end of Lea Island) on January 26,
2016, and 109 were documented on February 1, 2016. Other surveys in 2010 and 2011
document fewer individuals, as many as 18 on one day.

Effects

The proposed placement of sand on 24,000 lf 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. Sand nourishment under this authorization is expected to be a one-time event, taking up
to four and a half months to complete. 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.

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.

8. SEABEACH AMARANTH

8.1. 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).

8.1.1. Description of Seabeach Amaranth

Seabeach amaranth 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
153
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 in 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 l0 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.

8.1.2. 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).

8.1.3. 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
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
154
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.

8.1.4. 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 raking and scraping, herbivory by insects and mammals, and off-road
vehicles. Herbivory by webworms, deer, feral horses, and rabbits is a major source of mortality
and lowered fecundity for seabeach amaranth. However, the extent to which herbivory affects
the species as a whole is unknown.

Potential effects to seabeach amaranth from vehicle use on the beaches include vehicles running
over, crushing, burying, or breaking plants, burying seeds, degrading habitat through compaction
of sand and the formation of seed sinks caused by tire ruts. Seed sinks occur when blowing seeds
fall into tire ruts, then a vehicle comes along and buries them further into the sand preventing
germination. If seeds are capable of germinating in the tire ruts, the plants are usually destroyed
before they can reproduce by other vehicles following the tire ruts. Those seeds and their
reproductive potential become lost from the population.

155
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 l0 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.

8.2. 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.

8.2.1. 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 8-1 for
data from the Corps and the Service (unpublished). Seabeach amaranth numbers have been very
high in the past on Topsail Island, numbering in the thousands of individuals in the 1990s and
early 2000’s. Over the past 10-20 years, the numbers of seabeach amaranth plants has
plummeted, with only 10 plants reported in 2013 and 38 reported in 2014 along the entire island
shoreline. According to the BA, the Applicant’s consultant counted four plants within the
project footprint in each year from 2014 to 2016 (Land Management Group 2018). 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.

8.2.2. 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
156
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).

Table 8-2 lists biological opinions that have been issued for adverse impacts to seabeach
amaranth since 2014, within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area. Activities addressed by
the BOs include inlet dredging, sand placement, construction of sandbag revetments, and
terminal groin construction.

The Action Area is developed, mainly with residences. Residential and commercial
development began in the mid-1960’s. Large portions of the Action Area are presently lined
with structures. Recreational use in the Action Area is quite high from residents and tourists,
including beach driving. 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 3-3 lists the most recent
projects, within the past 5 years.

Nourishment activities: According to the BA, Topsail Beach has been nourished three times in
the past 8 years: in the winter of 2010/2011, winter/spring of 2012, and the winter of 2013/2014.

Beach scraping: 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. Data concerning beach
scraping is not available for Topsail Beach.

Beach raking: The Town of North Topsail Beach conducted significant rock-picking activities
during the 2015 beach nourishment project, due to large amounts of rock and gravel. Rock-
picking activities have continued within the North Topsail Beach project area annually since
2015, in order to remove larger material that continues to wash onto the beach as the dune and/or
berm erodes.

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.

Beach Driving: Topsail Beach allows vehicles on the beach between October 1 and March 28.
Beach driving permits are limited to the purposes of fishing. Aerial photography indicates that
vehicles frequently access all sandy portions along the inlet shoulders in New Topsail Inlet,
including the estuarine shoreline. Impacts to seabeach amaranth are discussed in Section 8.1.4.
By far, Topsail Beach had the highest number of vehicles observed per km of any other site in
Gibson et al. (2018), with almost one vehicle every 2 km.

157
Shoreline stabilization: There are two existing rock revetments along the coast of North
Carolina: one at Fort Fisher (approximately 3,040 lf), and another along Carolina Beach
(approximately 2,050 lf). A sandbag revetment at least 1,800 lf long (with a geotube in front of a
portion) was constructed in 2015 at the north end of North Topsail Beach, and more sandbags
were recently added to protect a parking lot north of the revetment. In 2000 and 2001, sandbag
revetments were installed on the north end of Figure Eight Island along Surf Court, Inlet Hook
Road, and Comber Road. There are over 30 homes on Topsail Beach with existing sandbag
structures.

Sand fencing: There are a few stretches of sand fencing along Topsail Beach.
158
8.2.3. Tables for Environmental Baseline for Seabeach Amaranth

Table 8-1. Annual seabeach amaranth records in North Carolina, from 1987 to 2014. Data from various sources, collated by the
Service.

Ye
a
r
Da
r
e

C
o
.
P
e
a

I
.

N
W
R
Ca
p
e

Ha
t
t
e
r
a
s

N
S
Oc
r
a
c
o
k
e
Co
r
e

B
a
n
k
s
Sh
a
c
k
l
e
f
o
r
d

Ba
n
k
s
Bo
g
u
e

Ba
n
k
s
Ha
m
m
o
c
k
s

Be
a
c
h

S
P
Ca
m
p

Le
J
e
u
n
e
To
p
s
a
i
l

Is
l
a
n
d
Le
a

H
u
t
a
f
f
Fi
g
u
r
e

8
Wr
i
g
h
t
s
v
i
l
l
e

Be
a
c
h
Wr
i
g
h
t
s
v
i
l
l
e

Be
a
c
h

a
n
d

Fi
g

8
Ma
s
o
n
b
o
r
o
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a

Be
a
c
h
/
F
t
.

Fi
s
h
e
r
Ba
l
d

H
e
a
d

Is
l
a
n
d
Oa
k

I
s
l
a
n
d
Ho
l
d
e
n

Be
a
c
h
Oc
e
a
n

I
s
l
e

Be
a
c
h
Su
n
s
e
t

Be
a
c
h
Br
u
n
s
w
i
c
k

Co
u
n
t
y
Ye
a
r

T
o
t
a
l
s
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 65 6 2 51 81 0 3 22 0 1 0 599 1 7 607 1445
1998 265 0 125 369 3946 1000 0 110 191 0 231 1 107 5367 32 11 0 11755
1999 8 0 2 9 218 1 0 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 1983 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 1 284 671 10711 1302 3416 1011 244 772 0 1 45 174 800 545 19978
2006 0 0 33 30 251 2 16 39 4 1 4 462 1954 337 118 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 1606
2009 0 0 0 1 100 281 71 15 80 6 0 0 0 0 8 64 123 36 785
2010 0 0 0 6 28 70 187 32 215 18 4 0 0 0 0 1576 434 4 2574
2011 0 0 0 1 18 56 0 6 136 0 17 2 0 0 0 16 116 5 373
2012 0 0 0 0 7 5 1 4 83 2 0 0 NS 0 NS 5 46 1 154
2013 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 10 1 31 0 0 0 NS 1 108 1 12 166
2014 0 0 52 0 27 38 3 0 0 0 0 1 349 20 36 526
Site Totals 0 0 11652 15013 4234 6564 51893 2592 3206 39528 1115 7665 4385 1507 1494 825 261 30627 7413 2384 166 30059 222583
222583
Table 8-2. BOs issued since 2014 within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area for
seabeach amaranth.

OPINIONS SEABEACH AMARANTH
HABITAT
Fiscal Year 2014: 1 BO 12,600 lf
(2.4 mi)
Fiscal Year 2015: 4 BOs 67,968 lf
(12.9 mi)
Fiscal Year 2016: 5 BOs 169,250 lf
(32.05 mi)
Fiscal Year 2017: 2 BOs
including Statewide Programmatic
27,650 lf (5.24 mi)
plus up to 25 mi/62.5 mi per year
Fiscal Year 2018 (to date): 1 BO 23,000 lf (4.36 mi)
Total: 13 BOs 300,468 lf (56.9 mi)
plus up to 25/62.5 mi per year

8.3. 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. Because
suitable habitat for seabeach amaranth includes upland habitats along lower foredunes, upper
beach strands and overwash flats, dredging is not expected to effect seabeach amaranth or its
habitat and will not be discussed further.

8.3.1. Effects of Sand Placement 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 and/or sediment disposal activities; burying seeds to a depth that would prevent
future germination as a result of construction operations and/or sediment disposal activities;
and, destruction of plants by trampling or breaking as a result of increased recreational

160

activities. The Applicant proposes to place sand between November 16 and March 31.
These time periods may include the growing season of seabeach amaranth.

Applicable Science and Response Pathways and Interpretation of Effects

Placement of sand will occur within and adjacent to seabeach amaranth habitat along 24,000
lf of oceanfront shoreline. Project construction is anticipated to be conducted during portions
of the seabeach amaranth growing and flowering season. Conservation measures have been
incorporated into the project to minimize impacts. The timing of project construction could
directly and indirectly impact seabeach amaranth. 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. Direct effects would be
expected to be short-term in duration.

Indirect effects include destruction of plants by trampling or breaking as a result of increased
recreational activities. Future tilling or removal of incompatible material on the beach may
be necessary if sediment quality hinders sea turtle nesting activities. The placement of heavy
machinery or associated tilling equipment on the beach may destroy or bury existing plants.

However, 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 material placed on the beach is compatible
with the natural sand.

8.4. 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 Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered, because
they require separate consultation under §7 of the ESA. Potential cumulative effects are
unknown at this time. 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.

8.5. 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:
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.

161

“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 Topsail Island in the 1990s and early 2000s. Over the past 10-
20 years, the numbers of seabeach amaranth plants has plummeted, with 10 plants reported in
2013 and 38 reported in 2014 along the entire Topsail Island shoreline.

Effects

The proposed placement of sand on 24,000 lf 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, their
vehicles, 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 been buried.

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.

9. 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;”

162

• “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 T&Cs of an ITS.

This BO evaluated effects of the Action on the threatened seabeach amaranth. ESA §7(b)(4)
and §7(o)(2), which provide the authority for issuing an ITS, do not apply to listed plant
species. However, ESA §9(a)(2) prohibits certain acts with respect to endangered plant
species, including:
(a) remove and reduce to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction;
(b) maliciously damage or destroy on areas under Federal jurisdiction; and
(c) remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy on any other area in knowing violation of
any law or regulation of any State or in the course of any violation of a State criminal
trespass law.

Regulations issued under ESA §4(d) extend the prohibition under (a) above to threatened
plant species (50 CFR §17.71). The damage or destruction of endangered and threatened
plants that is incidental to (not the purpose of) an otherwise lawful activity is not prohibited.

This BO evaluated effects of the Action on loggerhead, green, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles,
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 piping plover and red knot
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 T&Cs 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 T&Cs; or
• require a permittee, contractor, or grantee to adhere to the T&Cs 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.

163

9.1. 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” section(s) of
this BO. We reference, but do not repeat, these analyses here. We do not anticipate take for
seabeach amaranth, since the ESA does not prohibit incidental take of listed plants.

9.1.1. Sea Turtles

The Service anticipates that the Action is reasonably certain to cause incidental take of
individual sea turtles consistent with the definition of harass resulting from changes to the
behavior of adult female sea turtles; berm slope, escarpment formation, and sediment quality
effects on the ability of the females sea turtles to access high quality nesting habitat; and
wasted energy caused by increased numbers of false crawls (see Section 3.3.1). The Service
anticipates that the Action is reasonably certain to cause incidental take of individual eggs
and hatchling sea turtles consistent with the definition of harm resulting from reduced
hatching and emerging success; changes to incubation conditions within the nest; an increase
in the number of nests placed in areas that may wash out; and injury or death due of
hatchlings due to deterrence or misdirection from artificial lighting (see Section 3.3.1).

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) the nourishment project will modify the incubation substrate, beach slope, and sand
compaction; and (3) artificial lighting will deter and/or misdirect nesting hatchling turtles.

164

Anticipated Take of Loggerhead, Green, and Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles

Amount or Extent Life Stage Form of Take
24,000 lf suitable breeding

Adults Harass
24,000 lf suitable breeding
habitat (shoreline) Eggs and Hatchlings Harm

Due to the difficulty of detecting take of nesting sea turtles and sea turtle nests caused by the
Action, the Corps will monitor the extent of taking using the surrogate measure specified in
the table above, and also monitor sea turtle nesting in the project area. Instructions for
monitoring and reporting take are provided in Section 9.4.

9.1.2. Piping Plover

The Service anticipates that the Action is reasonably certain to cause incidental take of
individual piping plovers consistent with the definition of harass resulting from 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 (See Section 5.3.2).

The Service anticipates that the Action is reasonably certain to cause incidental take of
individual piping plovers consistent with the definition of harm resulting from direct loss of
optimal foraging and roosting habitat in the critical habitat unit (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); burial, crushing, and suffocation of invertebrate
prey species; delayed recovery of the benthic prey base or changes in their communities due
to physical habitat changes; increased predation from avian and mammalian predators
attracted to the Action Area by food waste; morphological changes to adjacent piping plover
habitat that increase disturbance to the species and/ or decrease survival; a decrease in the
creation of optimal foraging and roosting habitat; and an increase the attractiveness of these
beaches for recreation increasing recreational pressures. These effects are also mirrored for
the nesting habitat and would reasonably cause incidental take of eggs and hatchlings. See
Section 5.3.2.

For this and other sand placement BOs, the Service typically uses a surrogate to estimate the
extent of take of piping plovers. 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 breeding, migrating through, or
wintering within the Action Area at any point in time and place during and after project
construction. 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 for an unknown length of time after construction.

The Service anticipates that directly and indirectly an unspecified amount of piping plovers
along 24,000 lf of shoreline and 200 acres of intertidal habitats within New Topsail Inlet

165

(Critical Habitat Unit NC-11), all at some point, potentially usable by piping plovers, could
be taken in the form of harm and harassment as a result of this proposed action. 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.

However, the level of take of this species can be anticipated by the proposed activities
because:

(1) piping plovers breed, 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 and vehicular disturbance may be expected; and
(4) a temporary reduction of food base will occur.

Anticipated Take of Piping Plover

Amount or Extent Life Stage Form of Take
24,000 lf of Shoreline and up to
200 acres of Critical Habitat Adults Harass and/or Harm
Approximately 30 acres suitable
breeding habitat Eggs and Hatchlings Harm

Due to the difficulty of detecting take of piping plover caused by the Action, the Corps will
monitor the extent of taking using the surrogate measure specified in the table above, and
also monitor piping plover abundance and distribution in the Action Area. Instructions for
monitoring and reporting take are provided in Section 9.4 and the Appendix.

9.1.3. Red Knot

The Service anticipates that the Action is reasonably certain to cause incidental take of
individual red knots consistent with the definition of harass resulting from 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 (See Section 7.3.2).

The Service anticipates that the Action is reasonably certain to cause incidental take of
individual red knots consistent with the definition of harm resulting from direct loss of
optimal foraging and roosting 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
red knot); burial, crushing, and suffocation of invertebrate prey species; delayed recovery of

166

the benthic prey base or changes in their communities due to physical habitat changes;
increased predation from avian and mammalian predators attracted to the Action Area by
food waste; morphological changes to adjacent red knot habitat that increase disturbance to
the species and/ or decrease survival; a decrease in the creation of optimal foraging and
roosting habitat; and an increase the attractiveness of these beaches for recreation increasing
recreational pressures. See Section 7.3.2.

For this and other sand placement BOs, the Service typically uses a surrogate to estimate the
extent of take for red knots. 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 amount of red knots along
24,000 lf of shoreline and 200 acres of intertidal habitats within New Topsail Inlet, 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. 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 or vehicular disturbance may be expected; and
(4) a temporary reduction of food base will occur.

Anticipated Take of Red Knot

Amount or Extent Life Stage Form of Take
24,000 lf of Shoreline and
Up to 200 acres of Intertidal
Habitat
Adults Harass and/or Harm

Due to the difficulty of detecting take of red knot caused by the Action, the Corps will
monitor the extent of taking using the surrogate measure specified in the table above, and

167

also monitor piping plover abundance and distribution in the Action Area. Instructions for
monitoring and reporting take are provided in Section 9.4 and the Appendix.

9.2. Reasonable and Prudent Measures

The Service believes the following RPMs are necessary or appropriate to minimize the
impact of incidental take caused by the Action on listed wildlife species. The RPMs are
described for each listed wildlife species in the subsections below.

9.2.1. All Species

1. All sand placement activities above MHW must be conducted within the winter work
window (November 16 to March 31).

2. Prior to sand placement, all derelict material, large amounts of rock, or other debris
must be removed from the beach to the maximum extent possible.

3. Conservation Measures included in the permit applications/project plans must be
implemented in the proposed project. If a RPM and T&C address the same
requirement, the requirements of the RPM and T&C take precedence over the
Conservation Measure.

4. During construction, trash and food items shall be disposed of properly either in
predator-proof receptacles, or in receptacles that are emptied each night to minimize
the potential for attracting predators of piping plovers, red knots, and sea turtles.

5. The pipeline route/pipeline placement must be coordinated with NCDCM, the Corps,
the Service, and the NCWRC. Pipeline placement coordination may be accomplished
through the permit application process.

6. A meeting between representatives of the Applicant and contractor(s), the Corps, the
Service, the NCWRC, the permitted sea turtle surveyor(s), and other species
surveyors, as appropriate, must be held prior to the commencement of work.
Advance notice (of at least 10 business days) must be provided prior to conducting
this meeting.

7. Access points for construction vehicles should be as close to the project site as
possible. Construction vehicle travel down the beach should be limited to the
maximum extent possible.

9.2.2. Piping Plovers and Red Knots

8. All personnel involved in the construction or sand placement process along the beach
shall be aware of the potential presence of piping plovers and red knots. Before start

168

of work each morning, a visual survey must be conducted in the area of work for that
day, to determine if piping plovers and red knots are present.

9. If project-related activities will potentially adversely affect nesting shorebirds or
active nesting habitat, the Corps or Permittee must coordinate with the Service and
NCWRC prior to proceeding. If the project is ongoing and shorebirds begin
territorial or other nesting behaviors within the project area, then the Corps or
Permittee must contact the Service and NCWRC as soon as possible.

10. The Corps or the Permittee shall clearly delineate work areas within piping plover
critical habitat, such as dredge footprint(s), pipeline corridors, travel corridors, and
access points. Disturbance within those delineated work areas must be limited to the
maximum extent possible, thereby minimizing effects to sandy, sparsely-vegetated
habitat within the project footprint.

9.2.3. Loggerhead, Green, and Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles

11. Only beach quality sand suitable for sea turtle nesting, successful incubation, and
hatchling emergence shall be used for sand placement.

12. During dredging operations, material placed on the beach shall be qualitatively
inspected daily to ensure compatibility. If the inspection process finds that a
significant amount of non-beach compatible material is on or has been placed on the
beach, all work shall stop immediately and the NCDCM and the Corps will be
notified by the Permittee and/or its contractors to determine the appropriate plan of
action.

13. 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.

14. Sand compaction must be qualitatively evaluated at least twice after each sand
placement event. Sand compaction must be inspected in the project area immediately
after completion of any sand placement event and one time after project completion
between October 1 and May 1.

9.3. Terms and Conditions

In order for the exemption from the take prohibitions of §9(a)(1) and of regulations issued
under §4(d) of the ESA to apply to the Action, the Corps must comply with the T&Cs of this
statement, provided below, which carry out the RPMs described in the previous section.
These T&Cs are mandatory. As necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility, the
Corps must require any permittee, contractor, or grantee to implement these T&Cs through
enforceable terms that are added to the permit, contract, or grant document.

169

9.3.1. All Species

1. For the life of the permit, all sand placement activities above MHW must be
conducted within the winter work window (November 16 to April 30), unless a
variance is approved after additional consultation with the Service.

2. Prior to sand placement, all derelict material, large amounts of rock, or other debris
must be removed from the beach to the maximum extent possible. If debris removal
activities take place during shorebird breeding season (April 1– August 31), the work
shall be conducted during daylight hours only.

3. Conservation Measures included in the permit applications/project plans must be
implemented in the proposed project. If a RPM and T&C address the same
requirement, the requirements of the RPM and T&C take precedence over the
Conservation Measure.

4. During construction, trash and food items shall be disposed of properly either in
predator-proof receptacles, or in receptacles that are emptied each night to minimize
the potential for attracting predators of piping plovers, red knots, and sea turtles.

5. The pipeline route/pipeline placement must be coordinated with NCDCM, the Corps,
the Service, and the NCWRC. Pipeline placement coordination may be accomplished
through the permit application process.

6. Access points for construction vehicles should be as close to the project site as
possible. Construction vehicle travel down the beach should be limited to the
maximum extent possible.

7. A meeting between representatives of the contractor(s), the Corps, the Service, the
NCWRC, and NCDCM, must be held prior to the commencement of work. Advance
notice (of at least 5 business days) must be provided prior to conducting this meeting.
The meeting will provide an opportunity for explanation and/or clarification of the
Conservation Measures and T&Cs, and will include the following:
a) Staging locations, and storing of equipment, including fuel stations;
b) Coordination with the surveyors on required species surveys;
c) Pipeline placement;
d) Minimization of driving within and around the Action Area;
e) Follow up coordination during construction and post construction;
f) Direction of the work including progression of sand placement along the
beach;
g) Plans for compaction monitoring;
h) Plans for escarpment surveys and
i) Names and qualifications of personnel involved in any required species
surveys.

170

9.3.2. Piping Plover and Red Knot

8. All personnel involved in the construction or sand placement process along the beach
shall be aware of the potential presence of piping plovers and red knots. Before start
of work each morning, a visual survey must be conducted in the area of work for that
day, to determine if piping plovers and red knots are present. If shorebirds are
present in the work area, careful movement of equipment in the early morning hours
should allow those individuals to move out of the area. Construction operations shall
be carried out at all times in a manner as to avoid negatively impacting shorebirds and
allowing them to exit the area.

9. If project-related activities will potentially adversely affect nesting shorebirds or
active nesting habitat, the Corps or Permittee must coordinate with the Service and
NCWRC prior to proceeding. If the project is ongoing and shorebirds begin
territorial or other nesting behaviors within the project area, then the Corps or
Permittee must contact the Service and NCWRC as soon as possible.

10. Piping plover habitat (sandy unvegetated habitat) within the critical habitat unit shall
be avoided to the maximum extent practicable when staging equipment, establishing
the dredge footprint, travel corridors, and aligning pipeline. The Corps or the
Permittee, to the maximum extent practicable, shall clearly delineate work areas
within the critical habitat unit such as pipeline corridors, dredge footprint, travel
corridors, and access points. Disturbance outside those delineated work areas must be
limited, thereby minimizing effects to sandy unvegetated habitat. Driving on the
beach for construction shall be limited to the minimum necessary within the
designated travel corridor.
9.3.3. Sea Turtles

11. Only beach compatible fill shall be placed on the beach or in any associated dune
system. Beach compatible fill must be sand that is similar to a native beach in the
vicinity of the site that has not been affected by prior sand placement activity. Beach
compatible fill must be sand comprised solely of natural sediment and shell material,
containing no construction debris, toxic material, large amounts of rock, or other
foreign matter. The beach compatible fill must be similar in both color and grain size
distribution (sand grain frequency, mean and median grain size and sorting
coefficient) to the native material in the Action Area. Beach compatible fill is
material that maintains the general character and functionality of the material
occurring on the beach and in the adjacent dune and coastal system. In general, fill
material that meets the requirements of the most recent version of the North Carolina
Technical Standards for Beach Fill (15A NCAC 07H .0312) is considered
compatible.

12. During dredging operations, material placed on the beach shall be qualitatively
inspected daily to ensure compatibility. If the inspection process finds that a

171

significant amount of non-beach compatible material is on or has been placed on the
beach, all work shall stop immediately, and the NCDCM, Corps, and BOEM (as
appropriate) will be notified by the permittee and/or its contractors to determine the
appropriate plan of action. Required actions may include immediate removal of
material and/or long-term remediation activities.

13. Visual surveys for escarpments along the Action Area must be made immediately
after completion of sand placement, and within 30 days prior to May 1, for two
subsequent years after any construction or sand placement event. Escarpments that
interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for a distance of
100 feet must be leveled and the beach profile must be reconfigured to minimize
scarp formation by the dates listed above. Any escarpment removal must be reported
by location. The Service must be contacted immediately if subsequent reformation of
escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for
a distance of 100 feet occurs during the nesting and hatching season to determine the
appropriate action to be taken. If it is determined that escarpment leveling is required
during the nesting or hatching season, the Service or NCWRC will provide a brief
written authorization within 30 days that describes methods to be used to reduce the
likelihood of impacting existing nests. An annual summary of escarpment surveys
and actions taken must be submitted to the Service.

14. Sand compaction must be qualitatively evaluated at least twice after each sand
placement event, once in the project area immediately after completion of any sand
placement event and once after project completion between October 1 and May 1.
Compaction monitoring and remediation are not required if the placed material no
longer remains on the beach. Within 14 days of completion of sand placement and
prior to any tilling (if needed), a field meeting shall be held with the Service,
NCWRC, and the Corps to inspect the project area for compaction and determine
whether tilling is needed.
a) If tilling is needed for sand suitability, the area must be tilled to a depth of
36 inches. All tilling activities shall be completed prior to May 1 of any
year.
b) Tilling must occur landward of the wrack line and avoid all vegetated
areas that are 3 square feet or greater, with a 3-foot buffer around all
vegetation.
c) If tilling occurs during the shorebird nesting season or seabeach amaranth
growing season (after April 1), shorebird surveys and/or seabeach
amaranth surveys are required prior to tilling.
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.
e) These conditions will be evaluated and may be modified if necessary to
address and identify sand compaction problems.

172

9.4. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

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. As necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility, the
Corps must require any permittee, contractor, or grantee to accomplish the monitoring and
reporting 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 this 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 Corps or Permittee will be responsible to collect the data.
Data collected 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. Please see REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS below.

Parameter Measurement Variable
Number of False Crawls Visual Assessment of all
false crawls
Number/location of false
crawls in nourished areas; any
interaction of turtles with
obstructions, such as sand bags
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

173

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:
g) Project location (latitude and longitude);
h) Project description (linear feet of beach, actual fill template, access points, and
borrow areas);
i) Dates of actual construction activities;
j) Names and qualifications of personnel involved in sea turtle nesting surveys
and relocation activities(separate the nesting surveys for nourished and non-
nourished areas);
k) Descriptions and locations of self-release beach sites; and
l) Sand compaction, escarpment formation, and lighting survey results.

3. Seabeach amaranth surveys must be conducted within the entire oceanfront sand
placement area (up to 24,000 lf) for a minimum of three years after completion of
construction and each maintenance event. At a minimum, the stretches of oceanfront
where sand placement occurred should be surveyed. Surveys should be conducted in
August or September of each year. Habitat known to support this species, including
the upper edges of the beach, lower foredunes, and overwash flats must be visually
surveyed for the plant. Annual reports should include numbers of plants,
latitude/longitude, and habitat type. Please see REPORTING REQUIREMENTS,
below, for more information.

4. Two full years of post-construction monitoring is required for piping plovers and red
knots. The piping plover and red knot survey protocol in the Appendix (page 176)
must be followed.

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
hatchlings and adults

174

Information required in the above T&C and/or these Reporting Requirements should be
submitted to the following address by February 28 of each year a report is due:

Pete Benjamin, Supervisor
Raleigh Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
[phone]

Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of an endangered or threatened species,
initial notification must be made to the Service’s Law Enforcement Office below. Additional
notification must be made to the Service’s Ecological Services Field Office identified above
and to the NCWRC at [phone]. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured
individuals and in the preservation of specimens in the best possible state for later analysis of
cause of death or injury.

Jason Keith
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
919-856-4786, extension 34

10. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

§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.

For the benefit of piping plovers, red knots, and sea turtles the Service recommends the
following conservation recommendations:

1. The Applicant or the Corps should maintain suitable piping plover migrating and
wintering habitat. Natural accretion at inlets should be allowed to remain. Accreting
sand spits on barrier islands provide excellent foraging habitat for migrating and
wintering plovers.

2. A conservation/education display sign would be helpful in educating local beach
users about the coastal beach ecosystem and associated rare species. The sign could
highlight the species’ life history and basic biology and ways recreationists can assist

175

in species protection efforts (e.g., keeping pets on a leash, removing trash to sealed
refuse containers, turning off lights at night, etc.). The Service would be willing to
assist the Corps or the Permittee in the development of such a sign, in cooperation
with NCWRC, interested non-governmental stakeholders (i.e., National Audubon
Society), the Corps, and the other interested stakeholders (i.e., property owners, etc.).

3. If public driving is allowed on the project beach, and if the Corps has the authority,
we recommend it exercise its discretionary authority to require the Permittee to have
authorization from the Service for incidental take of piping plover, red knot, sea
turtles, including nests and hatchlings (as appropriate), due to such driving or provide
written documentation from the Service that no incidental take authorization is
required. If required, the incidental take authorization for driving on the beach should
be obtained prior to any subsequent sand placement events.

4. If the Corps has the authority, we recommend it exercise its discretionary authority to
require that leash-laws and predator control programs be implemented.

5. The Corps should aid the Service in our efforts to initiate new monitoring efforts and
develop a full life-cycle demographic model to explore effects of variation in
productivity, annual survival rates, dispersal rates, and carrying capacity of habitat on
population viability of the piping plover’s three distinct populations.

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.

11. 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.

176

APPENDIX: USFWS Raleigh North Carolina Field Office Piping Plover
and Red Knot Survey Minimum Survey Requirements to Document Site
Abundance and Distribution

Required skills, training, and equipment for conducting surveys

1. Piping plover monitors must be capable of detecting and recording locations of
roosting and foraging plovers, accurately reading and recording bands, and
documenting observations in legible, complete field notes. Aptitude for monitoring
includes keen powers of observation, familiarity with avian biology and behavior,
experience observing birds or other wildlife for sustained periods, tolerance for
adverse weather, experience in data collection and management, and patience.
Monitors must also be able to captain a boat (if applicable) and walk long distances
carrying field gear.
2. Binoculars, a GPS unit (set to record in decimal degrees in the WGS datum), a 10-
60x spotting scope with a tripod, boat access (if applicable), and the RFO’s datasheet
must be used to conduct the surveys.

Piping plover survey methodology

3. Nonbreeding piping plover abundance and distribution must be determined through 6
surveys per season (2 during fall migration scheduled ≤3 days apart, 2 during winter
scheduled ≤3 days apart, and 2 during spring migration scheduled ≤3 days apart).
Suitable habitat must be surveyed by walking the survey area (weather and tide
permitting, no surveys should be conducted if sustained winds exceed 20 mph) during
the survey window (July 15 – May 15).

4. Surveys should be scheduled around the peak of migration (September in Fall and
March in Spring) based on input from the RFO. Winter surveys must be conducted
between December 1 and January 31. Surveys should be conducted around mid-tide
when birds will still be foraging, making legs easier to see for re-sighting bands, but
more concentrated.

5. All unbanded and banded piping plovers must be recorded on the RFO datasheet.
Weather data must be collected at the beginning of each survey. The
presence/absence of bands, GPS coordinate, plumage, behavior, and habitat type must
be recorded for each piping plover.

6. Band resightings must be read and documented during each survey.

7. GPS coordinates must be collected in decimal degrees during each survey for each
bird as close to the location of the bird as possible without causing a change in
behavior (if the bird is spending most of its time watching the monitor instead of
continuing the behavior it was exhibiting when it was first spotted).

177

8. Recreation and disturbance must be documented during the surveys. The number of
people, dogs (on and off leash), bicycles, vehicles, etc. must be recorded during the
surveys. Additionally, any activity causing a disturbance (change in behavior,
particularly if the disturbance flushes the birds) to roosting or foraging birds must be
noted on the datasheet.

9. Survey data must be recorded in the field on the RFO datasheet and transcribed into
the Microsoft Access database (provided by the RFO). Electronic hard copies of the
datasheets and the database must be provided annually by June 15 to the RFO.

Red Knot

10. Red knots must be recorded during the piping plover surveys when both species are
present. Additional surveys for red knots during their peak season must follow the
same protocol outlined above. Band combinations, flag color and alphanumeric
codes, and geolocators must be noted on the datasheet if applicable. All resightings
must be reported on www.bandedbirds.org.

178

How To Resight and Report Banded Piping Plovers

Be careful not to disturb the bird. A slow, quiet approach avoids harassment and allows the
observer to carefully scan the band combination. Using a spotting scope facilitates accurate
observations from a distance.

Please record:
1. Location where the bird was seen (GPS coordinates are helpful).
2. Date when the bird was seen.
3. Any observations of the bird’s behavior (e.g., roosting, foraging).
4. Band combination:
a. Band combinations should be recorded in the following sequence: upper left (UL;
above the “knee”), lower left (LL; below the “knee”), upper right (UR), lower
right (LR). “Right” and “left” are from the bird’s perspective, not the observer’s
(just like a person’s right and left legs). (please refer to
http://www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/PIPL/20141205_usfws_pipl_survey_datasheet
.pdf)
b. Band types include flags (band with tab sticking out), metal, and color bands.
c. Some bands may have alpha-numeric codes printed on the band or the flag (e.g.,
A1). The code, in addition to the color and location of the band or flag should be
documented. Both the color of the band and the code (e.g., white writing on a
green band) should be noted.
d. Some bands are split (a single band with two colors; e.g., orange/blue) or triple
split (a single band with three colors; e.g., blue/orange/blue).
e. Sometimes two bands of the same color are placed over each other, appearing like
one very tall band.
f. Some piping plovers are banded on the upper legs only, and bands can be stacked
(one above the other) on the upper leg.
g. Record leg positions where bands are absent.
h. Note if the color or type of any of the bands is uncertain or if some parts of a leg
were not seen clearly.
i. Recognize that band colors can fade over time.

For banded piping plovers seen in North Carolina, please send this information along with
the observer’s contact information to [e-mail]. For more information
about band resighting, please consult
http://www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/PIPL_Band_Identification_Training.pdf

179

Left Figure: This band combination would be recorded as: metal (UL), dark blue (LL), black flag (UR), red over black
(LR). The band combination would be recorded as: X,B:Lf,RL. Middle Figure: Examples of alpha-numeric gray, black,
and white flags. Right Figure: Example in yellow circle shows use of an alpha-numeric code on a color band.

Datasheet Habitat Descriptor Definitions
Back beach – dry sand, beach landward of the mean high water (MHW) line and seaward of
the dune line.
Dune – A mound, hill, or ridge of wind-blown sand, either bare or covered with vegetation
located landward of the back beach.
Ephemeral pool – a temporary water feature located on the beach.
Mudflat – intertidal area typically located behind sand spits adjacent to inlets. They appear
darker in color than sand, and are soft and slick to walk on. The closest vegetation is
typically Spartina sp.
Intertidal beach – wet, smooth sand; beach seaward of the MHW line and landward of the
mean low water (MLW) line.
Sandflat – flat, rippled intertidal area along sound shorelines or around the mouth of an inlet.
They are firm to walk on.
Dense vegetation – vegetation located on the back beach or dunes that provides >75% cover.
Washover – beach sand that has been transported landward of the beach/dune system by
storm waves, areas where sand and shells become the top layer of once vegetated areas
following a storm event.
Wrack – organic plant material deposited between MHW line and the spring high tide line.
Photo: Kelsi Hun
UL UR

LL LR
Nonbreeding PIPL/REKN Survey Data Sheet Page___of___

Date:________Location: __________________________________Observer(s): _______________________________________

Survey #:_____Survey Coverage: (circle one): ALL NE SW Survey Type: (circle one): Population Foraging Roosting S/R

Start Time:______ End Time:______ General weather (circle one): Sunny Partly cloudy Cloudy Rain Fog Other (describe)

Temp:____°F Wind Direction (circle one): N NE E SE S SW W NW Wind Speed (circle one): 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 >21 MPH

Tidal stage at start of survey (circle one): Low Mid High (Rising/Falling)

Disturbance (#): Pedestrian(s)______Boat(s)_____Bicycle(s)_____ATV(s)_____ORV(s)_____Dog(s) On______Dog(s) Off______

PI
P
L
/
R
E
K
N
#
UL
U

UL
L

LL
U

LL
L

UR
U

UR
L

LR
U

LR
L

Flag
or
band
Cod
e

Latitude

Longitude Pl
u
m
a
g
e

Be
h
a
v
i
o
r

Ha
b
i
t
a
t

Notes

Abbreviation Key
Band Color Plumage Behavior Habitat
A
B
b
f
G
g
L
N
O
P
R
U
W
X
Y
-
/
//

Gray
Dark blue
Light blue
Flag
Dark green
Light green
Black
No band seen (leg position not visible)
Orange
Pink
Red
Purple
White
Metal
Yellow
No band (no band on that leg position)
Split band (color/color on one band)
Triple split band (color/color/color on one band)

B
A
P
Basic (nonbreeding)
Alternate (breeding)
Partial (some breeding)
D
FR
R
L
T
O
Disturbed
Foraging
Roosting
Loafing
Territorial
Other
M
S
B
D
WR
IT
WA
VS
VT
EP
O
Mudflats
Sandflats
Beach
Dunes
Wrack
Ocean intertidal
Washover
Vegetation sparse (<75%)
Vegetation thick (>75%)
Ephemeral pool
Other

182

12. LITERATURE CITED

Acker, C. M. 2009. Electronic mail dated 10 February 2009 and phone conversations between
Cathy Acker, Veterinary Records Supervisor, U.S. Geological Survey National Wildlife
Health Center, Madison, Wisconsin and Richard Zane, USFWS Panama City Field
Office, Florida regarding shorebird diagnostics data.
Ackerman, R.A. 1980. Physiological and ecological aspects of gas exchange by sea turtle eggs.
American Zoologist 20:575-583.
Addison, L. and T. McIver. 2014. Rich Inlet Bird Surveys, 2008-2014: Preliminary Summary of
Results. Unpublished Report. Audubon North Carolina. 26 pp.
Addison, L. 2016. Personal Communication. October 13, 2016 Email from Lindsay Addison to
Kathryn Matthews. Re: Question about Addison_PIPL Habitat Master spreadsheet.
Coastal Biologist, Audubon North Carolina. Wilmington, North Carolina.
American Bird Conservancy. 2007. Pesticide profile – fenthion. Accessed on 27 February 2009
at http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/pesticides/Profiles/ fenthion.html 2007.
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.
Amirault-Langlais, D. L., P. W. Thomas, and J. McKnight. 2007. Oiled piping plovers
(Charadrius melodus melodus) in eastern Canada. Waterbirds 30(2):271-274.
Amorocho, D. 2003. Monitoring nesting loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the central
Caribbean coast of Colombia. Marine Turtle Newsletter 101:8-13.
Amos, A. 2009. Telephone conversation on 3 April 2009 between Tony Amos, University of
Texas Marine Science Institute, and Robyn Cobb, USFWS Corpus Christi Field Office,
Texas regarding injured and oiled piping plovers on the central Texas coast.
Amos, A. 2012. Telephone conversation on 9 April 2012 between Tony Amos, University of
Texas Marine Science Institute, and Robyn Cobb, USFWS Corpus Christi Field Office,
Texas regarding piping plovers that he observed during the Ixtoc oil spill.
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. 2008. A survey of upper Texas coast critical habitats for migratory and wintering piping
plover and associated resident “sand plovers”. Gulf Coast Bird Observatory’s interim
report to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Grant No. TX E-95-R.
Arvin, J.C. 2009. Hurricane shifts plover populations. Gulf Coast Bird Observatory’s Gulf
Crossings. Vol. 13, No.1.

183

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>.
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2015. Protecting the Piping Plover and other
Shorebirds in the Bahamas. Report on Accomplishments 2014-2015. Available at
<http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/SouthernWingsReportMarch2015.pdf>.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998. Interstate fishery management plan for
horseshoe crab. Fishery management report no. 32, Available at
<http://http://www.asmfc.org>.
Audubon Society. 2012. Solving the Piping Plover Puzzle. Available at
https://www.audubon.org/magazine/november-december-2012/solving-piping-plover-
puzzle.
Audubon Society. 2015. New Bahamas National Park will Protect Migratory Piping Plovers, Red
Knots, Other Atlantic Coast Birds. Available at <https://www.audubon.org/news/new-
bahamas-national-park-will-protect-migratory-piping-plovers-red-knots-other>.
Audubon Society. 2017. Meet Old Man Plover, the Pride of the Great Lakes. Available at
<http://www.audubon.org/news/meet-old-man-plover-pride-great-lakes>.
Bahamas National Trust. 2015. BNT Congratulates the Government on Protecting the Bahamas’
Future. 9/2/2015 Press Release. Available at <http://www.bnt.bs/_m1840/press-
releases/BNT-Congratulates-the-Government-on-Protecting-The-Bahamas-Future>.
Baker, A.J., P.M. González, T. Piersma, L.J. Niles, d.N. de Lima Serrano, P.W. Atkinson, N.A.
Clark, C.D.T. Minton, M.K. Peck, G. Aarts, and et al. 2004. Rapid population decline in
red knots: Fitness consequences of decreased refueling rates and late arrival in Delaware
Bay. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences Series B 271(1541):875-882.
Baker, S. and B. Higgins. 2003. Summary of CWT project and recoveries, tag detection, and
protocol for packaging and shipping Kemp’s ridley flippers. Unpublished presentation at
the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network annual meeting. February 2003.
Baldwin, R., G.R. Hughes, and R.I.T. Prince. 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.
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.

184

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.
Best, D. 1999. Page 26 in USFWS. 2003. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes piping plover
(Charadrius melodus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
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. 2011. Electronic mail from Melissa Bimbi, USFWS to Karen Terwilliger,
Terwilliger Consulting, Inc. in regards to response protocols for oil spills.
Bimbi, M. 2012. Biologist. E-mails of September 12, and November 1, 2012. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Recovery and Endangered Species, South Carolina Field Office.
Charleston, SC.
Bimbi, M. 2013. Biologist. E-mails of January 31, June 27, and July 2, 2013. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Recovery and Endangered Species, South Carolina Field Office,
Charleston, SC.
Bimbi, M. 2015. Biologist. Conference Call April 16, 2015. Discussion of red knot preferred
prey items in South Carolina, and recent studies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service internal
conference call on research priorities for the red knot.
Bimbi, M. 2016. Biologist. E-mails dated July 14, 2016, July 20, 3016, July 21, 2016, and
October 21, 2016 to Kathryn Matthews. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Recovery and
Endangered Species, South Carolina Field Office. Charleston, SC.
Bimbi, M, D. Catlin, D. Gibson, M. Friedrich, K. Hunt, C. Weithman, and J. Fraser. 2016. The
role of the piping plover towards shorebird conservation on developed beaches in the
southeastern United States. Oral presentation and abstract. The Waterbird Society 40th
Anniversary Meeting , New Bern, NC. 2016.
Bishop, M.J., C.H. Peterson, H.C. Summerson, H.S. Lenihan, and J.H. Grabowski. 2006.
Deposition and long-shore transport of dredge spoils to nourish beaches: impacts on
benthic infauna of an ebb-tidal delta. Journal of Coastal Research 22(3):530-546.
Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Meylan, and B.J. Turner. 1983. Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne Beach,
Florida, I. Size, growth and reproductive biology. Biological Conservation 26:65-77.
Blair, K. 2005. Determination of sex ratios and their relationship to nest temperature of
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta, L.) hatchlings produced along the southeastern
Atlantic coast of the United States. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. Florida
Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida.
Bleakney, J.S. 1955. Four records of the Atlantic ridley turtle, Lepidochelys kempi, from Nova
Scotia. Copeia 2:137.

185

Blomqvist, S., N. Holmgren, S. Åkesson, A. Hedenström, 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.
Bowen, B.W., A.L. Bass, L. Soares, and R.J. Toonen. 2005. Conservation implications of
complex population structure: lessons from the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta).
Molecular Ecology 14:2389-2402.
Bowman, M.L. and Dolan, R. 1985. The relationship of Emerita talpoida to beach
characteristics. J. Coastal Res. 1, 151-163.
Boyd, R.L. 1991. First Nesting Record for the Piping Plover in Oklahoma. The Wilson Bulletin
103(2): 305-308.
Brault, S. 2007. Population Viability Analysis for the New England population of the Piping
Plover (Charadrius melodus). Prepared for Cape Wind Associates, January 2007. 34 pp.
Breese, G. 2010. Compiled by Gregory Breese from notes and reports. Unpublished report to
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Shorebird Technical Committee.
Breese, G. 2013. Project Leader. E-mails of March 11, 12, 25, and April 26 and 29, 2013. US
Fish & Wildlife Service, Delaware Bay Estuary Project. Smyrna, Delaware.
Brongersma, L.D. 1972. European Atlantic Turtles. Zoologische Verhandelingen 121:318.
Brongersma, L. and A. Carr. 1983. Lepidochelys kempii (Garman) from Malta. Proceedings of
the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Series C) 86(4):445-454.
Brown, A. C. and A. McLachlan. 2002. Sandy shore ecosystems and the threats facing them:
some predictions for the year 2025. Environmental Conservation 29(1):62-77.
Bucher, M. A., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Status survey of seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus
pumilus Rafinesque) in North and South Carolina. Report to the North Carolina Plant
Conservation Program, Raleigh, NC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville,
NC.
Buonaiuto, F.S., Jr., H.J. Bokuniewicz, and D.M. FitzGerald. 2008. Principal component analysis
of morphology change at a tidal inlet: Shinnecock Inlet, New York. Journal of Coastal
Research 24(4):867-875.

186

Burchfield, P.M. and J.L Peña. 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., S. A. Carlucci, C. W. Jeitner, and L. Niles. 2007. Habitat choice, disturbance, and
management of foraging shorebirds and gulls at migratory stopover. Journal of Coastal
Research: 23 (5):1159-1166.
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.
Bush, D. M., O. H. Pilkey, Jr., and W. J. Neal. 1996. Living by the Rules of the Sea. Duke
University Press. Durham, North Carolina. 179 pp.
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.
Caldwell, M. 2012. Electronic mail dated 5 April 2012 from Mark Caldwell, USFWS South
Carolina Field Office to Melissa Bimbi, USFWS South Carolina Field Office regarding
wind turbines.
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.

187

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.
Carr De Betts, E. E. 1999. An examination of flood tidal deltas at Florida’s tidal inlets. M.S.
thesis. Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL. Available at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091063/00001/1x.
Carver, L. 2011. Electronic mail dated 11 January 2011 from Laura Ann Carver, Biologist-Oil-
Spill Coordinator, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to Michael Seymour,
Scientific Collecting Permits Coordinator Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
Louisiana Natural Heritage Program in regards to how many oil spills occur on average
in a year in the Gulf.
Catlin, D. H., J. D. Fraser, M. Stantial, J. H. Felio, K. Gierdes, and S. Karpanty. 2011.
Chandeleur piping plover survey, January 18-19, 2011. Operations report to USFWS.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 3 pp.
Catlin, D. 2012a. Electronic mail dated 25 June 2012 from Daniel H. Catlin, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia to Carol Aron, USFWS
North Dakota Field Office regarding piping plovers banded in the Great Lakes and
Northern Great Plains and resighted in the Bahamas.
Catlin, D. 2012b. Electronic mail dated 20 March 2012 from Daniel H. Catlin, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia to Anne Hecht, USFWS
Northeast Region regarding cold weather and plover weights.
Catlin, D. 2013. Electronic mail dated 7 May 2013 from Daniel H. Catlin, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia to Carol Aron, USFWS North Dakota
Field Office regarding piping plovers banded in the Bahamas and resighted in the Northern
Great Plains.
Catlin, D. 2016a. Personal Communication. September 28, 2016 email to Sarah Saunders and
others. Rich Inlet Population Projection. Research Assistant Professor, Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia.
Catlin, D. 2016b. Personal Communication. October 19, 2016 email to Kathryn Matthews and
others. Rich Inlet Population Projection. Research Assistant Professor, Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia.
Catlin, D. 2016c. Personal Communication. October 21, 2016 email to Kathryn Matthews and
others. Providing description of methods for population modeling. Research Assistant
Professor, Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Catlin, D.H., D. Gibson, K.L. Hunt, M.J. Friedrich, C.E. Weithman, J.D. Fraser, S.M. Karpanty.
2015. Winter survival of piping plovers on the Atlantic Coast through habitat changes
and its relationship to multiple breeding populations. 2015 Annual Operations Report.
Virginia Tech Shorebird Program, Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 9 pp.

188

Cava, J. A., A.D. Richardson, E.A. Jacobs, R.N. Rosenfield. 2014. Breeding Range Expansion
of Taiga Merlins (Falco columbarius columbarius) in Wisonsin Reflects Continental
Changes. J. Raptor Res. 48(2): 182-188.
Cavalieri, V. 2011. Electronic mail dated 22 December 2011 from Vincent Cavalieri, USFWS
Michigan Field Office to Anne Hecht, USFWS Northeast Region regarding detection of
contaminants in piping plovers breeding in the Great Lakes.
Cavalieri, V. 2016a. Personal Communication. August 1, 2016 email to Kathryn Matthews. FEIS
for Figure Eight Island Terminal Groin Project. Number of Great Lakes breeding pairs
for 2016. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. USFWS. East Lansing, Michigan.
Cavalieri, V. 2016b. Personal Communication. August 16, 2016. Phone call with Kathy
Matthews concerning the Great Lakes population of piping plover and population
information. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. USFWS. East Lansing, Michigan.
Cavalieri, V. 2016c. Personal Communication. September 23, 2016 email to Kathryn Matthews.
Re: Rich Inlet PIPL Impacts. Providing population numbers for Great Lakes piping
plover. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. USFWS. East Lansing, Michigan.
Cavalieri, V. 2016d. Personal Communication. October 19, 2016 email to Kathryn Matthews.
Re: Number of Canada nests and fledglings this year? Providing population numbers for
Canada Great Lakes piping plover breeding pairs. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. USFWS.
East Lansing, Michigan.
Chaloupka, M. 2001. Historical trends, seasonality and spatial synchrony in green sea turtle egg
production. Biological Conservation 101:263-279.
Chaplin, M. 2018. Personal Communication. Electronic mail of April 13, 2018: “Re: Topsail
Inlet project.” Email provides piping plover data for several inlets from Audubon North
Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Recovery and Endangered Species, South
Carolina Field Office, Charleston, SC.
Chapman, B. R. 1984. Seasonal abundance and habitat-use patterns of coastal bird populations
on Padre and Mustang Island barrier beaches (following the Ixtoc I Oil Spill). Report
prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Contract No. 14-16-0009-80-062.
Christens, E. 1990. Nest emergence lag in loggerhead sea turtles. Journal of Herpetology
24(4):400-402.
Cialone, M. A. and D. K. Stauble. 1998. Historical findings on ebb shoal mining. Journal of
Coastal Research 14(2):537-563.
Clark, K.E., L.J. Niles, and J. Burger. 1993. Abundance and distribution of migrant shorebirds in
Delaware Bay. The Condor 95:694-705.
Clark, K.E., R.R. Porter, and J.D. Dowdell. 2009. The shorebird migration in Delaware Bay.
New Jersey Birds 35(4):85-92.
Clark, R.R. 1992. Beach Conditions in Florida: A Statewide Inventory and Identification of the
Beach Erosion Problem Areas in Florida. Beaches and Shores Technical and Design
Memorandum 89-1. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and
Shores.

189

Cleary, W.J. 2014. The Terminal Groin Controversy. Available at
http://www.ntbnc.org/Documents/SP%20%2015%2002%2018%20FINAL%20The%20T
erminal%20Groin%20Controversy.pdf. 45 pp.
Cleary, W. J. and D. M. Fitzgerald. 2003. Tidal inlet response to natural sedimentation
processes and dredging-induced tidal prism changes: Mason Inlet, North Carolina.
Journal of Coastal Research 19(4):1018-1025.
Cleary, W. J. and T. Marden. 1999. Shifting shorelines: a pictorial atlas of North Carolina
inlets. North Carolina Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-99-4. 51 p.
Clements, P. 2012. Electronic mail dated 2 April and 27 March 2012 from Pat Clements,
USFWS Corpus Christi Field Office to Robyn Cobb, USFWS Corpus Christi Field Office
regarding wind turbines.
Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1984. Shore protection manual, volumes I and II. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Cobb, R. 2012a. Comments from Robyn Cobb, USFWS Corpus Christi Field Office to Anne
Hecht, USFWS Northeast Region on plover use of dredged material islands in Texas. 21
June 2012.
Cobb, R. 2012b. Note to file by Robyn Cobb, USFWS Corpus Christi Field Office regarding
oiled piping plovers on southern Texas coast associated with 2009 “mystery spill.”
Summarizes information from Clare Lee, Wade Steblein, and Steve Liptay.
Cobb, R. 2012c. Electronic mail dated 9 November 2012 from Robyn Cobb, USFWS Corpus
Christi Field Office to Anne Hecht, USFWS Northeast Region on piping plover
conservation strategy questions.
Cohen, J.B., and C. Gratto-Trevor. 2011. Survival, site fidelity, and the population dynamics of
Piping Plovers in Saskatchewan. J. Field Ornithol. 82(4):379-394.
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.
Colosio, F., M. Abbiati, and L. Airoldi. 2007. Effects of beach nourishment on sediments and
benthic assemblages. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54(2007):1197-1206.

190

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.
Convertino, M., J.F. Donoghue, M.L. Chu-Agor, G.A. Kiker, R. Munoz-Carpena, R.A. Fischer,
I. Linkov. 2011. Anthropogenic Renourishment Feedback on Shorebirds: a Multispecies
Bayesian Perspective. Available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.0174.pdf.
Corey. E. 2017. Personal Communication. Discussion at March 3, 2017 North Carolina
Waterbird Committee Meeting, Hammocks Beach State Park. Inventory Biologist, North
Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation.
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.
Crain, D.A., A.B. Bolten, and K.A. Bjorndal. 1995. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles:
review and research initiatives. Restoration Ecology 3(2):95-104.
Cross, R.R. 1990. Monitoring, management and research of the piping plover at Chincoteague
National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished report. Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia.
Cross, R.R. 1996. Breeding Ecology, Success, and Population Management of the Piping Plover
(Charadrius melodus) at Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia. M.A. Thesis,
The College of William and Mary.
Crouse, D. 1999. Population modeling and implications for Caribbean hawksbill sea turtle
management. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):185-188.
Cummings, V., J. Hewitt, A. Van Rooyen, K. Currie, S. Beard, S. Thrush, J. Norkko, N. Barr, P.
Heath, N.J. Halliday, and et al. 2011. Ocean acidification at high latitudes: Potential
effects on functioning of the Antarctic bivalve Laternula elliptica. PLoS ONE
6(1):e16069.
Cuthbert, F.J. and E.A. Roche. 2006. Piping plover breeding biology and management in the
Great Lakes, 2006. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing,
MI.

191

Cuthbert, F.J. and E.A. Roche. 2007. Estimation and evaluation of demographic parameters for
recovery of the endangered Great Lakes piping plover population. Unpublished report
submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI.
Cuthbert, F.J., and S. Saunders. 2013. Piping plover breeding biology and management in the
Great Lakes, 2013. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing,
MI. 34 pp.
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: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.
Davis, K.L., M.J. Friedrich, K.L. Hunt, D.H. Catlin, J.D. Fraser, and S. Karpanty. 2013. Survival
of piping plovers wintering on the Atlantic coast and its relationship to population growth
of endangered Great Lakes breeders. Annual Operations Report. Virginia Tech Shorebird
Program, Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 15 pp.
Dean, C. 1999. Against the tide: the battle for America’s beaches. Columbia University Press;
New York, New York.
Defeo O. and A. McLachlan. 2011. Coupling between macrofauna community structure and
beach type: a deconstructive metaanalysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 433:29-41.
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.

192

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.
Dickerson K., K. J. Nelson, and C. Zeeman. 2011. Characterizing contaminant exposure of
mountain plovers on wintering grounds in California and breeding grounds in Colorado,
Wyoming, and Montana. USFWS, Region 6. Contaminants Report Number
R6&R8/725C/11. 164 pp.
Dinsmore, S.J., J.A. Collazo, and J.R. Walters. 1998. Seasonal numbers and distribution of
shorebirds on North Carolina's Outer Banks Wilson Bulletin 110:171-181.
Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta
(Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(14).
Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 1999. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia,
1999: implications for management. Georgia Department of Natural Resources report
Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2000. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia,
2000: implications for management. Georgia Department of Natural Resources
unpublished report.
Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2001. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia,
2001. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida..
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/
Donnelly, C., N. Kraus, and M. Larson. 2006. State of knowledge on measurement and
modeling of coastal overwash. Journal of Coastal Research 22(4):965-991.
Douglas, B. C., M. Kearney, and S. Leatherman. 2001. Sea-level rise: history and consequences.
Academic Press, Inc., New York, New York.
Drake, K.R. 1999a. Movements, habitat use and survival of wintering piping plovers. M.S.
Thesis. Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX. 82 pp.

193

Drake, K. R. 1999b. Time allocation and roosting habitat in sympatrically wintering piping
and snowy plovers. M. S. Thesis. Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX. 59
pp.
Drake, K.R., J.E. Thompson, K.L. Drake, and C. Zonick. 2001. Movements, habitat use, and
survival of non-breeding Piping Plovers. Condor 103(2):259-267.
Duerr, A.E., B.D. Watts, and F.M. Smith. 2011. Population dynamics of red knots stopping over
in Virginia during spring migration. Center for Conservation Biology technical report
series. College of William and Mary & Virginia Commonwealth University, CCBTR-11-
04, Williamsburg, VA.
Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard, M.D. McCrary, and M.O. Pierson. 2003. The response of
macrofauna communities and shorebirds to macrophyte wrack subsidies on exposed
sandy beaches of southern California. Estuarine. Coastal and Shelf Science 58, 25-40.
Dugan, J. E. and D. M. Hubbard. 2006. Ecological responses to coastal armoring on exposed
sandy beaches. Shore & Beach 74(1).
Dugan, J. E. and D. M. Hubbard. 2010. Loss of coastal strand habitat in southern California:
The role of beach grooming. Estuaries and Coasts 33:67-77.

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.

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.
Elliott, L.F. and T. Teas. 1996. Effects of human disturbance on threatened wintering
shorebirds. In fulfillment of Texas Grant number E-1-8. Project 53. 10 pp.
Elliott-Smith, E. and S. M. Haig. 2004. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), in The birds of
North America online (A. Poole, ed). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Available at
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/002/articles/introduction, accessed May 2017.
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.

194

Elliott-Smith, E., Bidwell, M., Holland, A.E., and Haig, S.M. 2015. Data from the 2011
International Piping Plover Census: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 922. 296 pp.
Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds922.
Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature,
Volume 436(4), pp. 686-688.
Encalada, S.E., J.C. Zurita, and B.W. Bowen. 1999. Genetic consequences of coastal
development: the sea turtle rookeries at X’cacel, Mexico. Marine Turtle Newsletter 83:8-
10.
Environment Canada. 2006. Recovery Strategy for the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus
circumcinctus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment
Canada, Ottawa.
Environment Canada. 2007. Addendum to the final recovery strategy for the piping plover
(Charadrius melodus circumcinctus) in Canada RE: identification of critical habitat.
Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery strategy for the piping plover (Charadrius melodus
melodus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada,
Ottawa.
Erickson, K. M., N. C. Kraus, and E. E. Carr. 2003. Circulation change and ebb shoal
development following relocation of Mason Inlet, North Carolina. Proceedings Coastal
Sediments ’03, World Scientific Publishing Corp. and East Meets West Productions,
Corpus Christi, Texas. 13 pp.
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 Bahía
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.

195

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.
Firmin, B. 2012. Electronic mail dated 24 April, 2012 from Brigette Firmin, USFWS Louisiana
Field Office to Anne Hecht, USFWS Northeast Region regarding threats to piping
plovers from land-based oil and gas exploration and development.
Fish, M. R., I. M. Côté, J. A. Horrocks, B. Mulligan, A. R. Watkinson, and A. P. Jones. 2008.
Construction Setback Regulations and Sea-level Rise: Mitigating Sea Turtle Nesting
Beach Loss. Ocean & Coastal Management 51(2008):330-341.
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.
http://research.myfwc.com/images/articles/2377/sea_turtle_nesting_on_florida_bchs_93-
07.pdf
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 http://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.
http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=5182

196

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. http://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.
Forgues, K. 2010. The effects of off-road vehicles on migrating shorebirds at a barrier island in
Maryland and Virginia. M.S. Thesis. Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
Foster, C. R., A. F. Amos, and L. A. Fuiman. 2009. Trends in abundance of coastal birds and
human activity on a Texas barrier island over three decades. Estuaries and Coasts
32:1079-1089.
Frair, W., R.G. Ackerman, and N. Mrosovsky. 1972. Body temperature of Dermochelys
coriacea: warm water turtle from cold water. Science 177:791-793.

197

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., B. Hopkins, S. Karpanty, D. Catlin, J. Cohen, J. Felio, J. Schmerfeld, A. Secord, and
C. M. Kane. 2010. Natural resource damage assessment work plan for determining
injury to the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) from the Deepwater Horizon (MC 252)
Oil Spill bird study #7. Virginia Tech, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fraser, J.D., S.M. Karpanty, J.B. Cohen, and B.R. Truitt. 2013. The red knot (Calidris canutus
rufa) decline in the western hemisphere: Is there a lemming connection? Canadian
Journal of Zoology 91:13-16.
Frazer, N.B. and J.I. Richardson. 1985. Annual variation in clutch size and frequency for
loggerhead turtles, Caretta-caretta, nesting at Little Cumberland Island, Georgia, USA.
Herpetologica 41(3):246-251.
Frink, L., C. D. Jenkins, Jr., L. Niles, K. Clark, and E. A. Miller. 1996. Anitra Spill: responding
to oiled shorebirds. Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, Inc. and New Jersey Division of
Fish, Game and Wildlife.
Fritts, T. H. and M. A. McGehee. 1982. Effects of Petroleum on the Development and Survival
of Marine Turtle Embryos. A final report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the
U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS
Office, New Orleans, LA. NTIS No. PB82-263773. FWS/OBS-82/37. Contract No. 14-
12-0001-29096.
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, J. O. 1990. Census of piping plovers wintering on the North Carolina Coast - 1989-1990.
Unpublished report to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 54 pp.
Fussell, J.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.
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.
Georges, A, C. Limpus, J. Parmenter. 1993. Natural History of Chelonia. Fauna of Australia, 2A:
1-18.
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.

198

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, D., D.H. Catlin, K.L. Hunt, J.D. Fraser, S.M. Karpanty, M.J. Friedrich, M.K. Bimbi, J.B.
Cohen, S.B. Maddock. 2017. Evaluating the impact of man-made disasters on imperiled
species: Piping plovers and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Biological Conservation
212:48-62.
Gibson, D., D. Catlin, M. Bimbi, M. Freidrich, K. Hunt, C. Weithman, V. Cavalieri, F. Cuthbert,
A. Van Zoeren, S. Karpanty, J. Fraser. 2016. Winter habitat conditions influence
survival across the full life cycle for an imperiled migratory shorebird. Oral presentation
and abstract. The Waterbird Society 40th Anniversary Meeting , New Bern, NC. 2016.
Gibson, D. 2016a. Personal Communication. September 27, 2016 Email to Kathryn Matthews et
al. Re: Data request for assessment of Rich Inlet, NC PIPL impacts. Department of Fish
and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Gibson, D. 2016b. Personal Communication. July 6, 2016 Email to James Fraser et al.
Winter_PIPL_Progress_Report.pdf. Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Gibson, D. 2016c. Personal Communication. September 22, 2016 Oral Presentation. Winter
Habitat Conditions influence survival across the full life cycle for an imperiled migratory
shorebird. Oral Presentation at 2016 Meeting of the Waterbird Society. Department of
Fish and Wildlife Conservation,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Gibson, D. 2016d. Personal Communication. September 29, 2016 Email to Dan Catlin et al. Re:
Rich Inlet Population Projection. Piping plover population numbers for Rich Inlet and
surrounding inlets. Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation,Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.
Gibson, D. 2016e. Personal Communication. September 8, 2016 Email to Dan Catlin. Piping
plover population model for Rich Inlet and surrounding inlets. Department of Fish and
Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Gibson, D. 2016f. Personal Communication. October 13, 2016 Email to Kathy Matthews et al.
Piping plover annual apparent survival for several inlets on the Atlantic coast.
Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Gibson, D. 2016g. Personal Communication. October 24, 2016 Email to Kathy Matthews and
Melissa Bimbi. Discussing the total passage rate estimated by Virginia Tech. Department
of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Gibson, D. 2017. Personal Communication. April 19, 2017 Email to Kathy Matthews, Dan
Catlin, and Melissa Bimbi. Providing annual apparent survival rates for Rich and Topsail
Inlets. Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University.

199

Gibson, D., K.L. Hunt, D.H. Catlin, M.J. Friedrich, C.E. Weithman, J.D. Fraser, S.M. Karpanty.
2016. Annual Operations Report: Winter survival of piping plovers on the Atlantic coast
through habitat changes and its relationship to multiple breeding populations. Virginia
Tech Shorebird Program.
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 - 58th Annual Meeting. Volume 41, No.1, p. 52.
Gilbertson, M., T. Kubiak, J. Ludwig, and G. Fox. 1991. Great Lakes embryo mortality, edema,
and deformities syndrome (GLEMEDS) in colonial fish-eating birds: similarity to chick-
edema disease. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 33:455-520.
Glenn, L. 1998. The consequences of human manipulation of the coastal environment on
hatchling loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta, L.). Pages 58-59 in Byles, R., and Y.
Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle
Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412.
Glen, F. and N. Mrosovsky. 2004. Antigua revisited: the impact of climate change on sand and
nest temperatures at a hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) nesting beach. Global
Change Biology 10:2036-2045.
Godfrey, M.H. and N. Mrosovsky. 1997. Estimating the time between hatching of sea turtles and
their emergence from the nest. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(4):581-585.
Godfrey, P.J., S.P. Leatherman, and P.A. Buckley. 1978. Impact of off-road vehicles on coastal
ecosystems. Pages 581-599 in Coastal Zone ’78 Symposium on Technical,
Environmental Socioeconomic and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Management.
Vol. II, San Francisco, California.
Goldin, M.R., C.Griffin, and S. Melvin. 1990. Reproductive and foraging ecology, human
disturbance, and management of piping plovers at Breezy Point, Gateway National
Recreational Area, New York, 1989. Progress report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Newton 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.
González, P.M. 2005. Report for developing a red knot status assessment in the U.S.
Unpublished report by Fundacion Inalafquen, Rio Negro, Argentina.
González, 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.

200

Gramling, J. 2011. Electronic mail dated 1 August 2011 from Joel M. Gramling, Ph.D.,
Department of Biology, The Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina to Stephanie Egger,
Terwilliger Consulting, Inc. regarding the invasive Carex kobomugi on North Carolina
beaches.
Grant, G.S. 2014. Town of North Topsail Beach Post-Construction Bird Monitoring Report.
Sneads Ferry, NC. 23p.
Grant, G.S. 2015. Town of North Topsail Beach Post-Construction Bird Monitoring Report –
Second Year. Sneads Ferry, NC. 29p.
Gratto-Trevor, C., D. Amirault-Langlais, D. Catlin, F. Cuthbert, J. Fraser, S. Maddock, E. Roche,
and F. Shaffer. 2009. Winter distribution of four different piping plover breeding
populations. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 11 pp.
Gratto-Trevor, C.L., J.P. Goossen, and S.M. Wentworth. 2010. Identification and breeding of
yearling piping plovers. J. Field Ornithol. 81(4): 383-391.
Gratto-Trevor, C., D. Amirault-Langlais, D. Catlin, F. Cuthbert, J. Fraser, S. Maddock, E. Roche,
and F. Shaffer. 2012. Connectivity in piping plovers: do breeding populations have
distinct winter distributions? Journal of Wildlife Management 76:348-355.
Gratto-Trevor, C., S.M. Haig, M.P. Miller, T.D. Mullins, S. Maddock, E. Roche, and P. Moore.
2016. Breeding sites and winter site fidelity of Piping Plovers wintering in The Bahamas,
a previously unknown major wintering area. J. Field. Ornithol. 87(1):29-41.
Gratto-Trevor, C. 2012. Electronic mail dated 25 June 2012 from Cheri Gratto-Trevor, Science
and Technology Branch of Environment Canada to Carol Aron, USFWS North Dakota
Field Office regarding piping plovers banded in the Great Lakes and Northern Great
Plains and resighted in the Bahamas.
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/publications/habitat/beachNourishment.pdf>
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.
Grinsted, A., J. C. Moore, and S. Jevrejeva. 2010. Reconstructing sea level from paleo and
projected temperatures 200 to 2100 AD. Climate Dynamics 34:461–472.
Guilfoyle, M.P., R.A. Fischer, D.N. Pashley, and C.A. Lott editors. 2006. Summary of first
regional workshop on dredging, beach nourishment, and birds on the south Atlantic coast.
ERDC/EL TR-06-10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, Available at
<http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pdfs/ES/trel06-10.pdf>.

201

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
<http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA474358>.
Gutierrez, B. T., N. G. Plant, and E. R. Thieler. 2011. A Bayesian network to predict coastal
vulnerability to sea level rise. Journal of Geophysical Research 116 (F02009) doi:
10.1029/2010JF001891.
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 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.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Piping_Plover/.
Haig, S.M., and L.W. Oring. 1985. The distribution and status of the piping plover throughout
the annual cycle. Journal of Field Ornithology 56:334-345.
Haig, S.M., and L.W. Oring. 1987. The piping plover. Audubon Wildlife Report. Pp. 509-519.
Haig, S.M. and J.H. Plissner. 1993. Distribution and Abundance of Piping Plovers: Results and
Implications of the 1991 International Census. The Condor 95:145-156.
Haig, S.M., and C.L. Ferland, F.J.Cuthbert, J.Dingledine, J.P. Goossen, A.Hecht, and
N.McPhillips. 2005. A complete species census and evidence for regional declines in
piping plovers. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(1): 160-173.
Hailman, J.P. and A.M. Elowson. 1992. Ethogram of the nesting female loggerhead (Caretta
caretta). Herpetologica 48:1-30.
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.
Hall, M. J. and O. H. Pilkey. 1991. Effects of hard stabilization on dry beach width for New
Jersey. Journal of Coastal Research 7(3):771-785.
Hammond, J. 2012. Electronic mail dated 23 March 2012 from John Hammond, USFWS
Raleigh Field Office to Anne Hecht, USFWS Northeast Region regarding 2002
consultation with Camp Lejeune.
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.

202

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.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. 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. 2008. Climate change and
marine turtles. Endangered Species Research 7:137-154.
Hayes, M.O. and J. Michel. 2008. A coast for all seasons: A naturalist’s guide to the coast of
South Carolina. Pandion Books, Columbia, South Carolina. 285 pp.
Hays, G.C. 2000. The implications of variable remigration intervals for the assessment of
population size in marine turtles. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206:221-227.
Hecht, A., and S. M. Melvin. 2009. Expenditures and effort associated with recovery of breeding
Atlantic Coast piping plovers. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7):1099-1107.
Hegna, R.H., M.J. Warren, C.J. Carter, and J.C. Stiner. 2006. Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp’s
Ridley sea turtle). Herpetological Review 37(4):492.
Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird management manual. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve.
Network, Manomet, Massachusetts, USA.
Hendrickson, J.R. 1958. The green sea turtle Chelonia mydas (Linn.) in Malaya and Sarawak.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 130:455-535.
Heppell, S.S. 1998. Application of life-history theory and population model analysis to turtle
conservation. Copeia 1998(2):367-375.

203

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.
Herod, H. 2012. Electronic mail dated 6 November 2012 from Holly Herod, USFWS Southeast
Regional Office to Anne Hecht, USFWS Northeast Region regarding the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill clean-up operations.
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.
Herrington, T. O. 2003. Manual for coastal hazard mitigation. New Jersey Sea Grant College
Program, Publication NJSG-03-0511. 108 p. Available at
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/cmp/coastal_hazard_manual.pdf.
Hildebrand, H.H. 1963. Hallazgo del área de anidación de la tortuga marina “lora” Lepidochelys
kempi (Garman), en la coasta occidental del Golfo de México. Sobretiro de Ciencia,
México 22:105-112.
Hillman, M. D., Karpanty, S. M., Fraser, J. D., Cuthbert, F. J., Altman, J. M., Borneman, T. E.
and Derose-Wilson, A. 2012. Evidence for long-distance dispersal and successful
interpopulation breeding of the endangered piping plover. Waterbirds 35: 642 – 644.
Hines, M. K. 2009. Electronic mail dated 10 February 2009 from Megan Hines, Technical
Manager, USGS, National Biological Information Infrastructure, Wildlife Disease
Information Node, Madison, Wisconsin to Richard Zane, USFWS Panama City Field
Office, Florida providing shorebird mortality database.
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).
Hoffman, D. J., C. P. Rice, and T. J. Kubiak. 1996. PCBs and dioxins in birds. Ch. 7, pp.165-
207 in: W.N. Beyer, G.H. Heinz, and A.W. Redmon-Norwood (eds) Environmental
contaminants in wildlife: interpreting tissue concentrations. CRC Press, Inc., New York,
New York.
Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationships between human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology
and chick survival. M.S. Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Hopkins, S.R. and T.M. Murphy. 1980. Reproductive ecology of Caretta caretta in South
Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife Marine Resources Department Completion Report.

204

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-351.
Humiston and Moore Engineers. 2001. “Naples Beach Erosion Control Project 1-Year Post
Construction Monitoring Report.” Prepared for The City of Naples, Florida.
Hunter, C. 2011. Electronic mail dated 3 June 2011 from Chuck Hunter, Chief, Division of
Planning and Resource Management, USFWS Atlanta, Georgia to Karen Terwilliger,
Terwilliger Consulting, Inc. providing information about piping plover management on
national wildlife refuges.
Ims, R.A., and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles in tundra ecosystems and the impact
of climate change. BioScience 55(4):311-322.
Insacco, G. and F. Spadola. 2010. First record of Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, 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.

205

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:
http://www.issg.org/database/species/impact_info.asp?si=1110&fr=1&sts=&lang=EN
Jennings, N. 2018. Personal Communication. August 3, 2018 email to Kathryn Matthews. Re:
2018 Preliminary PIPL Data Request. Wildlife Biologist, NC Wildlife Resources
Commission.
Jevrejeva, S., J. C. Moore, and A. Grinsted. 2010. How will sea level respond to changes in
natural and anthropogenic forcings by 2100? Geophysical Research Letters 37: L07703.
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.
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.
Kalejta, B. 1992. Time budgets and predatory impact of waders at the Berg River estuary,
South Africa. Ardea 80:327-342.
Kamezaki, N., Y. Matsuzawa, O. Abe, H. Asakawa, T. Fujii, K. Goto, S. Hagino, M. Hayami, M.
Ishii, T. Iwamoto, T. Kamata, H. Kato, J. Kodama, Y. Kondo, I. Miyawaki, K.
Mizobuchi, Y. Nakamura, Y. Nakashima, H. Naruse, K. Omuta, M. Samejima, H.
Suganuma, H. Takeshita, T. Tanaka, T. Toji, M. Uematsu, A. Yamamoto, T. Yamato, and
I. Wakabayashi. 2003. Loggerhead turtles nesting in Japan. Pages 210-217 in Bolten,
A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books,
Washington D.C.
Kaplan, J.O., N.H. Bigelow, P.J. Bartlein, T.R. Christiansen, W. Cramer, S.M. Harrison, N.V.
Matveyeva, A.D. McGuire, D.F. Murray, I.C. Prentice, and et al. 2003. Climate change
and Arctic ecosystems II: Modeling, paleodata-model comparisons, and future
projections. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(D17):8171.

206

Karpanty, S.M., J.D. Fraser, J.B. Cohen, S. Ritter, B. Truitt, and D. Catlin. 2012. Update of red
knot numbers and prey counts in Virginia using ground survey methods. Unpublished
report to the Delaware Bay Technical Committee and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, Department Fish and Wildlife Conservation.
Kaufman, W. and O. Pilkey. 1979. The Beaches are Moving: The Drowning of America’s
Shoreline. Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York.
Kery, M., and M. Schaub. 2012. Bayesian Population Analysis Using WinBUGS: A Hierarchical
Perspective. Waltham, Massachusetts: Academic Press.
Kim, K., H. Yoo, and N. Kobayashi. 2011. Mitigation of beach erosion after coastal road
construction. Journal of Coastal Research 27(4):645-651.
Kindinger, M. E. 1981. Impacts of the Ixtoc I oil spill on the community structure of the
intertidal and subtidal infauna along South Texas beaches. M.S. Thesis. Division of
Biology, Corpus Christi State University, Corpus Christi, Texas, viii + 91 pp.
Klein, R. J. T., R. J. Nicholls, S. Ragoonaden, M. Capobianco, J. Aston, and E. N. Buckley.
2001. Technological options for adaptation to climate change in coastal zones. Journal
of Coastal Research 17(3):531-543.
Kluft, J. M. and H. S. Ginsberg. 2009. The effect of off-road vehicles on barrier island
invertebrates at Cape Cod and Fire Island National Seashores. Technical Report
NPS/NER/NRTR--209/138. National Park Service, Boston, Massachusetts.
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. 2007. Coastal inlets of Texas, USA. Proceedings Coastal Sediments ’07:1475-
1488. ASCE Press, Reston, Virginia. Available at http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/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. Pages 10-14 in Proceedings Coastal Sediments ’03. World Scientific
Publishing Corp. and East Meets West Productions, Corpus Christi, Texas.
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.

207

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.
LeDee, O. E., K. C. Nelson, and F. J. Cuthbert. 2010a. The challenge of threatened and
endangered species management in coastal areas. Coastal Management 38:337-353.
LeDee, O.E., T. W. Arnold, E.A. Roche, and F. J. Cuthbert. 2010b. Use of breeding and
nonbreeding encounters to estimate survival and Breeding-site fidelity of the piping
plover at the Great Lakes. The Condor 112(4):637-643.
Limpus. C.J. 1971. Sea turtle ocean finding behaviour. Search 2(10):385-387.
Limpus, C.J., V. Baker, and J.D. Miller. 1979. Movement induced mortality of loggerhead eggs.
Herpetologica 35(4):335-338.
Limpus, C., J.D. Miller, and C.J. Parmenter. 1993. The northern Great Barrier Reef green turtle
Chelonia mydas breeding population. Pages 47-50 in Smith, A.K. (compiler), K.H.
Zevering and C.E. Zevering (editors). Raine Island and Environs Great Barrier Reef:
Quest to Preserve a Fragile Outpost of Nature. Raine Island Corporation and Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Limpus, C.J., and D.J. Limpus. 2003. Loggerhead Turtles in the Equatorial and Southern Pacific
Ocean. Pages 199-209 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea
Turtles. The Smithsonian Institution.
Lindström, Å., 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.

208

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.
Lord, A., J. R. Waas, J. Innes, M. J. Whittingham. 2001. Effects of human approaches to nests of
northern New Zealand dotterels. Biological Conservation 98:233-240.
Loss, S.R., T. Will, P.P. Mara. 2012. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of
the United States. Nature Communications 4:1396 doi:10.1038/ncomms2380.
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.
Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands
Conservation and Restoration Authority. 1998. Coast 2050: toward a sustainable coastal
Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Baton Rouge, La.

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.
Lyons, J. E., Kendall, W. L., Royle, J. A., Converse, S. J., Andres, B. A. and Buchanan, J. B.
2015. Population size and stopover duration estimation using mark–resight data and
Bayesian analysis of a superpopulation model. Biom, 72: 262–271.
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.
Manning, L.M., C.H. Peterson, and M.J. Bishop. 2014. Dominant macrobenthic populations
experience sustained impacts from annual disposal of fine sediments on sandy beaches.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 508:1-15.

209

Margaritoulis, D., R. Argano, I. Baran, F. Bentivegna, M.N. Bradai, J.A. Camiñas, 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.
Márquez, M.R., A. Villanueva O., and M. Sánchez 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, M.R., M.A. Carrasco, C. Jimenez, R.A. Byles, P. Burchfield, M. Sanchez, J. Diaz, and
A.S. Leo. 1996. Good news! Rising numbers of Kemp’s ridleys nest at Rancho Nuevo,
Tamaulipas, Mexico. Marine Turtle Newsletter 73:2-5.
Marquez-Millan, R. 1994. Synopsis of biological data on the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle,
Lepidochelys kempi (Garman, 1880). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-343.
Marquez-Millan, R., A. Villanueva O., and P.M. Burchfield. 1989. Nesting population and
production of hatchlings of Kemp’s ridley sea turtle at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas,
Mexico. Pages 16-19 in Caillouet, Jr., C.W. and A.M. Landry, Jr. (editors). Proceedings
of the First international Symposium on Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Biology,
Conservation, and Management. Texas A&M University, Sea Grant Program. TAMU-
SG-89-105. College Station, Texas.
Martin, R.E. 1992. Turtle nest relocation on Jupiter Island, Florida: an evaluation. Presentation to
the Fifth Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, February 12-
14, 1992, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Mason, C. and R. M. Sorensen. 1971. Properties and stability of a Texas barrier beach inlet.
Texas A&M University Sea Grant Program Publication No. TAMU-SG-71-217. 177 p.
Available at http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/tamu/tamut71009.pdf.
Masterson, R. P., Jr., J. L. Machemehl, and V. V. Cavaroc. 1973. Sediment movement in Tubbs
Inlet, North Carolina. University of North Carolina Sea Grant Report No. 73-2. 117 p.
Available at http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/ncu/ncut73013.pdf.
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.
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.

210

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 Grønland, Bioscience 59.
Danish Polar Center, Copenhagen, Available at
<http://www.worldwaders.org/dokok/literature/125/effects_of_climate_on_arctic_shorebi
rds_mog_biosci_59_2007.pdf>.
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.
Melvin, S.M. and J.P. Gibbs. 1996. Viability analysis for the Atlantic coast population of piping
plovers. Appendix E (Pages 175-186) in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Piping Plover
(Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery Plan. Hadley,
Massachusetts.
Mercier, F. and R. McNeil. 1994. Seasonal variations in intertidal density of invertebrate prey
in a tropical lagoon and effects of shorebird predation. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:
1755–1763.
Meyer, S.R., J. Burger, and L.J. Niles. 1999. Habitat use, spatial dynamics, and stopover ecology
of red knots on Delaware Bay. Unpublished report to the New Jersey Endangered and
Nongame Species Program, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, NJ.
Meylan, A. 1982. Estimation of population size in sea turtles. Pages 135-138 in Bjorndal, K.A.
(editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Mierzykowski, S. E. 2009. Summary of existing information pertinent to environmental
contaminants and oil spills on breeding Atlantic Coast piping plovers. USFWS. Spec.
Proj. Rep. FY09-MEFO-7-EC. Maine Field Office. Old Town, Maine.
Mierzykowski, S. E. 2010. Environmental contaminants in two composite samples of piping
plover eggs from Delaware. USFWS. Special Project Report FY10-MEFO-2-EC. Maine
Field Office. Orono, Maine.
Mierzykowski, S. E. 2012. Environmental contaminants in piping plover eggs from Rachel
Carson National Wildlife Refuge and Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge. USFWS.
Special Project Report FY12-MEFO-1-EC. Maine Field Office. Orono, Maine.
Mierzykowski, S. 2012. Electronic mail dated 10 January 2012 from Steve Mierzykowski,
USFWS Maine Field Office to Anne Hecht, USFWS Northeast Region regarding results
of opportunistic tests of Atlantic Coast piping plover eggs for contaminants.

Militello, A. and N.C. Kraus. 2001. Shinnecock Inlet, New York, Site Investigation. Report 4,
Evaluation of Flood and Ebb Shoal Sediment Source Alternatives for the West of
Shinnecock Interim Project, New York. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, USACE
Engineer Research and Development Center.

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.

211

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.
Morrier, A. and R. McNeil. 1991. Time-activity budget of Wilson’s and semipalmated plovers
in a tropical environment. Wilson Bulletin 103:598-620.
Morris, F. W., IV, R. Walton, and B. A. Christensen. 1978. Hydrodynamic factors involved in
Finger Canal and Borrow Lake Flushing in Florida’s coastal zone. Volume I. Florida Sea
Grant Publication FLSGP-T-78-003. Gainesville, Florida. 765 pp.
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.
Mortimer, J.A. 1982. Factors influencing beach selection by nesting sea turtles. Pages 45-51 in
K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press;
Washington, D.C.
Mortimer, J.A. 1990. The influence of beach sand characteristics on the nesting behavior and
clutch survival of green turtles (Chelonia mydas). Copeia 1990: 802-817.
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. A. 2008. Historical changes in the Mississippi-Alabama barrier-island chain and the
roles of extreme storms, sea level, and human activities. Journal of Coastal Research
24(6):1587-1600.
Morton, R., G. Tiling, and N. Ferina. 2003. Causes of hot-spot wetland loss in the Mississippi
delta plain. Environmental Geosciences 10:71-80.
Mrosovsky, N. 1988. Pivotal temperatures for loggerhead turtles from northern and southern
nesting beaches. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:661-669.
Mrosovsky, N. and A. Carr. 1967. Preference for light of short wavelengths in hatchling green
sea turtles (Chelonia mydas), tested on their natural nesting beaches. Behavior 28:217-
231.

212

Mrosovsky, N. and J. Provancha. 1989. Sex ratio of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles: data and
estimates from a five year study. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:530-538.
Mrosovsky, N. and S.J. Shettleworth. 1968. Wavelength preferences and brightness cues in water
finding behavior of sea turtles. Behavior 32:211-257.
Mrosovsky, N. and C.L. Yntema. 1980. Temperature dependence of sexual differentiation in sea
turtles: implications for conservation practices. Biological Conservation 18:271-280.
Murphy, T.M. and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting
beaches in the southeast region. Unpublished report prepared for the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Musick, J.A. 1999. Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine mammals. Pages 1-10 in
Musick, J.A. (editor). Life in the Slow Lane: Ecology and Conservation of Long-lived
Marine Animals. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001. Stock assessments of loggerhead and
leatherback sea turtles and an assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on
the loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. U.S.
Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-455.
NMFS. 2009. Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of
Protected Resources. Silver Springs, Maryland.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm
NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Recovery plan for U.S. population
of Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service,
Washington, D.C.
NMFS and USFWS. 1998. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the green turtle
(Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
NMFS and USFWS. 2007. Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) 5-year review: summary and
evaluation. 102 pages.
NMFS and USFWS. 2008. Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic population of the
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), second revision. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
NMFS, USFWS, 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) Coastal Services Center. 2001.
Guidance for Benthic Habitat Mapping: An Aerial Photographic Approach by Mark
Finkbeiner [and by] Bill Stevenson and Renee Seaman, Technology Planning and
Management Corporation, Charleston, SC. (NOAA/CSC/20117-PUB). Available at
https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/bhm-guide.pdf
NOAA. 2012. Linear mean sea level (MSL) trends and standard errors in mm/yr, Available at
<http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/msltrendstable.htm>.

213

NOAA. 2013. Regional climate trends and scenarios for the U.S. national climate assessment.
Part 1. Climate of the northeast U.S. NOAA technical report NESDIS 142-1. NOAA,
Washington, DC, Available at <http://scenarios.globalchange.gov/report/regional-
climate-trends-and-scenarios-us-national-climate-assessment-part-1-climate-northeast>.
National Park Service (NPS). 2007. Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2007 annual piping plover
(Charadrius melodus) report. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Manteo, North Carolina.
NPS. 2003. Abundance and distribution of non-nesting piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) at
Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 2000-2003. Unpublished report. Cape
Lookout National Seashore, Harkers Island, NC
National Research Council (NRC). 1987. Responding to changes in sea level: Engineering
Implications. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
NRC. 1990a. Decline of the sea turtles: causes and prevention. National Academy Press;
Washington, D.C.
NRC. 1990b. Managing coastal erosion. National Academy Press; Washington, D.C.
NRC. 1995. Beach nourishment and protection. National Academy Press; Washington, D.C.
NRC. 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.

214

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.
Newstead, D. 2012a. June 20, 2012 telephone communication from David Newstead, Coastal
Bend Bays and Estuaries Program to Robyn Cobb, USFWS Corpus Christi Field Office,
about piping plover movements in the area of the Kennedy/Kleberg County wind farms.
Documented in Note to File.
Newstead, D. 2012b. Electronic mail dated 2 March and 10 September 2012 from David
Newstead, Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program to Anne Hecht, USFWS Northeast
Region regarding plover mortalities in Laguna Madre/Padre Island study area.
Nicholas, M. Electronic mail dated 8 March 2005 from Mark Nicholas, Gulf Islands National
Seashore, Gulf Breeze, Florida to Patricia Kelly, USFWS, Panama City, Florida Field
Office providing documentation of Great Lakes piping plover sightings post-hurricane.
Nicholls, J.L. 1989. Distribution and other ecological aspects of piping plovers (Charadrius
melodus) wintering along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. M.S. Thesis. Auburn University,
Auburn, Alabama.
Nicholls, J. L. and G. A. Baldassarre. 1990a. Winter distribution of piping plovers along the
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. Wilson Bulletin 102:400-412.
Nicholls, J.L. and G.A. Baldassarre. 1990b. Habitat selection and interspecific associations of
piping plovers along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. M.S. Thesis.
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
Nielsen, J.T. 2010. Population structure and the mating system of loggerhead turtles (Caretta
caretta). Open Access Dissertations. Paper 507.
http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_dissertations/507
Niles, L.J., Burger, J., Porter, R.R., Dey, A.D., Minton, C.D.T., Gonzalez, P.M., Baker, A.J.,
Fox, J.W. and Gordon, C. 2010. First results using light level geolocators to track Red
Knots in the Western Hemisphere show rapid and long intercontinental flights and new
details of migration pathways. Wader Study Group Bull. 117(2): 123–130.
Niles, L.J., 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. 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>.

215

Niles, L.J. 2012. Blog - a rube with a view: Unraveling the Texas knot, Available at
<http://arubewithaview.com/2012/05/01/unraveling-the-texas-knot/>.
Niles, L.J., J. Burger, R.R. Porter, A.D. Dey, S. Koch, B. Harrington, K. Iaquinto, and M.
Boarman. 2012. Migration pathways, migration speeds and non-breeding areas used by
northern hemisphere wintering red knots Calidris canutus of the subspecies rufa. Wader
Study Group Bull. 119(2): 195-203.
Niles, L. 2013. Consulting Biologist/Leader. E-mails of January 4, 8, and 25, and March 15,
2013. International Shorebird Project, Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey.
Greenwich, NJ.
Niles, L., L. Tedesco, D. Daly, and T. Dillingham. 2013. Restoring Reeds, Cooks, Kimbles and
Pierces Point Delaware Bay beaches, NJ, for shorebirds and horseshoe crabs.
Unpublished draft project proposal.
Noel, B.L., C.R. Chandler, and B. Winn. 2005. Report on migrating and wintering Piping Plover
activity on Little St. Simons Island, Georgia in 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Report to U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Noel, B.L., C.R. Chandler, and B. Winn. 2007. Seasonal abundance of nonbreeding piping
plovers on a Georgia barrier island. Journal of Field Ornithology 78:420-427.
Noel, B. L., and C. R. Chandler. 2008. Spatial distribution and site fidelity of non-breeding
piping plovers on the Georgia coast. Waterbirds 31:241-251.
Nordstrom, K.F. 2000. Beaches and dunes of developed coasts. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Nordstrom, K.F., and M.N. Mauriello. 2001. Restoring and maintaining naturally-functioning
landforms and biota on intensively developed barrier islands under a no-retreat
alternative. Shore & Beach 69(3):19-28.
Nordstrom, K.F., N.L. Jackson, A.H.F. Klein, D.J. Sherman, and P.A. Hesp. 2006. Offshore
aoelian transport across a low foredune on a developed barrier island. Journal of Coastal
Research. Volume 22., No. 5. pp1260-1267.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2015. Final Biological Assessment for the
Major CAMA Permit for SDI-5 Maintenance Dredging. Submitted to USFWS September
10, 2015. 103 pp.
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.
Otvos, E. G. 2006. Discussion of Froede, C.R., Jr., 2006. The impact that Hurricane Ivan
(September 16, 2004) made across Dauphin Island, Alabama. Journal of Coastal
Research, 22(2), 562-573. Journal of Coastal Research 22(6):1585-1588.

216

Otvos, E. G. and G. A. Carter. 2008. Hurricane degradation – barrier development cycles,
northeastern Gulf of Mexico: Landform evolution and island chain history. Journal of
Coastal Research 24(2):463-478.
Packard, M.J. and G.C. Packard. 1986. Effect of water balance on growth and calcium
mobilization of embryonic painted turtles (Chrysemys picta). Physiological Zoology
59(4):398-405.
Packard, G.C., M.J. Packard, and T.J. Boardman. 1984. Influence of hydration of the
environment on the pattern of nitrogen excretion by embryonic snapping turtles
(Chelydra serpentina). Journal of Experimental Biology 108:195-204.
Packard, G.C., M.J. Packard, and W.H.N. Gutzke. 1985. Influence of hydration of the
environment on eggs and embryos of the terrestrial turtle Terrapene ornata.
Physiological Zoology 58(5):564-575.
Packard,G.C., M.J. Packard, T.J. Boardman, and M.D. Ashen. 1981. Possible adaptive value of
water exchange in flexible-shelled eggs of turtles. Science 213:471-473.
Packard G.C., M.J. Packard, K. Miller, and T.J. Boardman. 1988. Effects of temperature and
moisture during incubation on carcass composition of hatchling snapping turtles
(Chelydra serpentina). Journal of Comparative Physiology B 158:117-125.
Palmer, R.S. 1967. Piping plover. In: Stout, G.D. (editor), The shorebird of North America.
Viking Press, New York. 270 pp.
Parmenter, C.J. 1980. Incubation of the eggs of the green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas, in Torres
Strait, Australia: the effect of movement on hatchability. Australian Wildlife Research
7:487-491.
Patrick, L. 2012. Biologist. E-mails of August 31, and October 22, 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Southeast Region. Panama City, FL.
Penland, S., and K. Ramsey. 1990. Relative sea level rise in Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico:
1908-1988. Journal of Coastal Resources 6:323-342.
Perkins, S. 2008. Perkins, S. 2008. “South Beach PIPLs”, 29 September 2008. electronic
correspondence (30 September 2008) NEFO.
Peters, K.A., and D.L. Otis. 2007. Shorebird roost-site selection at two temporal scales: Is human
disturbance a factor? Journal of Applied Ecology 44:196-209.
Peterson, C. H., D. H. M. Hickerson, and G. G. Johnson. 2000. Short-term consequences of
nourishment and bulldozing on the dominant large invertebrates of the sandy beach.
Journal of Coastal Research 16(2):368-378.
Peterson, C.H., and M.J. Bishop. 2005. Assessing the environmental impacts of beach
nourishment. BioScience 55(10):887-896.
Peterson, C.H., M.J. Bishop, G.A. Johnson, L.M. D’Anna, and L.M. Manning. 2006. Exploiting
beach filling as an unaffordable experiment: Benthic intertidal impacts propagating
upwards to shorebirds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 338:205-
221.

217

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. Cadée, 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 Å. Lindström. 2004. Migrating shorebirds as integrative sentinels of global
environmental change. Ibis 146 (Suppl.1):61-69.
Piersma, T., G.A. Gudmundsson, and K. Lilliendahl. 1999. Rapid changes in the size of different
functional organ and muscle groups during refueling in a long-distance migrating
shorebird. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 72(4):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.
Pietrafesa, L.J. 2012. On the Continued Cost of Upkeep Related to Groins and Jetties. J. Coastal
Research 28(5):iii-ix.
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.
Pilkey, O.H. and K.L. Dixon. 1996. The Corps and the shore. Island Press; Washington, D.C.
Pilkey, O. H., and R. Young. 2009. The rising sea. Island Press, Washington, D.C.. 203 pp.
Pilkey, O. H., W. J. Neal, S. R. Riggs, C. A. Webb, D. M. Bush, D. F. Pilkey, J. Bullock, and B.
A. Cowan. 1998. The North Carolina shore and its barrier islands: Restless ribbons of
sand. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina. 318 pp.
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.

218

Pittman, C. 2001. Mosquito spray deadly to birds. St. Petersburg Times January 28, 2001.
Accessed November 14, 2016, at
http://www.sptimes.com/News/012801/news_pf/TampaBay/Mosquito_spray_deadly.sht
ml.
Plant, N.G. and G.B. Griggs. 1992. Interactions between nearshore processes and beach
morphology near a seawall. Journal of Coastal Research 8(1): 183-200.
Plissner, J.H. and S.M. Haig. 1997. 1996 International Piping Plover Census Report to U.S.
Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystems
Science Center, Corvallis, Oregon. 231pp.
Plissner, J.H. and S.M. Haig. 2000. Status of the broadly distributed endangered species: results
and implications of the second International Piping Plover Census. Can. J. Zool. 78: 128-
139.
Pompei, V. D., and F. J. Cuthbert. 2004. Spring and fall distribution of piping plovers in North
America: implications for migration stopover conservation. Report the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
Possardt, E. 2005. Personal communication to Sandy MacPherson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University of North
Carolina Press. 402 pages.
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.
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.
Rahmstorf, S., A. Cazenave, J. U. Church, J. E. Hansen, R. F. Keeling, D. E. Parker, and R. C. J.
Somerville. 2007. Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science 316:709.
Rakocinski, C. F., R. W. Heard, S. E. LeCroy, J. A. McLelland, and T. Simons. 1996. Responses
by macrobenthic assemblages to extensive beach restoration at Perdido Key, Florida,
USA. Journal of Coastal Research 12(1):326-353.
Rand, G. M. and S. R. Petrocelli. 1985. Fundamentals of aquatic toxicology. Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation, Washington, D.C.

219

Rattner, B. A. and B. K. Ackerson. 2008. Potential environmental contaminant risks to avian
species at important bird areas in the northeastern United States. Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Management 4(3):344-357.
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, K. 2009. In-office conversation dated 13 March 2009, between Ken Rice, Contaminants
specialist and Robyn Cobb, Endangered Species Recovery program, both of USFWS
Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office, Texas regarding sources of oil spills that
have affected the Texas Gulf coast.
Rice, T.M. 2009. Best management practices for shoreline stabilization to avoid and minimize
adverse environmental impacts. Unpublished report prepared for the USFWS, Panama
City Ecological Services Field Office, Available at
http://www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/PIPL/BMPs%20For%20Shoreline%20Stabilization%
20To%20Avoid%20And%20Minimize%20Adverse%20Environmental%20Impacts.pdf.
Rice, T.M. 2012a. Inventory of Habitat Modifications to Tidal Inlets in the Coastal Migration
and Wintering Range of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Appendix 1B in Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Strategy for the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)
Coastal Migration and Wintering Range, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 35 p.
Rice, T. M. 2012b. The status of sandy, oceanfront beach habitat in the continental U.S. coastal
migration and wintering range of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Appendix 1c
in Comprehensive Conservation Strategy for the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) in
its coastal migration and wintering range in the Continental United States, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, East Lansing, Michigan.
Rice, T.M. 2016. Inventory of Habitat Modifications to Tidal Inlets in the U.S. Atlantic Coast
Breeding Range of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) as of 2015: Maine to North
Carolina.
Rice, T.M. 2017. Inventory of Habitat Modifications to Sandy Oceanfront Beaches in the U.S.
Atlantic Coast Breeding Range of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) as of 2015:
Maine to North Carolina. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Hadley, Massachusetts. 295 p.
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.

220

Riggs, S.R. and D.V. Ames. 2009. Impact of the Oregon Inlet terminal groin on downstream
beaches of Pea Island, NC Outer Banks. 11-15-2009. Available at
http://core.ecu.edu/geology/riggs/IMPACTS OREGON INLET TERMINAL GROIN 11-
30-09(2).pdf.
Riggs, S.R., D.V. Ames, S.J. Culver, D.J. Mallinson, D.R. Corbett, and J.P. Walsh. 2009. Eye of
a Hurricane: Pea Island, Oregon Inlet, and Bodie Island, northern Outer Banks, North
Carolina. In: America’s Most Vulnerable Coastal Communities, eds., Kelly, J.T., Pilkey,
O.H., and Cooper, J.A.G. Geological Society of America Special Paper 460-04, p. 43-72.
Roche, E.A., T.W. Arnold, and F. J. Cuthbert. 2010a. Apparent nest abandonment as evidence of
breeding season mortality in Great Lakes piping plovers (Charadrius melodus). The Auk
127(2):402-410.
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. 2010b. Range-wide piping plover survival: correlated
patterns and temporal declines. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1784-1791.
Roche, E.A., J.B. Cohen, D.H. Catlin, D.L. Amirault, F.J. Cuthbert, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, J, Felio,
and J.D. Fraser. 2009. Range-wide estimation of apparent survival in the piping plover.
Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, Michigan.
Roche, E. 2010. PowerPoint presentation at December 2010 Non-breeding piping plover
conservation workshop in Fernandina Beach, Florida about partitioning annual survival
in Great Lakes piping plovers.

Roche, E. 2012. Electronic mail dated 13 March 2012 from Erin Roche, University of Tulsa to
Anne Hecht, USFWS Northeast Region regarding winter range temperature and spring
survival of piping plovers.

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. Cons. Biol. 7(3):581-585.
Sallenger, A. H. Jr. 2010. An overview of extreme storms in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and their
coastal impacts. Search and Discovery Article #110143(2010), American Association of
Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) / Datapages, Inc., www.searchanddiscovery.com,
accessed August 27, 2011.

221

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.
Saunders, S. P., T. W. Arnold, E. A. Roche, and F. J. Cuthbert. 2014. Age-specific survival and
recruitment of piping plovers Charadrius melodus in the Great Lakes region. Journal of
Avian Biology 45:1–13.
Saunders, S.P. 2015. The Causes and Consequences of Individual Variation in Survival and
Fecundity of Great Lakes Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus). Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN.
Saunders, S.P. 2016. Personal Communication. 09/27/2016 Email to Kathy Matthews and others.
Re: Data request for assessment of Rich Inlet, NC PIPL impacts. Post-doctoral Research
Associate. Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan.
Sax, D. F. and S. D. Gaines. 2008. Species invasions and extinction: the future of native
biodiversity on islands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105
(Supplement 1):11490-11497.
Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D.R. Cayan, M. Fogarty,
M.A. Harwell, R.W. Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Sallenger, and J.G.
Titus. 2002. Climate change impacts on U.S. coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries
25:149-164.
Schlacher, T.A., and L.M.C. Thompson. 2008. Physical impacts caused by off-road vehicles
(ORVs) to sandy beaches: Spatial quantification of car tracks on an Australian barrier
island. Journal of Coastal Research 24:234-242.
Schlacher, T., D. Richardson, and I. McLean. 2008a. Impacts of off-road vehicles (ORVs) on
macrobenthic assemblages on sandy beaches. Environmental Management 41:878-892.
Schlacher, T., L. Thompson, and S. Walker. 2008b. Mortalities caused by off-road vehicles
(ORVs) to a key member of sandy beach assemblages, the surf clam (Donax deltoids).
Hydrobiologia 610:345-350.
Schlacher, T. A. and L. Thompson. 2012. Beach recreation impacts benthic invertebrates on
ocean-exposed sandy shores. Biological conservation 147:123-132.
Schmidt, N.M., R.A. Ims, T.T. Høye, O. Gilg, L.H. Hansen, J. Hansen, M. Lund, E. Fuglei, M.C.
Forchhammer, and B. Sittler. 2012. Response of an arctic predator guild to collapsing
lemming cycles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279:4417-4422.
Schmitt, M.A. and A. C. Haines. 2003. Proceeding of the 2003 Georgia Water Resources
Conference April 23-24, 2003, at the University of Georgia.

222

Schneider, T.M., and B. Winn. 2010. Georgia species account: Red knot (Calidris canutus).
Unpublished report by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources
Division, Nongame Conservation Section, Available at
<http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accoun
ts/birds/calidris_canutus.pdf>.
Schoeman, D. S., A. McLachlan, and J. E. Dugan. 2000. Lessons from a disturbance
experiment in the intertidal zone of an exposed sandy beach. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science 50: 869-884.
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.
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., and M. Abraham. 2014. 2014 Breeding Season Report for the Piping Plover in
North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Commission. 6 pp.
Schweitzer, S.H. 2015. 2015 Breeding Season Report for the Piping Plover in North Carolina.
Unpublished report. 6 pp.
Schweitzer, S.H. 2016. 2016 Breeding Season Report for the Piping Plover in North Carolina.
Unpublished report. 6 pp.
Scott, J.A. 2006. Use of satellite telemetry to determine ecology and management of loggerhead
turtle (Caretta caretta) during the nesting season in Georgia. Unpublished Master of
Science thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Seymour, M. 2011. Electronic mail dated 21 January 2011 from Michael Seymour, Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana to Karen Terwilliger, Terwilliger Consulting, Inc. in response to
Karen’s November 1, 2010 request for information.
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.

223

Shaver, D.J. 2005. Analysis of the Kemp's ridley imprinting and headstart project at Padre Island
National Seashore, Texas, 1978-88, with subsequent nesting and stranding records on the
Texas coast. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(4):846-859.
Shaver, D.J. 2006a. Kemp’s ridley sea turtle project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas
sea turtle nesting and stranding 2004 report. National Park Service, Department of the
Interior.
Shaver, D.J. 2006b. Kemp’s ridley sea turtle project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas
sea turtle nesting and stranding 2005 report. National Park Service, Department of the
Interior.
Shaver, D.J. 2007. Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2006 report. National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
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, C. G., S. J. Culver, S. R. Riggs, D. Ames, D. R. Corbett, and D. Mallinson. 2008.
Geospatial analysis of barrier island width of two segments of the Outer Banks, North
Carolina, USA: Anthropogenic curtailment of natural self-sustaining processes. Journal
of Coastal Research 24(1):70-83.
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.

224

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 Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC). 2010. Adapting
to shoreline change: a foundation for improved management and planning in South
Carolina. Final Report of the Shoreline Change Advisory Committee. Available online
at http://www.scdhec.gov/library/CR-009823.pdf.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2011. Kiawah Island East End
Erosion and Beach Restoration Project: survey of changes in potential macroinvertebrate
prey communities in piping lover foraging habitats. Final Report. 74 pp. Available
online at
https://www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/PIPL_KiawahEastEndErosionProject_FinalReport_c
ompressed.pdf.
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.
Staine, K.J., and J. Burger. 1994. Nocturnal foraging behavior of breeding piping plovers
(Charadrius melodus) in New Jersey. Auk 111:579-587
Stancyk, S.E., O.R. Talbert, and J.M. Dean. 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle
Caretta caretta in South Carolina, II: protection of nests from raccoon predation by
transplantation. Biological Conservation 18:289-298.
Stancyk, S.E. 1995. Non-human predators of sea turtles and their control. Pages 139-152 in
Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Revised Edition.
Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C.
Steinitz, M.J., M. Salmon, and J. Wyneken. 1998. Beach renourishment and loggerhead turtle
reproduction: a seven year study at Jupiter Island, Florida. Journal of Coastal Research
14(3):1000-1013.

225

Sternberg, J. 1981. The worldwide distribution of sea turtle nesting beaches. Center for
Environmental Education, Washington, D.C.
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.
Stibolt, G. 2011. Australian pine: one of Florida’s least wanted. Florida Native Plant Society
Blog, dated February 13, 211. Accessed July 18, 2012 at
http://fnpsblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/australian-pine-one-of-floridas-least.html.
Stockdon, H. F., K. S. Doran, and K. A. Serafin. 2010. Coastal change on Gulf Islands National
Seashore during Hurricane Gustav: West Ship, East Ship, Horn, and Petit Bois Islands.
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1090. 14 pp.
Stone, W. 1937. Bird studies at Old Cape May: An ornithology of coastal New Jersey. Dover
Publications, New York.
Struthers, Kimberly and Ryan, Patrick, "Predator Control for the Protection of the Federally
Endangered Great Lakes Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) at Dimmick’s Point, North
Manitou Island" (2005).Wildlife Damage Management Conferences -- Proceedings.
Paper 129. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfproc/129
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.
Stucker, J.H., F.J. Cuthbert, B. Winn, B.L. Noel, S.B. Maddock, P.R. Leary, J. Cordes, and L.C.
Wemmer. 2010. Distribution of non-breeding Great Lakes piping plovers (Charadrius
melodus) along Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastlines: ten years of band sightings.
Waterbirds: 33:22-32.
Suiter, D. 2016. Electronic mail dated June 10, 2016 and June 13, 2016 from Dale Suiter,
USFWS, Raleigh North Carolina Field Office to Kathryn Matthews and others. “Recent
discoveries in the field” and “Fwd: Seabeach amaranth work and plover nest.”
Suiter, D. 2015. Electronic mail dated December 16, 2015 from Dale Suiter, USFWS, Raleigh
North Carolina Field Office to Kathryn Matthews. “Re: Beach vitex language for BO.”
Suiter, D. 2009. Electronic mail dated 2 February 2009 from Dale Suiter, USFWS, Raleigh,
North Carolina Field Office to Patricia Kelly, USFWS, Panama City, Florida Field Office
on February 2, 2009 regarding status of beach vitex and control measures along the North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia coast.

226

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 I: a rookery in transition. Copeia
1980(4):709-718.
Tanacredi, J.T., M.L. Botton, and D. Smith. 2009. Biology and conservation of horseshoe crabs.
Springer, New York.
Tarr, J.G., and P.W. Tarr. 1987. Seasonal abundance and the distribution of coastal birds on the
northern Skeleton Coast, South West Africa/Nimibia. Madoqua 15, 63-72.
Tarr, N.M. 2008. Fall migration and vehicle disturbance of shorebirds at South Core Banks,
North Carolina. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Tebaldi, C., B.H. Strauss, and C.E. Zervas. 2012. Modelling sea level rise impacts on storm
surges along US coasts. Environmental Research Letters 7:014032.
Teich, L. 2009. Electronic mail dated 6 February 2009 from Larry Teich, data base manager,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida transmitting
spreadsheet regarding beach cleaning permits to Harold Mitchell, USFWS Panama City
Field Office, Florida. Harold Mitchell forwarded the information via electronic mail to
Patricia Kell, USFWS, Panama City Field Office, Florida.
Terchunian, A.V. 1988. Permitting coastal armoring structures: can seawalls and beaches
coexist? Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 4:65-75.
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 <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/of99-
593/>.
Thieler, E.R., and E.S. Hammar-Klose. 2000. National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea-
level rise: Preliminary results for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast. Open-file report 00-179.
U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA, Available at
<http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-179/>.
Thomas, K., R.G. Kvitek, and C. Bretz. 2003. Effects of human activity on the foraging behavior
of sanderlings (Calidris alba). Biological Conservation 109:67-71.
Thomas, R. C., K. B. Brown, and N. C. Kraus. 2011. Inlet stabilization: a case study at mouth
of Colorado River, Texas. Proceedings of Coastal Sediments 2011(1):533-545. Miami,
Florida.
Thrush, S. F., R. B. Whitlatch, R. D. Pridmore, J. E. Hewitt, V. J. Cummings, and M. R.
Wilkinson. 1996. Scale-dependent recolonization: the role of sediment stability in a
dynamic sandflat habitat. Ecology 77: 2472–2487.

227

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., D. E. Hudgens, D. L. Trescott, M. Craghan, W. H. Nuckols, C. H. Hershner, J. M.
Kassakian, C. J. Linn, P. G. Merritt, T. M. McCue, J. F. O’Connell, J. Tanski, and J.
Wang. 2009. State and local governments plan for development of most land vulnerable
to rising sea level along the U.S. Atlantic coast. Environmental Research Letters 4
(044008) doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/044008.
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.
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.
Trembanis, A.C., O.H. Pilkey, and H.R. Valverde. 1999. Comparison of Beach Nourishment
along the U.S. Atlantic, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and New England Shorelines.
Coastal Management 27:329-340.
Tremblay, T.A., J.S. Vincent, and T.R. Calnan. 2008. Status and trends of inland wetland and
aquatic habitats in the Corpus Christi area. Final report under CBBEP Contract No. 0722
submitted to Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program, Texas General Land Office, and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Trindell, R. 2005. Sea turtles and beach nourishment. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, Imperiled Species Management Section. Invited Instructor, CLE
Conference.
Trindell, R. 2007. Personal communication. Summary of lighting impacts on Brevard County
beaches after beach nourishment. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
Imperiled Species Management Section, Tallahassee, Florida to 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.
Tsipoura, N. and J. Burger. 1999. Shorebird diet during spring migration stopover on Delaware
Bay. Condor 101: 635-644.
Tunnell, J. W., B. R. Chapman, M. E. Kindinger, and Q. R. Dokken. 1982. Environmental
impact of Ixtoc I oil spill on south Texas sandy beaches: infauna and shorebirds.
Simposio Internacional Ixtoc I, Mexico City. 2-5 June 1982. Available at
http://www.harteresearchinstitute.org.
Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG) . 1998. An assessment of the Kemp’s ridley
(Lepidochelys kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the
western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409.

228

TEWG. 2000. Assessment for the Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the
western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-444.
TEWG. 2009. An assessment of the loggerhead turtle population in the Western North Atlantic
Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-575.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1992. Inlets along the Texas Gulf coast. Planning
Assistance to States Program, Section 22 Report. U.S. Army Engineer District,
Galveston, Southwestern Division. 56 p. Available at
http://cirp.usace.army.mil/pubs/archive/Inlets_Along_TX_Gulf_Coast.pdf.
USACE. 2008. Missouri River recovery program: least tern and piping plover: endangered and
threatened species. USACE, Omaha District, Paper 68.
USACE. 2010. August 9, 2010, Biological assessment of the Louisiana coastal area –
Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
New Orleans District. 47 pp.
USACE. 2012. Project factsheet: Delaware Bay coastline, DE & NJ, Reeds Beach and Pierces
Point, NJ , Available at
<http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Missions/Factsheets/FactSheetArticleView/tabid/4694/
Article/6442/delaware-bay-coastline-de-nj-reeds-beach-and-pierces-point-nj.aspx
USACE. 2015. Congressional Fact Sheet: Coastal Inlets, NC (Shallow Draft Navigation)
(O&M). February 23, 2015. Available at
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/review_plans/2016%20Congressional%2
0Fac%20Sheets/Coastal%20Inlets,%20NC%20(Shallow%20Draft%20Navigation)%20O
M.pdf.
USA Today. July 17, 2018. Beach chair found tangled around neck of world's most endangered
sea turtle in Alabama. Available at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-
now/2018/07/16/alabama-chair-found-tangled-around-neck-endangered-sea-
turtle/788288002/.
U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). 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. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
U.S. CCSP. 2009. Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise: A focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region. U.S.
Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment product 4.1. U.S. Geological
Survey, Reston, VA, Available at <http://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap4-1/sap4-
1-final-report-all.pdf>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Accessed June 19, 2014. Impacts on Coastal
Resources. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-
adaptation/southeast.html>.
USEPA. 2013. Coastal zones and sea level rise.
USEPA. 2009. Coastal Zones and sea level rise. Accessed on 29 January 2009 at
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/ index/html.

229

USFWS. 1970. United States List of Endangered Native Fish and Wildlife. Federal Register
35(199):16047.
USFWS. 1985. Determination of endangered and threatened status for the piping plover. Federal
Register 50:50726-50734.
USFWS. 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.
USFWS. 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.
USFWS. 1996a. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast Population, Revised
Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 258 pp.
USFWS. 1996b. Recovery plan for seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus). U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.
USFWS. 2001a. Final determination of critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding population
of the piping plover. Federal Register 66:22938-22969.
USFWS. 2001b. Final determination of critical habitat for wintering piping plovers. Federal
Register 66:36037-36086.
USFWS. 2002. Final designation of critical habitat for the Northern Great Plains population of
the piping plover. Federal Register. 67:57637-57717.
USFWS. 2003a. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Fish
and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
USFWS. 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>.
USFWS. 2003c. Seabeach Amaranth, Overview. Accessed November 5, 2010. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/amaranthweb/overview.html
USFWS. 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.
USFWS. 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.
USFWS. 2007a. Draft communications plan on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Role in
Climate Change.
USFWS. 2007b. Informal consultation (draft BO) with Gulf Islands National Seashore. FWS
Log No. 4-P-07-046, Reconstruction of J. Earle Bowden Way, Escambia County, Florida
(May 16, 2007). Panama City Field Office, Florida.
USFWS. 2007c. Biological opinion on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit SAJ-2006-4471
(IP-DEB) and FWS Log No. 4-P-07-056, St. Joseph Peninsula Beach Restoration, Gulf
County, Florida (May 17, 2007). Panama City Field Office, Florida.

230

USFWS. 2008a. Biological opinion to Eglin Air Force Base, FWS Log No. 2008-F-0139,
Beach and Dune Restoration, Santa Rosa Island, Okaloosa and Santa Rosa Counties,
Florida (June 3, 2008). Panama City Field Office, Florida.
USFWS. 2008b. Biological opinion on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit SAJ-2007-5152
(IP-DEB) and FWS Log No. 2008-F-0060, Walton County Phase 2 Beach Nourishment,
Walton County, Florida (October 2, 2008). Panama City Field Office, Florida.
USFWS. 2008c. Biological and conference opinion on U.S. Corps of Engineers permit 24192,
City of Corpus Christi (City) beach maintenance activities, Neuces County, Texas.
Corpus Christi Field Office, Texas.
USFWS. 2008d. Draft environmental assessment for the designation of revised critical habitat
for the wintering population of piping plover in Texas. USFWS, Region 2, dated 4
December, 2008. 105 pp.
USFWS. 2009a. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) 5-year review: summary and evaluation.
Northeast Region, Hadley, Massachusetts.
USFWS. 2009b. Revised designation of critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping
plover (Charadrius melodus) in Texas. Federal Register 74:23476-23524.
USFWS. 2009c. Biological opinion on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit FP08-EP01-02
and FWS Log No. 2008-F-0295, East Pass Destin Navigation Project, Okaloosa County,
Florida (April 21, 2009). Panama City Field Office, Florida.
USFWS. 2010a. 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.
USFWS. 2010b. Biological opinion on Louisiana Coastal Area Terrebonne Basin Barrier
Shoreline Restoration Project and FWS Log 43440-2010-F-2769, Terrebonne Parish,
Louisiana. Lafayette Field Office, Louisiana.
USFWS. 2010c. Biological opinion on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FWS Log No. 2010-F-
0014, Town of Hilton Head Port Royal Sound Shoreline Restoration and Stabilization,
Beaufort County, South Carolina. Charleston Field Office, South Carolina.
USFWS. 2011a. Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges Complex Integrated Predator
Management Plan: draft environmental assessment. Big Pine Key, Florida. 44pp.
USFWS. 2011b. Great Plains wind energy environmental impact statement. Project fact sheet,
volume 1, Summer 2011. 2 pp.
USFWS. 2012. Comprehensive Conservation Strategy for the Piping Plover in its Coastal
Migration and Wintering Range in the Continental United States. East Lansing,
Michigan. Available at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/EastLansing/.
USFWS. 2013a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status
for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa). 78 FR 60024-60098. Docket FWS-R5-ES-
2013-0097 (September 30, 2013). Available at www.regulations.gov.

231

USFWS. 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].
USFWS. 2013c. Preventing the Spread of Avian Botulism in Piping Plovers. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/insider3/October13Story4.htm.
USFWS. 2015. Recovery Plan for the Northern Great Plains piping plover (Charadrius melodus)
in two volumes. Volume I: Draft breeding recovery plan for the Northern Great Plains
piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and Volume II: Draft revised recovery plan for the
wintering range of the Northern Great Plains piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and
Comprehensive conservation strategy for the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) in its
coastal migration and wintering range in the continental United States. Denver, Colorado.
166 pp.
USFWS. Unpublished data. Seabeach amaranth rangewide data with graphs.
USFWS and Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey. 2012. Cooperative agreement.
Project title: Identify juvenile red knot wintering areas.
USFWS and NMFS. 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.
USFWS and NMFS. 1992. Recovery plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys
kempii). National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida.
USFWS and NMFS. 2016. Definition of Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical
Habitat. Federal Register 81(28):7214-7226.
U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United
States. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, Available at
<http://library.globalchange.gov/2009-global-climate-change-impacts-in-the-united-
states>.
U.S. Government. 2010. Joint Information Center news releases dated 28 July 2010, 2 August
2010, and 17 September 2010.
University of Minnesota. 2017. https://www.waterbirds.umn.edu/piping-plovers/banding.
Accessed June 28, 2017.
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.
Van Zoeren, A. 2016. October 7, 2016 Email to Kathy Matthews et al. Providing breeding
information for Great Lakes piping plovers observed at Rich Inlet.

232

Verkuil Y., A. Dekinga, A. Koolhaas, J. van der Winden, T. van der Have, and I.I. Chernichko.
2006. Migrating broad-billed sandpipers achieve high fuelling rates by taking a multi-
course meal. Wader Study Group Bulletin 110:15–20.
Vermeer, M. and S. Rahmstorf. 2009. Global sea level linked to global temperature.
Proceedings of the Nation Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 106(51):21527-21532.
Available at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf.
Virginia Tech Shorebird Program. 2016. Everything you always wanted to know about the use
of piping plover banding resight reports. October 20, 2016 Webinar. Available online
at: https://mmancusa.webex.com/mmancusa/ldr.php?RCID=822ccc545e68890d4ffb2f56
d41d4aeb.
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
ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-65. 21p.
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.
Weakley, A. S., and M. A. Bucher. 1992. Status survey of seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus
pumilus Rafinesque) in North and South Carolina, second edition (after Hurricane Hugo).
Report to North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, North Carolina Department of
Agriculture, Raleigh, NC and Endangered Species Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Asheville, NC.
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.
Weithman, C.E., M.J. Friedrich, K.L. Hunt, D.H. Catlin, J.D. Fraser, and S.M. Karpanty. 2014.
Winter survival of piping plovers on the Atlantic Coast through habitat changes and its
relationship to multiple breeding populations. Annual Operations Report. Virginia Tech
Shorebird Program, Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 14 pp.
Werler, J.E. 1951. Miscellaneous notes on the eggs and young of Texan and Mexican reptiles.
Zoologica 36(3):37-38.
Westbrock, M., E.A. Roche, F.J. Cuthbert and J.H. Stucker. 2005. Piping plover breeding
biology and management in the Great Lakes, 2005. Report submitted to the US Fish and
Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI.
Westbrooks, R.G., and J. Madsen. 2006. Federal regulatory weed risk assessment beach vitex
(Vitex rotundifolia L.f.) assessment summary. USGS Biological Research Division,
Whiteville, North Carolina, and Mississippi State University, GeoResources Institute.
5pp.

233

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.
Wilkinson, P.M. and M. Spinks. 1994. Winter Distribution and Habitat Utilization of Piping
Plovers in South Carolina. The Chat 58(1): 33-37.
Williams, S.J., K. Dodd, and K.K. Gohn. 1995. Coasts in Crisis. U.S Geological Survey Circular
1075. 32 pp.
Williams, K.L., M.G. Frick, and J.B. Pfaller. 2006. First report of green, Chelonia mydas, and
Kemp’s ridley, Lepidochelys kempii, turtle nesting on Wassaw Island, Georgia, USA.
Marine Turtle Newsletter 113:8.
Williams, S.J., 2013. Sea-level rise implications for coastal regions. In: Brock, J.C.; Barras, J.A.,
and Williams, S.J. (eds.), Understanding and Predicting Change in the Coastal
Ecosystems of the Northern Gulf of Mexico, Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue
No. 63, pp. 184–196, Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.
Williams, T. 2001. Out of control. Audubon Magazine October 2001.
Williams-Walls, N., J. O’Hara, R.M. Gallagher, D.F. Worth, B.D. Peery, and J.R. Wilcox. 1983.
Spatial and temporal trends of sea turtle nesting on Hutchinson Island, Florida, 1971-
1979. Bulletin of Marine Science 33(1):55-66.
Winstead, N. 2008. Letter dated 8 October 2008 from Nick Winstead, Mississippi Department of
Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Museum of Natural Science to Patty Kelly, USFWS,
Panama City, Florida Field Office regarding habitat changes in Mississippi from
hurricanes and estimates of shoreline miles of mainland and barrier islands.
Witherington, B.E. 1986. Human and natural causes of marine turtle clutch and hatchling
mortality and their relationship to hatching production on an important Florida nesting
beach. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando,
Florida.
Witherington, B. E. 1991. Orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles at sea off artificially
lighted and dark beaches. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 149, 1-11.
Witherington, B.E. 1992. Behavioral responses of nesting sea turtles to artificial lighting.
Herpetologica 48:31-39.

234

Witherington, B.E. 1997. The problem of photopollution for sea turtles and other nocturnal
animals. Pages 303-328 in Clemmons, J.R. and R. Buchholz (editors). Behavioral
approaches to conservation in the wild. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom.
Witherington, B.E. 2006. Personal communication to Loggerhead Recovery Team on nest
monitoring in Florida during 2005. Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.
Witherington, B.E. and K.A. 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.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. 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, 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.

235

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.
Zajac, R. N. and R. B. Whitlatch. 2003. Community and population-level responses to
disturbance in a sandflat community. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology 294:101-125.
Zdravkovic, M. G. and M. M. Durkin. 2011. Abundance, distribution and habitat use of
nonbreeding piping plovers and other imperiled coastal birds in the Lower Laguna Madre
of Texas, submitted to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation by Coastal Bird Conservation/Conservian, Big Pine Key, Florida.
Zöckler, C., and I. Lysenko. 2000. Water birds on the edge: First circumpolar assessment of
climate change impact on Arctic breeding water birds. World Conservation Press,
Cambridge, UK, Available at <http://www.unep-wcmc.org/biodiversity-series-
11_114.html>.
Zonick, C. 1997. The use of Texas barrier island washover pass habitat by piping plovers and
other coastal waterbirds. National Audubon Society. A Report to the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 19 pp.
Zonick, C.A. 2000. The winter ecology of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) along the
Texas Gulf Coast. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.
Zonick, C. and M. Ryan. 1996. The ecology and conservation of piping plovers (Charadrius
melodus) wintering along the Texas Gulf Coast. Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife,
University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211. 1995 Annual report. 49pp.
Zurita, J.C., R. Herrera, A. Arenas, M.E. Torres, C. Calderón, L. Gómez, 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.