20061005 Ver 1_USFWS Comments_20051219

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726 ~
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 ~ ,
December 15, 2005
,~., ;
Mr. Henry Wicker ~%~ :°.~,
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers t av ` - ~ ~z;,,r, ~
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Subject: Action ID #200500935, Town of Holden Beach, Brunswick County, NC
Dear Mr. Wicker:
This letter responds to your request, by letter dated November 30, 2005, for comments of the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the information provided by Applied Technology &
Management, Inc. (ATM) regarding the subject Public Notice (PN), dated July 27, 2005. By letter
dated October 31, 2005, ATM, a consultant for the applicant, provided you with responses to
concerns raised by the Service in our comment letter of September 8, 2005, and other resource
agencies on the work described in tYle PN, dated July 27, 2005.
The applicant, the Town of Holden Beach, has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to
use sand truck-hauled from an upland source for beach fill along two sections (an Eastern Reach and
Western Reach) of the ocean shoreline. These comments are submitted in accordance with the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). Comments
related to the FWCA are to be used in your determination of compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines
(40 CFR 230) and in your public interest review (33 CFR 320.4) in relation to the protection of fish
and wildlife resources. Additional comments are provided regarding the District Engineer's
determination of project impacts pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Please refer to our September letter for the biological basis of our recommendations for the design
and construction of this beach building effort. Our comments on the responses of ATM reply are
given below.
The Service recommended that the DA permit require that all sediment placement and grading be
completed during the December through March period to minimize impact on sea turtles, piping
plovers, and beach invertebrates. The response of ATM is a confusing. Phase I is proposed for "16
NOV 2006 to 15 APR MAR 2006" and Phase II is proposed for "16 NOV to 15 APR MAR 2007."
We assume that Phase I was intended to start in November 2005. We recommended avoiding the last
part of November for the benefit of beach invertebrates. However, opening the window in mid-
November after the close of the sea turtle nesting and incubation period is acceptable. The ATM
responses include recommended closing dates from various commenting agencies/organizations.
The North Carolina Coastal Federation recommended closing on March 31, but the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) recommended a March l closure date. We believe that if the work

2
window is opened in mid-November, the applicant should be able to complete the work by March 1.
The Service recommends that the work be conducted from November 16 to March 1.
The Service also expressed concerns about sediment grain size and color of the material to be carried
to the beach. The ATM responses include information on QA/QC (Quality Assurance/Quality
Control) Monitoring. Representatives of the applicant would conduct on-site monitoring of the
material at the Kirby Walter mine site prior to truck transport to the beaches. Sediment mined by
Kirby Walter would be stock piled after excavation. Stock piles would be approved, rejected, or
recommended for on-site sorting to remove any undesirable material based on acceptable sediment
criteria of the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM). Daily on-site monitoring
and inspection of all excavated sediment at the mine site has been recommended by ATM.
Monitoring and inspection has also been recommended at the beach disposal site. The plan allows a
Town representative to require the contractor to remove any unsuitable material and return it to the
mine site.
The Service expressed concern that the mining operation could lead to the dewatering of the wetlands
on Kirby Walter site. The ATM responses note that the applicant intends to monitor the
jurisdictional status of wetlands at the mine site on asemi-annual basis during excavation and for a
period of at least three years following excavation. If impacts to the jurisdictional hydrology of
wetlands at the mine site are found, the applicant would propose a compensatory mitigation plan for
submission to the Corps.
Federally Protected Species
The Service recommended six measures to reduce the impacts on federally protected species. We
recommended that survey be made for seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), a federally
threatened plant. The ATM responses state that the Corps is monitoring this species in association
with their beach construction project. We do not understand the point made regarding "mechanized
land clearing activities" occurring below the toe of the dune. However, we do agree that the plant is
an opportunistic species which can recover from certain disturbances. If all sediment placements
occur after November 15, the growing season of this annual plant would be over and only seeds
would be present in the disposal area. These seeds would be buried by the action. However, it is
likely that the buried seeds would be viable when the sand is washed away and the seeds could
become established on Holden Beach or elsewhere. The purpose of pre-placement surveys is to
avoid, to the extent possible, the burial of seeds and the delay in the germination of these seeds.
Therefore, work in the current dredge window may have ashort-term impact, but is not likely to have
a long-term adverse effect on seabeach amaranth.
Piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) arrive on their breeding grounds in late March or early April.
Following establishment of nesting territories and courtship rituals, the pair forms a depression in the
sand generally on the upper beach close to the dunes (or in other shoreline habitats depending on the
portion of the range). This is where the female will lay her eggs. By early September both adults
and young will have departed for their wintering areas. To avoid adverse impacts to piping plover
nesting, the Service recommends that all beach work should occur outside the recognized piping
plover nesting season, April 1 and August 31. The current plan would minimize adverse impacts on
piping plover nesting and brood rearing.
While the proposed work schedule would avoid direct impacts to sea turtle nesting, the longer term
effects are dependent on the maintaining the important physical characteristics of beach sediment

which include sand grain size, density, shear resistance (a factor in beach hardness), color, heavy
mineral content, and moisture content. The inspection and monitoring programs outlined by ATM
appear to address all of these parameters except color. The ATM responses note that a 2003 report
on sea turtle nesting activities indicated that sediment compaction and and/or darker color "may have
impacted sea turtle nesting success frequencies." The Service has reviewed a report issued in June
2004 by Matthew Godfrey, Sea Turtle Project Coordinator of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, on the 2003 nesting season on Holden Beach. This report was associated with multiple
phases of beach construction during 2002-2003 and maybe the report referenced by ATM. The
report notes that there were rising temperature on Holden Beach during 2003 and nearly all nests laid
in the disposal zone were relocated to non-disposal areas. These relocations made it impossible to
accurately monitor the original sex ratio of hatchlings from nests laid in the disposal area. As ATM
noted, the results of the earlier work were not conclusive.
In order to provide more accurate data on sea turtle reproduction on Holden Beach, the Service
recommended in our September 2005 letter that the applicant should fund a monitoring program to
measure nest and sand temperatures as compared to a control area that did not receive sediment
placements. While we support the sediment compatibility procedures outlined by ATM, significant
variations in sediment quality could occur within what we estimate to be over 5.00,000 cubic yards of
material which would trucked to the beaches for placement. Therefore, we believe additional work is
necessary. This work should include funding for the use field-resistant data loggers and
compensation for field work and data analysis. The monitoring program would be coordinated by
Matthew Godfrey, the Sea Turtle Coordinator of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
and Mr. David Rabon of this office. The Service continues to recommend that the DA permit require
funding for monitoring beach temperatures and sea turtle reproduction on Holden Beach.
Overall, we reiterate the six recommendations regarding federally protected species given in our
September 2005 comments. The incorporation of these recommends would result in work which is
not likely to adversely affect species designated as threatened, endangered, or their designated critical
habitat, and the Service would concurs with this determination and the Corps' requirements under
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. However, the Corps' obligations under section 7
would need to be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that
may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Summary
Overall, the responses of ATM are thorough and address, to a large extent, the environmental
concerns raised by the Service. The Service believes the work can be accomplished with careful
measures to prevent significant, adverse impacts. In that regard, we recommend that the DA contain
the following conditions:
1. All the sediment monitoring, inspections, and mitigation measures which ATM has recommended
in the "Sediment Compatibility" section, "QA/QC Monitoring" section, and Appendix A should be
conditions of the DA permit;
2. The monitoring and inspection program presented in Appendix A should include an objective
description of the color of existing sediment, the color of the material. truck-hauled to the beaches,
and a clear, objective criterion for similarity of color. Material which does not meet the established

4
criterion for color similarity should be rejected in the same manner as silt and clay sediment;
3. Implementation of the macro-invertebrate beach monitoring plan presented in Appendix B should
be required;
4. The seasonal restriction on beach placement of the truck-hauled sand should be clarified. While
we earlier recommended afour-month period from December through March, a work window from
November 16 through the early March (perhaps ending as early as March 1 as requested by the
NMFS) is acceptable; and,
5. The monitoring of jurisdictional wetlands at the mine site as described by ATM should be a
condition of the DA permit. If, as stated in the ATM responses, there is a loss of jurisdictional
wetlands at the mine site, compensatory mitigation should be provided; and,
5. In order to collect more conclusive data on sand temperature and sea turtle reproduction on both
existing and constructing beaches of Holden Beach, the applicant should fund a monitoring program
which would be coordinated by Matthew Godfrey David Rabon of this office.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on planning for the work described in the PN. If
you have questions regarding these comments, please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27
or by e-mail at < [e-mail] >.
Pete Bamin
Ecolo cal Services Supervisor
cc:
Rebecca Fox, US EPA, Whittier, NC
Ron Sechler, NOAA Fisheries, Beaufort, NC
John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Jim Gregson, NC Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington, NC
Doug Huggett, NC Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City, NC
Fritz Rohde, NC Division of marine Fisheries, Wilmington, NC
Steve Everhart, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Wilmington, NC
Matthew Godfrey, Wildlife Resources Commission, Beaufort, NC
Ted Wilgis, North Carolina Coastal Federation, Wilmington, NC