20110905 Ver 3_USCG_Ft Macon Biological Eval 2017_20181221

yf�f� STAT- of
Regulatory Division
SAW -2005-00748
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
August 29, 2017
Project Name: U.S. Coast Guard Fort Macon Mooring Basin
Roy Crabtree, PhD. Administrator
Protected Resources Division
National Marine Fisheries Service
Southeast Regional Office
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Dear Dr. Crabtree,
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) received a permit application from the United
States Coast Guard (USCG; not a cooperating agency under 40 CFR 1501.6 and 40 CFR 1508.5)
to modify an existing permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972,
as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899, as
amended (33 U.S.C. § 403).The proposed project includes new and maintenance dredging of the
existing USCG mooring basin at Fort Macon, in waters along Bogue Sound, within the White
Oak River basin, in Atlantic Beach, Carteret County, North Carolina. Specifically, the project is
located at 34.698993 N, -76.682648 W.
The Corps has determined that the proposed project may affect but is not likely to adversely
affect (NLAA) federally -listed species and their designated critical habitat, within the National
Marine Fisheries Services' (NMFS) jurisdiction, as described below, and is therefore requesting
concurrence with our determinations pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973f, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1536). Section 7 of the ESA assures that, through
consultation (or conferencing for proposed species) with the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), federal actions do not jeopardize
the continued existence of any threatened, endangered or proposed species, or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
In support of our request, in this letter, the Corps is providing the following information:

-2-
• A description of the proposed action;
• A description of the action area;
• Identification of each ESA -listed species and/or designated critical habitat (DCH) that
may be affected by the action;
• ESA -listed species use of action area; and
• Identification and analysis of the potential routes of effects on all listed species, as
applicable, along with the Corps' rationale for why the effects are not likely to adversely
affect the species or critical habitat.
1. PROPOSED ACTION
a. Project purpose
The U.S. Coast Guard Sector (USCG) Sector Field Office (SFO) Fort Macon (Atlantic
Beach, North Carolina) intends to deepen its existing mooring basin in order to homeport two
SENTINEL -class Fast Response Cutter (FRC) vessels (details provided below). The 154' -long
FRCS (with a 26' beam), scheduled to arrive in fiscal year 2019, would replace two existing 110'
Island -Class patrol boats (WPBS, with a 21' beam) currently homeported at Base Fort Macon.
The FRCS are substantially larger than the WPBS they would replace and would require land -side
and water -side improvements. Notably, the FRCS draft three feet more than the vessels currently
at berth and therefore require deeper water in the vessel basin. The purpose of the proposed
action is to accommodate the berthing of technologicallyproved vessels in order to provide
the best possible coastal homeland security and law enforcement.
b. Proposed action
The initial permit for dredging the mooring basin was granted in 2005 and modified in 2012.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed modification discussed in this Biological
Evaluation (BE) was completed in 2013 and provided to all regulatory agencies. NOAA OPR
was notified of this action in a letter dated 30 October 2012, addressed to Mr. David Barnhardt at
Southeast Regional Office (SERO).
The USCG proposes to modify the existing permit (USACE Action ID 2005-00748) from a
previously permitted depth in the mooring basin of -12.0 feet mean low water (MLW) to a new
authorized depth of -14.5 feet (MLW), + 1 foot of overdredge (see cross-sections in enclosed
sheets). In addition, the USCG wishes to extend the dredged area to approximately 100 feet to
the north where waters are deeper and therefore navigable for the FRCs. This would result in an
increase in permitted footprint of the dredged area from 2.2 acres to 2.7 acres. The innermost
area of the existing basin is not proposed to be dredged deeper than its present condition.
Dredging would likely be accomplished with a floating crane equipment barge and a scour barge.

-3-
A clamshell bucket attached to a crane on the equipment barge would scoop up sediment from
the basin floor and transfer the dredged material to the scour barge until the desired depth is
achieved. Dredged material would be offloaded from the barge to an upland dewatering cell
developed at a suitable location, dewatered, and trucked to an authorized upland disposal site.
Dredging is anticipated to require 60 days and will be conducted Monday through Friday for 12
hours per day during daylight hours in late summer 2017. Therefore, the only lighting that will
be needed will be the lights on the barge as it transits the waterway to the disposition location.
c. Minimization measures
The mooring basin was dredged in the fall of 2012 (and subsequently maintenance -dredged)
under the existing permit and Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
General and specific conditions in the existing permit will be observed for the proposed
modification. The terms and conditions are included in Section 2.7 (Best Management Practices
and Environmental Conservation Measures) of the Environmental Assessment for this project
(USCG, 2013) prepared for this project/modification. Conditions relevant to the protection of
listed species are discussed below:
Protection of Water Quality. The Coast Guard would comply with storm water pollution
prevention plan requirements, applicable water discharge permit regulations (including 401
Water Quality Certification), total maximum daily load limits, state and local water resource
protection and erosion reduction measures (including preparation of an erosion and sediment
control plan if the project would disturb one or more acres), and other water quality regulations.
Conditions of these plans and permits would include BMPs such as the following to minimize
release of sediments and the subsequent adverse effects on water quality, wetlands, and waters of
the U.S.:
1. Prevent demolition debris and construction materials from falling into Bogue Sound.
2. Cover soil stockpiles and exposed (graded) slopes.
3. Provide permanent ground cover within 15 days following completion of construction.
4. Install and maintain erosion and sedimentation controls between the construction site and
nearby surface waters to prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and
wetlands outside of the permitted area.
5. Use erosion control techniques such as mulching, filter fences, straw bales, or diversion
terracing.
6. Prior to commencing dredging activities, install floating turbidity barriers with weighted
skirts that extend to within one foot of the bottom around all work areas that are in or adjacent to
surface waters. These barriers will stay in place and be maintained until work has been
completed and all erodible materials have been stabilized.
7. If a dewatering system is used, all water collected from the system shall have a turbidity
value less than 25 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) before being discharged into the
mooring basin. In the event this threshold is exceeded, all operations must cease and appropriate
measures taken to restore conditions to within acceptable water quality standards.
8. Ensure construction equipment is in good repair, without leaks of hydraulic or lubricating
fluids, and use drip pans when vehicles are parked.

-4-
9. Perform fueling and maintenance of vehicles off-site or at designated areas with
secondary containment and stocked with spill response absorbent pads and equipment.
10. Develop and approve a hazardous materials control plan prior to construction. The plan
would include the handling, storage, cleanup, and disposal of petroleum products and other
hazardous substances used during construction.
11. Adhere to the Spill Prevention Response Plan and Spill Control and Countermeasures
Plan in the event of contaminant release.
Conservation of Biological Resources. The following preliminary measures are included in
the proposed action to avoid significant adverse effects on listed species that may occur in the
action area:
1. For the protection of anadromous fish and Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, no in -water
work would be conducted from February 1 through July 31 of any year.
2. USCG and its contractors would employ NMFS' Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish
Construction Conditions (rev. March 23, 2006).
3. Turbidity curtains will be used during dredging. Turbidity curtains will be made of
material in which listed species cannot become entangled (i.e. reinforced impermeable
polycarbonate vinyl fabric (PVC)), and shall be monitored to ensure listed species are not
entangled or trapped in the action area. Turbidity curtains will be removed promptly when the
work is complete and the water quality in the action area has returned to background conditions.
4. Dredging will be conducted during daylight hours only in order to decrease use of
artificial lights.
5. All vessels will comply with Federal laws governing ship approach to North Atlantic
right whale, including the Ship Strike Reduction Rule for the Mid -Atlantic U.S. Seasonal
Management Area.
2. ACTION AREA
a. Project setting
Base Fort Macon is located in Carteret County along the Bogue Sound in Atlantic Beach,
North Carolina. The base is situated at the eastern end of Bogue Banks, one of a complex of
barrier islands along the Atlantic Coast of North Carolina. Bogue Banks is a 25 -mile -long island
oriented in an east -west direction. The island is between 800 and 4,000 feet wide and is bordered
by Bogue Sound to the north, Beaufort Inlet to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the south, and
Bogue Inlet to the west (see Figure R-1.0 below). Most of Bogue Banks is occupied by four
incorporated and one unincorporated beach towns, with Fort Macon State Park occupying the
eastern end of the island along with Base Fort Macon. The nearest incorporated community to
Base Fort Macon is the Town of Atlantic Beach, whose eastern incorporated limit is
approximately one mile west of the base. Morehead City and the mouth of the New River lie
across the sound from the base. Base Fort Macon is accessed via East Fort Macon Road, which
terminates just east of the base in the Fort Macon State Park parking lot. Access to the mainland
is via the Atlantic Beach Causeway bridge, which crosses Bogue Sound and connects the Town
of Atlantic Beach with Morehead City.

-5 -
The land surrounding the base is sparsely developed. Fort Macon State Park is located to the
south, east, and west of the base, and Bogue Sound is located to the north. The 424 -acre state
park is managed by the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. The fort area, which
also contains a visitor center and a parking lot, is approximately 0.2 mile east of the base. The
park office is south of the base across East Fort Macon Road. Most of the state park acreage is
natural undeveloped land west of the base. The Fort Macon fort and visitor center are open daily
from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM and 9:00 to 6:00 PM, respectively. Over one million people visit the
park annually (NCDP&R 2013a).
b. Action area
Pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 402.02, the term 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." Accordingly, the action area includes the affected jurisdictional waters and other areas
affected by the authorized work or structures. In addition, because the ESA regulations recognize
that the effects of the action include those beyond the Corps' legal control or jurisdiction,
including the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, in
2
C
nrayd-
Ya hr �-._
griege eeo
E lbS Po;rsr AREH�fli 3Ti
oe�'GnJSEt'+arR
The~~
flrml.r' Causeway
e.
J`
`�
island'
sr
.Byryi"g
Y nds
Island r 1
�----
o
___–
ersd;w
Island
t—t �
u.rzr; Grounds
K.
t
e +
df
J ti
c�r�r
c'+l„ nn,•r
IsiwC _r'-..'rrrrq �.
}I
Point —1.
PROJECT
/Z LOCATION
I
(i,rrr
�lirrf \
—Barsksh f`�'Ms<o� n
i
�A�
s3
A
1
ATLANTIC OVEAN
USAGE#: 2005-00748 (mad)
USG -,QUAL)
BlueShore
NCDENR#: 2011 0905 mad
( )
FRC Homeporting
BNCINHHUNG 11,C
TenNccr. NS (•mlwl�-mal
USGS Quad: Beaufort
SFO Fort Macon
Waterway: Fort Macon Creek
2301 E Fort Macon Rd.
R-1.0
Lat: 34'41'54" N Long: 76° 40'53" W
Atlantic Beach, NC 28512
Datum: MLW
Scale: 1.24MDOJ Nov 30, 2016
Sht of
b. Action area
Pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 402.02, the term 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." Accordingly, the action area includes the affected jurisdictional waters and other areas
affected by the authorized work or structures. In addition, because the ESA regulations recognize
that the effects of the action include those beyond the Corps' legal control or jurisdiction,
including the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, in

-6 -
some circumstances, the action area may extend beyond the area subject to the Corps' regulatory
jurisdiction. Any such activities and their effects are included in the analyses below.
For the purposes of this consultation, the Corps has defined the action area to include 2.7
acres within waters of Fort Macon Creek, as shown in Figure R-3.1 below). The proposed project
site is located in waters depths of -12 feet mean low water and the substrate comprises entire
mud/muck substrates, according to data from December 2016 sediment sampling/coring
conducted by Athena Technologies and JMT, Inc. The site is approximately 2 nautical miles
from the Atlantic Ocean.
2
3 1 I
{ _ v
PROPOSED S,` •�, VV
LIMITS
4:3
iT
_p.\ j 'iii{is:�ii _._ :::::•;. 4
-Al . .......
a: •:3:•i ,• 339' I 1 t I V
13
IYI
I b �
,D 1
ACTI N AREA
A
CURRENT
AUTHOMZED
DREDGE UMTS
u 0 1{10' 20c'
USACE#: 2005-00748 (mod) UKIfIx;ING9riT.PI.AN BlueShore
NCDENR#: 2011 0905 (mod)FRC Homeporting en�cveE NOzo
USGS Quad: Beauiert SFO Fort Macon
Waterway: Fort Macon Creek 2301 E Fort Macon Rd.
1, at, 34'41'54" N Long: 76° 40' S3" W Atlanlic Beach, NC 28512 R-3.1
Datum: MLW Scale: v = mr I Nov 30, 2016 SM of
c. Existing conditions
Base Fort Macon consists of 27 acres of government-owned land, of which approximately 18
acres are dry land. The base has approximately 2,300 feet of frontage on Bogue Sound, of which
1,400 feet are bulkhead/wharf (U.S. Coast Guard 2001). The base is partially bisected by the

-7 -
mooring basin, with developed uses to the east and south of the basin and undeveloped uses to
the west of the basin. Land uses at the base identified in the Base Fort Macon Master Plan
include waterfront facilities, vessel/sector maintenance and support, personnel support, open
storage, administration/operations, parking/circulation, and open space. The proposed action
would occur primarily in the areas identified as waterfront facilities and vessel/sector
maintenance and support.
Waterfront facilities include the areas bordering the mooring basin. These include a 643 -foot -
long concrete sheet pile bulkhead on the eastern side of the mooring basin where the WPBS are
moored; three floating docks, one finger pier, and a concrete boat ramp on the south side of the
mooring basin; and shoreline revetment on the west side of the basin to protect the shoreline.
Facilities supporting vessel/sector maintenance are located in the northeast corner of the base
adjacent to the concrete pier. Facilities include the Engineering Building, Shipping and
Receiving Building, ISD Office Building, ISD Wood Shop, Boat Haulout Facility, Vessel
Storage Building, and various trailers, storage sheds, and paint lockers. Activities in this area are
predominantly industrial in nature and support the vessel maintenance activities at Base Fort
Macon.
The mooring basin is devoid of vegetation and natural habitat structure (such as oyster
shell/reefs). Sediments comprise muck/mud with a strong sulfide odor. Waters within the basin
are generally turbid, comprising dissolved organic silts and clays.

3. AFFECTED SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT
Project activities have the potential to affect the listed species as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Species in the action area
The project is not located in designated critical habitat (DCH) and there are no potential
routes of effect to any DCH (due to spatial/distance factors and minimization measures).
4. SPECIES USE OF ACTION AREA
a. Shortnose sturgeon
The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) was listed as endangered throughout its
range in 1967 under the Endangered Species Preservation Act and was listed under the ESA in
1974. The SNS is anadromous, living mainly in the slower moving riverine waters or nearshore
marine waters, and migrating periodically into faster moving freshwater habitats to spawn
(NOAA 2012f). Threats to shortnose sturgeon include activities related to dam construction,
' North Atlantic and South Atlantic DPS
2 Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS
3 Activities occurring within river and in -shore habitats in the action area may affect Atlantic sturgeon from the
Carolina and South Atlantic DPS; however, Atlantic sturgeon from all DPS may be affected in off -shore waters
within the action area.
ESA
Most Recent
USACE Effect
Listing
recovery plan
Determination
Species
Status
Listing Rule/Date
date
(Species)
81 FR 20057/
Green turtles
T
April 6, 2016
October 1991
NLAA
Kemp's ridley
35 FR 18319/
turtle
E
December 2, 1970
September 2011
NLAA
Loggerhead
76 FR 58868/
turtle
T
September 22, 2011
January 2009
NLAA
35 FR 8491/
Leatherback turtle
E
June 2, 1970
April 1992
NE
35 FR 8491/
Hawksbill turtle
E
June 2, 1970
December 1993
NE
Shortnose
32 FR 4001/
sturgeon
E
March 11, 1967
December 1998
NLAA
77 FR 5914/
Atlantic sturgeon
E
February 6, 2012
N/A
NLAA
North Atlantic
35 FR 18319/
right whale
E
December 2, 1970
June 2005
NLAA
The project is not located in designated critical habitat (DCH) and there are no potential
routes of effect to any DCH (due to spatial/distance factors and minimization measures).
4. SPECIES USE OF ACTION AREA
a. Shortnose sturgeon
The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) was listed as endangered throughout its
range in 1967 under the Endangered Species Preservation Act and was listed under the ESA in
1974. The SNS is anadromous, living mainly in the slower moving riverine waters or nearshore
marine waters, and migrating periodically into faster moving freshwater habitats to spawn
(NOAA 2012f). Threats to shortnose sturgeon include activities related to dam construction,
' North Atlantic and South Atlantic DPS
2 Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS
3 Activities occurring within river and in -shore habitats in the action area may affect Atlantic sturgeon from the
Carolina and South Atlantic DPS; however, Atlantic sturgeon from all DPS may be affected in off -shore waters
within the action area.

-9 -
pollution of river systems, habitat alterations, dredging or disposal of material into rivers, and
development impacts on estuaries, rivers, mudflats, and marshes (NOAA 2012f).
The species inhabits most major river systems along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. SNS
were thought to be extirpated from North Carolina waters until an individual was captured in the
Brunswick River in 1987 (Ross et al. 1988). Subsequent gillnet studies (1989-1993) resulted in
the capture of five SNS, confirming the presence of a small population in the lower Cape Fear
River (Moser and Ross 1995). The Cape Fear River in North Carolina is more than 70 miles
southwest of the Base Fort Macon action area and is the nearest known river to be inhabited by
SNS (NMFS 1998). The shortnose sturgeon is not known to occur in the vicinity of the action
area.
Based on its restriction primarily to the portions of rivers above the freshwater -saltwater
interface for spawning, and the lack of suitable foraging habitat (as described in the Habitat
Suitability Index, or "HSI," published by USFWS) in the project footprint and immediately
adjacent area, its occurrence within action area waters is considered unlikely.
b. Atlantic sturgeon
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) are anadromous and spawn in the
deeper parts of moderately flowing rivers in spring and early summer. Larvae migrate
downstream and use benthic habitat as refugia. Juveniles rear in estuarine water from a few
months to years and spend the majority of their adult lives in marine waters (NOAA 2012g).
Historically, Atlantic sturgeon were present in approximately 38 rivers in the U.S.; 35 rivers
have been confirmed to have had a historical spawning population (NOAA 2012g), including
North Carolina coastal rivers and estuaries. However, currently, Atlantic sturgeon are present in
only approximately 32 rivers in the U.S. from the Saint Johns River, Florida to Saint Croix,
Maine. Spawning now occurs in at least 20 of those rivers. NMFS characterized (in 2012, for a
Carteret County Biological Opinion) the presence of the species in North Carolina in the
following manner:
Populations are currently known from the Roanoke, Tar -Pamlico, Neuse, and Cape Fear
River systems. Spawning is known to occur in the Roanoke, Tar -Pamlico, and Cape Fear
River systems; and possibly in the Neuse River (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team 2007).
Laney et al. (2007) analyzed Atlantic sturgeon incidental capture data from winter tagging
cruises off the North Carolina and Virginia coasts. Cruises conducted in nearshore ocean
waters from Cape Lookout, North Carolina, to Cape Charles, Virginia, captured 146
Atlantic sturgeons between 1988 and 2006 Captures typically occurred over sand substrate
in nearshore waters that were less than 59 feet deep. Laney et al. concluded that shallow
nearshore waters off North Carolina represent a winter (January -February) aggregation site
and an important area of winter habitat for Atlantic sturgeon.
NOAA listed the Atlantic sturgeon as endangered in 2012 under the ESA (77 FR 5914) for
South Atlantic and Carolina Distinct Population Segments. Historical impacts on the species
were a result of overharvest, which led to wide -spread declines in abundance. From the 1950s

-10 -
through the 1990s a large U.S. fishery harvested 100,000 to 250,000 pounds per year. Current
threats include by -catch of sturgeon in fisheries targeting other species, habitat degradation and
loss from various human activities such as dredging, dams, and water withdrawals, and other
habitat impediments, including locks and dams (NOAA 2012g).
Green turtle
Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) have a global distribution in tropical and subtropical coastal
waters. This turtle is known to nest in approximately 80 countries and inhabits the coasts of more
than 140 countries. U.S. Atlantic Coast green turtles are found in nearshore waters from Texas to
Massachusetts (NOAA 2012a). The closest nesting locations to North Carolina are in Florida.
However, North Carolina waters may be use for foraging. Specifically, the summer
developmental habitat for green turtles encompasses estuarine and coastal waters from North
Carolina to as far north as Long Island Sound (Musick and Limpus 1997). NMFS (2012)
described the feeding ecology and ontogenetic shifts in habitat use in the southeastern U.S. (and
beyond):
After hatching, green turtles go through a post hatchling, pelagic stage during which they
are associated with drift lines of algae and other debris. Subsequently, juveniles leave
pelagic habitats and enter benthic foraging areas (Bjorndal 1997). Green turtles are
primarily herbivorous, feeding on algae and sea grasses, but also occasionally consume
jellyfish and sponges. The post -hatchling, pelagic -stage individuals are assumed to be
omnivorous, but little data are available. Green turtle foraging areas in the southeastern
U.S. include any coastal shallow waters having macroalgae or seagrasses. This includes
areas near mainland coastlines, islands, reefs, or shelves, as well as open -ocean surface
waters, especially where advection from wind and currents concentrates pelagic organisms
(Hirth 1997, NMFS and USFWS 1991). Principal benthic foraging areas in the southeastern
United States include Aransas Bay, Matagorda Bay, Laguna Madre and the Gulf inlets of
Texas (Doughty 1984, Hildebrand 1982, Shaver 1994), the Gulf of Mexico off Florida from
Yankeetown to Tarpon Springs (Caldwell and Carr 1957, Carr 1984), Florida Bay and the
Florida Keys (Schroeder and Foley 1995), the Indian River Lagoon system in Florida
(Ehrhart 1983), and the Atlantic Ocean off Florida from Brevard through Broward Counties
(Wershoven and Wershoven 1992, Guseman and Ehrhart 1992). Adults of both sexes are
presumed to migrate between nesting and foraging habitats along corridors adjacent to
coastlines and reefs. Some of the principal feeding pastures in the western Atlantic Ocean
include the upper west coast of Florida and the northwestern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula.
Additional important foraging areas in the western Atlantic include the Mosquito Lagoon
and Indian River Lagoon systems and nearshore wormrock reefs between Sebastian and Ft.
Pierce Inlets in Florida (Hirth 1997).
Threats to individuals result from beach armoring, erosion control, artificial lighting, beach
disturbance (e.g., driving on the beach), pollution, foraging habitat loss as a result of direct
destruction by dredging, siltation, boat damage, other human activities, and interactions with
fishing gear, and oil spills (NMFS 2012).

-11-
d. Loggerhead turtle
Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) have a circumglobal distribution, occurring throughout
the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. In the Atlantic, the
loggerhead turtle's range extends from Newfoundland to as far south as Argentina. Loggerheads
are the most abundant species of sea turtle found in U.S. coastal waters.
NMFS and USFWS published a final rule listing nine DPSs of loggerhead turtles as
threatened or endangered (76 FR 58,868, September 22, 2011; effective October 24, 2011). DPSs
established by this rule include the Northwest Atlantic DPS (NWA DPS), which is the only one
that occurs within the action area and therefore is the only one to be considered here. Within the
NWA DPS, most loggerhead turtles nest from North Carolina to Florida and along the Gulf coast
of Florida. Previous ESA Section 7 analyses have recognized at least five Western Atlantic
subpopulations, one of which is a northern nesting subpopulation, occurring from North Carolina
to northeast Florida at approximately 29°N latitude; The Recovery Unit for that DPS is the
Northern Recovery Unit ("NRU": Florida/Georgia border north through southern Virginia)
(NMFS 2012).
NMFS (2012) described the feeding ecology and ontogenetic shifts in habitat use in North
Carolina and the eastern U.S. coast:
Mating [in the NR UJ takes place in late March -early June, and eggs are laid throughout
the summer. Stranding records indicate that when pelagic immature loggerheads reach 40-
60 cm straight-line carapace length, they begin to live in coastal inshore and nearshore
waters of the continental shelf throughout the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, although
some loggerheads may move back and forth between the pelagic and benthic environment
(Witzell 2002). Benthic immature loggerhead turtles that have come back to inshore and
nearshore waters) —the life stage following the pelagic immature stage—have been found
from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to southern Texas. Tagging studies have shown loggerheads
that have entered the benthic environment undertake routine migrations along the coast that
are limited by seasonal water temperatures. Loggerhead turtles occur year -round in
offshore waters off North Carolina where water temperature is influenced by the Gulf
Stream. As coastal water temperatures warm in the spring, loggerheads begin to immigrate
to North Carolina inshore waters (e.g., Pamlico and Core Sounds) and also move up the
coast (Epperly et al. 1995a; Epperly et al. 1995b; Epperly et al. 1995c), occurring in
Virginia foraging areas as early as April and on the most northern foraging grounds in the
Gulf of Maine in June. The trend is reversed in the fall as water temperatures cool. The vast
majority of loggerheads leave the Gulf of Maine by mid-September but some may remain in
mid-Atlantic and Northeast areas until late fall. By December, loggerheads have emigrated
from inshore North Carolina waters and coastal waters to the north to waters offshore of
North Carolina, particularly off Cape Hatteras, and waters further south where the influence
of the Gulf Stream provides temperatures favorable to sea turtles(511 °C) (Epperly et al.
1995a; Epperly et al. 1995b; Epperly et al. 1995c) ... More recent studies are revealing... that
both adults and (presumed) neritic stage juveniles continue to use the oceanic environment

-12 -
and will move back and forth between the two habitats (Witzell 2002, Blumenthal et al. 2006,
Hawkes et al. 2006, McClellan and Read 2007). One of the studies tracked the movements of
adult females post -nesting and found a difference in habitat use was related to body size,
with larger turtles staying in coastal waters and smaller turtles traveling to oceanic waters
(Hawkes et al. 2006). A tracking study of large juveniles found that the habitat preferences of
this life stage were also diverse, with some remaining in neritic waters while others moved
off into oceanic waters (McClellan and Read 2007). However, unlike the Hawkes et al. study
(Hawkes et al. 2006), there was no significant difference in the body size of turtles that
remained in neritic waters versus oceanic waters (McClellan and Read 2007). In either case,
the research not only supports the need to revise the life history model for loggerheads but
also demonstrates that threats to loggerheads in both the neritic and oceanic environments
are likely impacting multiple life stages of this species.
Threats to the species include oil and gas exploration, coastal development, marine
transportation, marine pollution (which may have a direct impact, or an indirect impact by
causing harmful algal blooms), underwater explosions, hopper dredging, offshore artificial
lighting, power plant entrainment and/or impingement, entanglement in debris, ingestion of
marine debris, marina and dock construction and operation, boat collisions, poaching, and fishery
interactions. However, actions have been taken to reduce anthropogenic impacts to loggerhead
turtles from various sources, particularly since the early 1990s. These include lighting
ordinances, predation control, and nest relocations to help increase hatchling survival. There
have also been measures engaged to reduce the mortality of pelagic immatures, benthic
immatures, and sexually mature age classes in various fisheries and other marine activities. The
Turtle Excluder Device (TED) regulation published on February 21, 2003 (68 FR 8456),
represents a significant improvement in the baseline effects of trawl fisheries on loggerhead
turtles, though shrimp trawling is still considered to be one of the largest sources of
anthropogenic mortality on loggerheads (NMFS 2012).
Loggerheads are known to nest on the frontal dunes of Carteret County, including on dunes
located approximately 1,500 feet south of the proposed project site (USFWS 2012a). The waters
adjacent to the nesting beach are designated Critical Habitat (CH) LOGG-N-03 (for the
nearshore reproductive habitat). Offshore waters several miles to the east of the action area are
designated as CH LOGG-N-01 (for migratory and overwintering habitat), and waters several
miles to the south of the action area are designated as CH LOGG-N-02 (for overwintering
habitat).
e. Kemp's ridley turtles
Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) are distributed throughout the Gulf of Mexico
and U.S. Atlantic seaboard, from Florida to New England. The vast majority of Kemp's ridley
nesting occurs in Tamaulipas, Mexico, and on a much smaller scale, in Veracruz (Mexico) and
Texas. Occasional nesting has been documented in North Carolina, South Carolina, and the Gulf
and Atlantic coasts of Florida (NOAA 2012c). However, Kemp's ridley turtle nesting is
extremely rare in North Carolina; only five nesting records exist for the state. The area is,
however, available for foraging. Individuals move inshore in North Carolina during the spring

-13 -
and disperse throughout the sounds during the summer. They move offshore during the late fall
and early winter (NMFS and USFWS 2007b). No Kemp's ridley turtles have been encountered
during the past 20 years of dredging events occurring in the Morehead City Harbor, which is
adjacent to the project site.
f. Hawksbill turtle
The Corps believes the project will have no effect on hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys
imbricata), due to the species' very specific life history strategies, which are not supported at the
project site. Hawksbill turtles typically inhabit inshore reef and hard bottom areas where they
forage primarily on encrusting sponges.
g. Leatherback turtle
The Corps believes the project will have no effect on leatherback sea turtles, due to the
species' very specific life history strategies, which are not supported at the project site.
Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) have pelagic, deepwater life history, where they
forage primarily on jellyfish.
h. North Atlantic right whale
North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) are baleen whales that can grow up to 50 -
feet -long. Calves are approximately 14 feet at birth, and are typically born offshore of Florida,
Georgia, and South Carolina. In the coastal waters off Georgia and northern Florida, calving
occurs from December through March (NOAA 2017). North Atlantic right whales (NARWs)
feed from spring to fall, though, in certain areas, they may also feed in winter. Their primary
food sources are zooplankton. "Unlike many other baleen whales, right whales feed by opening
their mouths and swimming through large patches of zooplankton. Their baleen filters out tiny
prey but allows water to flow through. Right whales feed at or just below the water's surface and
at depth —sometimes close to the ocean bottom" (NOAA 2017). Although calving offshore of the
action is not likely (the nearest CH is over 70 miles away to the southwest), NARWs are known
to travel just offshore of the area.
The action area is within the Mid -Atlantic U.S. Seasonal Management Area. This includes
the area comprising a 20 -nm (37 km) radius of the Ports of Morehead City and Beaufort, NC,
centered at 34°41'32.0"N, -76°40'08.3"W, and includes vessel speed restrictions pursuant to the
Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule (50 CFR 224.105) from November 1- April 30 each
year. Under the rule, all vessels greater than or equal to 65 feet (19.8 meters) in overall length
(and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.) entering or departing a port (or place subject to the
jurisdiction of the U.S.), must transit at speeds of 10 knots or less in seasonal management areas,
such as migratory routes and calving grounds.
NARWs are not present within the action area due to specific life history characteristics.
Therefore, the Corps does not anticipate any direct effects due to construction. However, the
larger vessels that will berth at USCG Ft. Macon will have to transit through designated NARW

-14 -
Critical Habitat. Therefore, there is a potential for indirect effects that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect the species.
5. ROUTE(S) OF EFFECT TO SPECIES:
a. Physical effects
Effects on green turtles, Kemp's ridley turtles, loggerhead turtles, SNS, and Atlantic sturgeon
include the risk of injury from dredging, which we expect to be discountable due to the species'
ability to move away from the project site if disturbed. NMFS has previously determined in
dredging Biological Opinions (NMFS, 2007) that, while oceangoing hopper -type dredges may
lethally entrain protected species, including sea turtles, non -hopper type dredging methods (e.g.,
mechanical such as clamshell, and bucket dredging; hydraulic [suction] cutterhead, and pipeline)
are slower and extremely unlikely to overtake or adversely affect them. Additionally, the
applicant's implementation of NMFS's Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction
Conditions will further reduce the risk of effects to listed species by requiring all construction
workers to watch for sea turtles. Operation of any mechanical construction equipment would
cease immediately if a sea turtle is seen within a 50 -ft radius of the equipment. Activities would
not resume until the protected species has departed the project area of its own volition.
b. Habitat effects
Due to the substrates found in the action area, which comprises clay/silt/muck, project
construction will not reduce the amount of suitable foraging area for sturgeon. Removal of
accumulated fines in the mooring basin may in fact result in some improvement of substrates in
the basin. Therefore, we anticipate habitat effects to sturgeon would be insignificant. Due to the
lack of forage (seagrasses, macrophytic algae, sponges, epibenthic macroinvertebrates) found in
the action area, which, again, comprises extremely unconsolidated anoxic material, project
construction will not reduce the amount of suitable foraging area for sea turtles. Therefore, we
anticipate habitat effects to sea turtles would be insignificant.
c. Vessel/traffic effects
High-speed vessels can strike NARWs and sea turtles, leading to injury or death. Because
the vessels used during project activities and the vessels stationed at Fort Macon after the project
is completed will comply with speed restrictions outlined in the_Ship Strike Reduction Rule (50
CFR 224.105) for the Mid -Atlantic U.S. Seasonal Management Area, the risk of vessel strike to
North Atlantic right whale is highly unlikely, and therefore, discountable. The Ship Strike
Reduction Rule may have benefits to sea turtles, but there is a slight chance that turtles could be
hit by vessels. However, there is no greater chance this would occur with the two vessels being
replaced in the mooring basin than there was before with the older vessels, and therefore,
anticipated effects are discountable.

-15 -
Little information exists on vessel interactions with sturgeon. This is likely due to the fact
this species is primarily demersal and rarely would be at risk from moving vessels. Vessels need
sufficient water to navigate without encountering the bottom, and when transiting shallow areas
with marginal clearance, vessels typically transit cautiously (i.e., slowly), and consequently,
interactions with these species are not anticipated. Therefore, we expect any vessel traffic effects
to sturgeon to be highly unlikely, and therefore, discountable.
6. ROUTES OF EFFECT TO CRITICAL HABITAT
The project is not located in designated critical habitat (DCH) and there are no potential
routes of effect to any DCH (due to spatial/distance factors and minimization measures).
7. DETERMINATION
The Corps has reviewed the proposed project for its impacts to federally listed species and
their designated critical habitat (DCH) under National Marine Fisheries Services' (NMFS's)
jurisdiction. The Corps has concluded the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect
shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, the NARW, and the three species of sea turtles as indicated in
Table 1, and will have no effect on the two sea turtles species as indicated in Table 1 or any
DCH. This analysis was prepared based on the best scientific and commercial data available.
The Corps is requesting NMFS' written concurrence with these determinations pursuant to
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. § 1536). The Corps appreciates your
cooperation in completing this informal section 7 consultation by concurring with the Corps'
effect determination(s) in a timely manner. If NMFS disagrees with the Corps' effect
determination(s) and requests formal Section 7 consultation, please contact the below referenced
Project Manager to discuss suggested modifications to the action to avoid potential adverse
effects and NMFS' additional information needs. The Corps will continue to coordinate with
NMFS office via email to provide the requested information and, if warranted, a revised effects
determination.
If you have questions, please contact Ms. Liz Hair of our Regulatory Division at 910-251-
4049 or by email at [e-mail]. Please reference file number SAW -2005-
00748 in all correspondence related to this consultation.
Sincerely,
Eric Reusch
Chief, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

-16 -
Enclosure (1):
Literature cited

-17 -
LITERATURE CITED
Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team. 2007. Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser
oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office.
February 23, 2007. 174 pp.
Bjorndal, K.A. 1997. Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A.
Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Blumenthal, J.M., J.L. Solomon, C.D. Bell, T.J. Austin, G. Ebanks-Petrie, M.S. Coyne, A.C.
Broderick, B.J. Godley. 2006. Satellite tracking highlights the need for international
cooperation in marine turtle management. Endangered Species Research 7:1-11.
Caldwell, D.K. and A. Carr. 1957. Status of the sea turtle fishery in Florida. Transactions of
the 22nd North American Wildlife Conference, March 4-7, 1957, pp. 457-463.
Carolina Bird Club. 2013. Birds of North Carolina. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus).
Internet Web site: http://www.carolinabirdclub.org/ncbirds/view.php?sort—order--1380. Accessed
on January 10, 2013.
Carr, A. 1984. So Excellent a Fishe. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
Doughty, R.W. 1984. Sea turtles in Texas: A forgotten commerce. Southwestern Historical
Quarterly 88: 43-70.
EDDMapS. 2013. Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System. The University of
Georgia — Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. Internet Web site:
http://www.eddmaps.org/. Accessed on January 4, 2013.
Ehrhart, L. 1983. Marine turtles of the Indian River Lagoon System. Florida Sci. 46:337-346.
Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A. Veishlow. 1995b. Sea turtles in North Carolina waters.
Conserv. Biol. 9: 384-394.
Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, A. J. Chester, F.A. Cross, J. Merriner, and P.A. Tester. 1995c. Winter
distribution of sea turtles in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras and their interactions with the
summer flounder trawl fishery. Bull. Mar. Sci. 56(2): 519-540.
Guseman, J.L. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1992. Ecological geography of Western Atlantic
loggerheads and green turtles: evidence from remote tag recoveries. In Salmon M. and J.
Wyneken (compilers), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-302. 50 pp.

-18 -
Hildebrand, H.H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea turtle populations in the
Western Gulf of Mexico. In Bjomdal, K.A. (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. pp 447-453.
Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.S. Coyne, M.H. Godfrey, L. -F. Lopez-Jurado, P. Lopez -
Suarez, S.E. Merino, N. Varo-Cruz, and B.J. Godley. 2006. Phenotypically linked dichotomy in
sea turtle foraging requires multiple conservation approaches. Current Biology 16: 990-995.
Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas
(Linnaeus 1758). Biological Report 97(1), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the
Interior. 120 pp.
Laney, R. W., J.E. Hightower, B. R. Versak, M. F. Mangold, W. W. Cole, Jr., and S. E.
Winslow. 2007. Distribution, habitat use, and size of Atlantic sturgeon captured during
cooperative winter tagging cruises, 1988-2006. Pages 167-182 in J. Munro, D. Hatin, J. E.
Hightower, K. A. McKown, K. J. Sulak, A. W. Kahnle, and F. Caron, editors. Anadromous
sturgeons: habitats, threats, and management. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 56,
Bethesda, Maryland. Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995. Habitat use and movements of shortnose
and Atlantic sturgeons in the lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society. 124:225-234.
McClellan, C.M. and A.J. Read. 2007. Complexity and variation in loggerhead sea turtle life
history. Biology Letters 3:592-594.
Musick, J.A. and C.J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat utilization in juvenile sea turtles. In Lutz, P.L.
and J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 137-
163.
NCDP&R (North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation). 2013a. Fort Macon State Park.
Internet Web site: http://www.ncparks.govNisit/parks/foma/main.php. Access on January 9,
2013.
NCDP&R (North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation). 2013b. North Carolina State
Parks System Natural Resources Inventory Database. Internet Web site:
http://www.dpr.ncparks.gov/nrid/public.php. Accessed on January 14, 2013.
NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2013. Active State Storm Water
Permit List. Last updated January 7, 2013. Internet Web site:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su. Accessed on January 13, 2013.
NHD (National Hydrography Dataset). 2011. Published GIS data on Water bodies. United
States Geological Survey. Internet Web site: ftp://nhditp.usgs.gov/DataSets/Staged/States/
FileGDB/HighResolution/. Accessed on January 9, 2013.

-19-
NCNHP (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). 2012. Natural Heritage Map Viewer
near Fort Macon State Park. Internet Web site: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/nhp/nhp-map-
viewer. Accessed on January 14, 2013.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2012 (October 3). Post -Hurricane Irene Beach
Renourishment Project in Carteret County, North Carolina (Consultation Number
F/SER12012101054) Biological Opinion to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast
Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, St. Petersburg, Florida. 71 pp.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
1991a. Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Washington, D.C.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
2007b. Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 5 -Year Review: Summary and
Evaluation.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2017. North Atlantic Right
Whales (Eubalaena glacialis). http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/whales/north-
atlantic-right-whale.html.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012a. Marine Turtles: Green
Turtle (Chelonia mydas). Updated December 5, 2012. Internet Web site:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm. Accessed on January 4, 2013.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012c. Marine Turtles:
Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate). Updated December 11, 2012. Internet Web site:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/hawksbill.htm. Accessed on January 4, 2013.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012e. Marine Turtles: Kemp's
Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). Updated December 11, 2012. Internet Web site:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/kempsridley.htm. Accessed on January 4, 2013.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012£ Shortnose Sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum). Updated December 5, 2012. Internet Web site:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm. Accessed on January 10,
2013.

-20-
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012g. Atlantic Sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Updated December 5, 2012. Internet Web site:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/atlanticsturgeon.htm. Accessed on January 11, 2013.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012h. Cetaceans: Whales,
Dolphins, and Porpoises. Updated December 12, 2012. Internet Web site:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/. Accessed on January 4, 2013.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011. Threats to Marine
Turtles. Office of Protected Resources. Internet Web site:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/threats.htm. Accessed on January 4, 2013.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. List of Essential Fish
Habitat Species by Waterbody in North Carolina. July 2009. Data provided by Fritz Rohde,
NOAA Fisheries Biologist, in an email to Brandon Jensen, EMPSi Biologist. January 11, 2013.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1998. Recovery Plan for the
Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery
Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pages.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012a. Surface Water
Classifications. Internet Web site: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications.
Accessed on January 11, 2013.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012c. North Carolina
Impaired Waters and TMDL Map (searched on 2301 East Fort Macon Road, Atlantic Beach, NC
28512). Internet Web site: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/impaired-waters-map.
Accessed on January 12, 2013.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007. White Oak River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. May 2007. Internet Web site:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/basin/whiteoak/2007. Accessed on January 11, 2013.
Ross, S. W., F. C. Rohde, and D.G. Lindquist. 1988. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna
of North Carolina. Part II. A re-evaluation of the marine and estuarine fishes. Occasional Papers
of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1988 - 7, 20 pages.
SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 1998. Final Habitat Plan For The
South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements For Fishery Management Plans Of
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Plans include: The Shrimp Fishery
Management Plan; The Red Drum Fishery Management Plan; The Snapper Grouper Fishery
Management Plan; The Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan; The Golden Crab
Fishery Management Plan; The Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan; The Coral, Coral

-21 -
Reefs, And Live/Hard Bottom Habitat Fishery Management Plan; The Sargassum Habitat
Fishery Management Plan; and The Calico Scallop Fishery Management Plan. Charlestown,
South Carolina. October 1998.
Schroeder, B.A., and A.M. Foley. 1995. Population studies of marine turtles in Florida Bay.
In Richardson, J.I. and T. H. Richardson (compilers), Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual
Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-SEFSC-361. 117 pp.
Shaver, D.J. 1994. Relative abundance, temporal patterns, and growth of sea turtles at the
Mansfield Channel, Texas. Journal of Herpetology 28: 491-497.
U.S. Coast Guard. 2012a. Draft DD1391 Planning Proposal for Homeporting Two USCG
Fast Response Cutters in Atlantic Beach, North Carolina. November 8, 2012.
U.S. Coast Guard. 2012b. Final Homeport Feasibility Study. Volume II: Fast Response
Cutter. July 2012.
U.S. Coast Guard. 2002. Coast Guard Final Programmatic EIS for the Integrated Deepwater
System Project. Prepared by the US Coast Guard Deepwater Program Directorate. Document
No. USCG -2000-8229. March 22, 2002.
U.S. Coast Guard. 2013. Homeporting of Two Fast Response Cutters, U.S. Coast Guard Base
Fort Macon, Atlantic Beach, North Carolina. Civil Engineering Unit, Cleveland, Ohio. 92 pp.
U.S. Coast Guard. 2001. USCG Fort Macon Master Plan. April 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. EPA Green Book. Internet Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/oagps00l/greenbk/ancl.html#NORTHCAROLINA. Accessed on
January 7,
2013.
U.S. Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook.
Chapter 9. August 2006. Internet Web site:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cf n.
Accessed on January 16, 2013.
Wershoven, J.L. and R.W. Wershoven. 1992. Juvenile green turtles in their nearshore habitat
of Broward County, Florida: a five year review. In Salmon M. and J. Wyneken (compilers),
Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-302: 121-123.
Witzell, W.N. 2002. Immature Atlantic loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta): suggested
changes to the life history model. Herpetological Review 33(4): 266-269.

-22-