20061005 Ver 1_USFWS Comments_20050907

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 30, 2005 ®~ (~
Mr. Henry Wicker SAP ~ 2005
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office DENR - WAT~Ft C~UHLiTY
WETLANDS AND S i ORMVVATFR BRANCF
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 provides the comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the subject Public
Notice (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 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 offish 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).
Project Area
Holden Beach is an east-west barrier island fronting the Atlantic Ocean. Pilkey et al (1998, p. 197) state
that the island is low and narrow and that dunes are almost non-existent on the eastern third of the island.
The area has a high shoreline recession rate with recession of 2-3 feet per year in the central portion and
more than ] 0 feet per year near the inlets. Eight beach building projects occurred on the island between
1971 and 1987 (Pilkey et al 1998, p. 197).
More recently two beach building projects have occurred on the island. The first effort, as noted in the
PN, consisted of placing approximately 525,000 cubic yards (cy) of material dredged in association with
the Wilmington Harbor deepening project on the eastern half of the island. This Section 933 Beach Fill
Project, conducted from December 2001 to February 2002, included the creation of a 45-foot-wide berm
at seven feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), approximately mean sea level. This
placement left a "gap" between the fill location and the dune scarp. For the second effort, the applicant
applied for a DA Permit (AID #200101101) in August 2001 to construct beaches along the island with
sand excavated from upland sites. The work was planned in two phases. The first phase called for
placing between 377,000 and 407,000 cy of material along 23,3001inear feet of beach. Phase II proposed
placing 340,000 cy along 8,700 linear feet of beach. The current PN discusses sand placements on
Holden Beach between March 2002 and April 2004. This period appears to represent the original Phase I
work and placed over 290,000 cy of material on the beach in three separate operations. This material was
truck-hauled from a mainland mine site. There is no discussion of the Phase II work proposed in August
2002.

2
Despite past sand placements, the PN notes that the Eastern Reach has ahigh-tide, dry beach which varies
in width between 0 and 20 feet. Some segments of the berm exhibit escarpment between six and twelve
inches high. The Eastern Reach has a historic recession rate of over five feet per year. Recession rates in
the Western Reach range between two and four feet per year. This area has berm widths varying between
0 and 40 feet in width and the "near absence of a dry high tide beach."
Proposed Actions
The applicant proposes to add material to two areas of the ocean beach. The purpose of the work is to
restore lost beach area, protect upland property from storm damage, provide environmental restoration,
and create recreational beach areas. The work would occur in an Eastern Reach Section (5,800 feet) and a
Westem Reach Section (7,400 feet long). The two sections include approximately 2.5 miles. The work
would be conducted over a two year period with parts of both sections receiving material in each year.
The PN states that material for beach construction would be mined from a 38-acre site approximately 3.6
miles from the beach. The majority of the site, designated the Kirby Walter Borrow Site, is moderately to
densely covered with trees and other vegetation. Uplands on the site are characterized as xeric sandhill
scrubr There are several small, isolated wetland depressions on the site and a headwater slough that
drains north of the property.
The applicant is in the process of obtaining a mining permit to remove material from the site. If all
permits are obtained, sediment would be mined and placed on trucks. The applicant estimates that at 16
cy per truck, 170 truck loads, or 2,720 cy of material, could be carried to the beach each day. The PN
states that this transport rate would result in 120 and 90 days of construction for the first and second year,
respectively.
Once sediment is placed on the beach, the material would be graded with conventional earth-moving
equipment. Work on the shoreface would be a continuous operation, i.e., 24 hours per day and seven
days per week. The constructed berm would vary from 150 to 190 feet wide.
The PN does not provide any plans for monitoring the biological impacts of the sediment placement.
There is no discussion of evaluating the beach fill after the first year and potential modifications for work
in the second year.
Federally Protected Species
The Service has reviewed available information on federally-threatened or endangered species known to
occur in Brunswick County. We have also reviewed information from the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database which contains excellent data on special status species, both federal
and state. This database can be accessed by topographic quadrangle (quad) of the U. S. Geological
Survey (USGS). Data from USGS quads provide the most project-specific information on species which
should be considered in permitting this project. Most of the project area is in the Holden Beach quad.
The occurrence data of special status species within this quad can be obtained on the Internet at <
http://wwwa~cnhp.or~/Pages/heritagedata.html >.
The federally protected species requiring consideration are the same as those evaluated for the previous
permit (AID# 200101101). The NCNHP database contains current records for seabeach amaranth
(Amaranthus pumilus), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), and both the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta
caretta) and green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). These are the species considered for the earlier DA
permit and the section 7 evaluation can be limited to these species.

Seabeach amaranth, an annual plant, exists adjacent to inlets, along beaches between dunes and the high
tide line, and in areas of extreme overwash. The plant helps to trap sand and build dunes. The species is
listed as threatened by both the federal government and the State of North Carolina. Suitable habitat for
this plant occurs in the project area. A December 3, 2001, letter from Applied Technology &
Management (ATM), the consultant for the Town of Holden Beach, stated that applicant agreed to
conduct annual survey for this plant during the project and for three years following sediment disposal.
The conditions of the February 2002 DA permit required these annual surveys. If plants are found in the
designated disposal area, the Service should be contacted to determine whether an acceptable course of
action for protecting this species can be established. Post-placement surveys will allow the Service to
determine the suitability of the disposal area for the species. The DA permit for the work presently
proposed should contain the same protective measures for sea beach amaranth. The recommended survey
period for this species is July through October.
Piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) of the Atlantic Coast population, designated as federally threatened,
are known to occur in the project area (Applied Technology and Management of North Carolina, Inc. and
Land Management Group, Inc. 2001, p. 7). Piping plovers nest above the high tide line on coastal
beaches; on sand flats at the ends of sand spits and barrier islands; on gently sloping foredunes; in
blowout areas behind primary dunes (overwashes); in sparsely vegetated dunes; and in overwash areas cut
into or between dunes. The species requires broad, open, sand flats for feeding, and undisturbed flats
with low dunes and sparse dune grasses for nesting. Piping plovers from the federally endangered Great
Lakes population as well birds from the threatened populations of the Atlantic Coast and Northern Great
Plains overwinter on North Carolina beaches.
Piping plovers arrive on their breeding grounds in late March or early April. Following establishment of
nesting territories and courtship rituals, the pair forms a depression in the sand 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, work on the beach should not
occur between April 1 and August 31. The December 2001 letter of AMT stated that.the applicant agreed
to end work within a portion of the disposal area prior to April 1. The Service recommends that all
disposal and grading should occur outside the recognized piping plover nesting season.
The Western Reach disposal area is not part of designated critical habitat for overwintering piping
plovers. The Service has designated critical habitat for wintering populations of the species along the
North Carolina coast. There is no critical habitat in the eastern portion of the island, but Unit NC-17
extents 1.3 miles east from Shallotte Inlet along the beaches at the western end of the island. Based on
our review of the western disposal area, the proposed work would not include the designated critical
habitat.
The Service believes that sea turtles are ubiquitous nesters along the coast of North Carolina and that
nesting habitat is present within the proposed project area. While all five Atlantic sea turtles are protected
by the ESA and may occur in the coastal waters of North Carolina, we believe that section 7 can be
limited to a consideration of the loggerhead and green sea turtles, both of which are listed as threatened.
Sediment placement on the beach may have both direct and indirect impacts on sea turtle reproduction.
Disposal operations and subsequent grading during the sea turtle nesting and incubation season (May 1
through November 15) may result in the burial or crushing of nests or hatchlings or loss of sea turtles
through disruption of nesting activity. Such direct impacts can be avoided by scheduling all beach work
during the period from November 16 through April 30.

4
Beach construction can result in long-term, secondary adverse impacts on sea turtle reproduction. Such
impacts are associated with the use of material which has physical characteristics which are significantly
different from the natural, historic beach. These physical characteristics include sand grain size, density,
shear resistance, color, heavy mineral content, and moisture content. The color and organic content of
beach sediments can modify nest temperatures and the nutrient environment, which can result in an
altered sex ratio of the sea turtle hatchlings. In addition, sediments that differ from those of the native
beach can result in beach compaction which may increase false crawls, increase nest digging time, hinder
gas exchange within incubating nests, alter the hydric environment of the nest, and result in broken eggs
from clutches deposited in an egg chamber which is too shallow.
The December 2001 letter of ATM addressed the issue of sediment compatibility and stated that "sand of
similar grain size and color to the existing beach will be used to reduce any changes in physical
characteristics of the beach that may affect nest survival." This letter outlined a monitoring program for
beach compaction that would begin immediately after sediment placement (but prior to May 1) and
extend for three subsequent years. The program included atwo-part protocol for assessing beach
compaction and a trigger for consultation with the Service to determine whether tilling would be required.
The letter also outlined a program for detecting escarpments during the year of sediment placement and
for three subsequent years. Procedures for removing escarpments which interfere with sea turtle nesting
were also given. These protective measures were incorporated by reference as Special Condition 7a of
the DA permit issued on February 28, 2002.
The current PN contains a summary of sediment characteristics for the Kirby Walter Borrow Site and the
existing beach. Ten soil borings were made on the borrow sites with evaluations made at three to five
depths from each boring for a total of 40 samples. The summary states that the median and mean
sediment diameters were 0.23 and 0.28 mm, respectively. These samples represent fine sand in the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Classification. The summary states that 9.4% of the
material passed through a #200 sieve and thus represented "fines." A #200 sieve retain material with
diameters larger than 0.075 mm and the ASTM designates material at this size to represent the boundary
between fine sand and silt/clay particles.
The sediment summary states that the suitability analysis from the mine site led to a preference for the
northeast portion of area represented by soil borings B 1 through B6. However, at five of the 24 samples
(21 %) from these six sites, more than 20% of the sample passed through a #200 sieve, potentially
indicating considerable silt and clay. Sites B-3B, B-SC, and B-6C had percentages of material passing
through the #200 sieve of 33.0%, 28.1 %, and 31.3%, respectively. These data may reflect the clay lenses
which the summary indicates occur throughout the borrow site.
The physical characteristics for the existing beach are based on sampling conducted by the Corps in
October 1998 in association with sediment placement from the Wilmington Harbor Deepening Project.
These data indicate a median grain size of 0.27 mm. The summary in the PN states that 43% of the
material is "medium grained sand ranging from 0.13 mm to 0.30 mm in diameter." However, fine sand in
the ASTM Classification ranges from approximately 0.10 mm to 0.35 mm in diameter while medium
sand ranges from 0.50 to 1.41 mm in diameter. Therefore, much of the existing beach may be considered
to have fine sand based on the ASTM standard.
The PN does not address the issue of whether the physical characteristics of the beach represent historical,
natural conditions or reflect material remaining from past sediment placements. As noted, several
sediment placements occurred in the 1970s and 1980s and two placement projects have occurred since
2000. The Corps should ensure that the physical standards given for the existing beach do not represent
material from recent beach construction.

5
The Service is concerned that a considerable amount of material in the Kirby Walter Borrow Site is much
finer than the existing beach and may contain pockets of silt and clay. To protect sea turtle reproduction
all fill material placed on beaches should be sand that is similar to the native beach. The DA permit
should require the exclusion of significant pockets of silt and clay from being trucked to the beach. This
protective measure may require inspectors at the borrow site to ensure that the lenses of silt and clay are
not transported to the beach. A news report in the August 9, 2005, Wilmington StarNews quotes Town
Manager Steve Wheeler as saying that "being able to see it [the sediment] before it's put on the trucks
helps with that quality-control effort." This suggests that the applicant may be considering inspectors at
the mine site to preclude the importation of extremely fine, unsuitable sediment. The Service
recommends that the DA permit have a condition specifying that aquality-control be in place to exclude
the loading of extremely fine material for transport to the beach.
The Service has concerns about the color of the upland material proposed for beach construction. Pilkey
et al. (2004, p. 113) state that all natural North Carolina open beaches are light brown to yellow-brown
when viewed from a distance due to iron oxide in shell fragments. The borrow site summary notes that
the northeastern sites, the preferred mining area, have light "grey", or gray, sediment while the material in
the southwest is brownish gray. Soils at the mine site include Leon fine sand, Mandarin fine sand,
Muckalee loam, and Kureb fine sand.
Several conditions could contribute to a darker color for material at the mine site. Some mineral soils
with prolonged saturation may develop a gray (or greenish or blue-gray) color due to a gleying process
which is the result of the chemical reduction of iron (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993, p. 119). Mineral soils
that are subject to seasonal flooding and alternating wet and dry periods may develop mottles (spots) that
are orange/reddish-brown (because of iron) or dark reddish-brown/black (because of manganese). These
mottles throughout an otherwise gray (gleyed) soil matrix suggest intermittently exposed soils with spots
of iron and manganese oxides in an otherwise reduced environment (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993, p. 120).
Mottles are relatively insoluble and can therefore remain in soil long after it has been drained. Because
the development of gleys and mottles is mediated by microbiological processes, these features require the
presence of organic matter as a substrate for microbial activity in addition to anaerobic conditions and
sufficient temperature.
The Soil Survey of Brunswick County describes the typical pedon of soils at the site. At 20 to 40 inches
Kureb (an excessively drained soil on uplands) contains ten percent dark brown and reddish brown
bodies. At 17 to 23 inches Leon soil (a poorly drained soil on uplands) consists of reddish brown fine
sand and a few faint black mottles. At 18 to 28 inches Mandarin soil (a somewhat poorly drained soil on
uplands) is dark brown fine sand with sand grains coated with organic matter and at 28 to 35 inches there
black fine sand with distinct brown mottles. Muckalee soil is a poorly drained soil of low floodplains
with light brownish gray mottles (6-22 inches) and a gray sandy loam with brown mottles (22-36 inches).
While the typical conditions of each soil series may not occur at the proposed mine site, conditions may
exist, or existed in the past, which contribute to the formation of gleyed or mottled soils. The PN states
that the area has a medium to dense cover of trees and other vegetation. In the vegetated areas, the
surficial layer contains organic material, sticks, roots and other debris. The site contains wetland areas
which could, during times of heavy rainfall, temporarily create saturated soils conditions in areas which
are not jurisdictional wetlands. Small fragments of plant material could be washed down into the
material. Under anaerobic condition created by short-term saturation, this plant material could result in
mottle formation or gleyed soil conditions.
A darker, grayish sediment on the beach would be detrimental to normal sea turtle reproduction. A darker
than normal beach color absorbs more heat and increases beach temperature. Sand color, as measured by
albedo, is significantly correlated with sand temperatures, with darker colors being warmer than lighter

colors (Hays et al. 1995; Hays et al. 2001). Alteration of beach temperature during incubation can alter
the incubating environment of the nest and in turn affect hatching success and hatchling sex ratios
(National Research Council 1995 and references therein, p. 112).
Overall, the proposed work has the potential to adversely affect sea beach amaranth, piping plover, and
both loggerhead and green sea turtles. However, several measures can be employed to reduce any
adverse impacts to a level which would not be significant. These measures include:
1. Conducting surveys for seabeach amaranth both before and for three years after sediment placement in
order to avoid direct burial and to monitor recovery of the plant;
2. Prohibiting the placement of sediment and beach grading during the piping plover nesting season
(April 1 through August 31);
3. Prohibiting the placement of sediment and beach grading during the sea turtle nesting season (May 1
through November 15);
4. Ensuring that all sediment placed on the beach is similar to the historic, native beach in sand grain
size, density, shear resistance, heavy mineral content, and moisture content. This measure requires that
the assessment of the physical characteristics of the existing beach does not reflect sediment placements
of the past, but is an accurate description of the native beach which is essential to normal sea turtle
reproduction. This measure also requires that procedures, such as inspectors at the mine site, be
implemented to prevent the loading of all material characterized as silt or clay. The Town Manager
recognizes such as measure as part of the quality-control effort. It may also be necessary to make more
soil borings to provide location suitable material and avoid the clay lenses within the mine site;
5. Ensuring that the color of the imported material closely matches the color of the historic, native beach.
Material to be imported for beach construction should be evaluated by an objective criterion, such as the
Munsell Soil Color Chart, and compared with sediment of placement area or a nearby beach which
represents the historic beach color; and,
6. Funding a monitoring program to measure nest and sand temperatures as compared to an
unmanipulated, control area. Funding would include the use of 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 inclusion of specific permit conditions addressing these issues would result in a project which is not
likely to adverse affect the federally protected species which are likely to occur in the project area.
Service Concerns and Recommendations
The Service also has concerns about general fish and wildlife resources that maybe impacted by the
proposed work. These include the potential for harm to beach invertebrates, nearshore hardbottoms, and
the dewatering of the wetlands at the Kirby Walter Borrow Site.
Beach invertebrates live in the spaces between sand grains. The swash zone is dominated by mole crab
(Emerita talpoida) and coquina clam (Donax sp.) which serve as the primary prey base for surf zone fish,
crabs, and shorebirds. The health of the Emerita and Donax populations is closely linked with the
sediment characteristics of the beach, and the availability of natural seawaters surging up and down the
beach-face. Extremely critical is sediment grain size because mole crabs do not actually burrow into the

7
beach as they change locations within the swash zone, but rather vibrate their lower appendages and legs
to create a "quicksand" condition in their immediate area. This makes it easy for them to penetrate or
burrow into the sand with a minimum expenditure of energy. Anything that significantly alters the beach-
face sands has the potential to impact Emerita numbers. If the sand is too coarse, too fine, too well
sorted, or contains too many heavy minerals (dark sands), mole crabs find it difficult or impossible to
burrow into the beach. If the proposed work reduces populations of beach invertebrates, shorebirds and
some near shore fishes would be adversely affected due to a reduction in food resources.
Two project design features could minimize adverse impacts to beach invertebrate. First, the use of
sediment matching the native beach would facilitate the recovery of these organisms. This measure is the
same as that discussed in regard to sea turtle reproduction and measure recommended for sea turtles
would serve to reduce harm to beach invertebrates. Second, sediment placements during the winter
months of December through March would minimize harm to these organisms (Peterson 2000, p. 11).
Such a schedule would also avoid the combined periods when piping plovers and sea turtles are at
greatest risk, April 1 through November 15.
The Service is concerned that nearshore hardbottoms could be adversely affected if fine grained material
washes off the beaches and settles over these areas. The suspended particles which are transported by
water eventually settle to the bottom creating sedimentation. The settling of suspended particles is also
referred to as siltation. Offshore hardbottoms (areas with exposed limestone, phosphate, and other
sedimentary rock) are valuable biological communities that support a diverse community of algae, soft
and encrusted coral, sea anemones, sea whips, and recreationally important finfish (Frankenberg 1997, pp.
191-192). Nearshore reef habitats that lie within the depth of closure may be destroyed by sand burial
resulting from the redistribution of beach fill material (NRC 1995, p. 113-114). Studies have indicated
that sand placed on Wrightsville Beach has washed off the beach and buried extensive hardbottoms on the
inner continental shelf (Riggs, 1994, p. 17). These hardbottoms were prime fishing locations, but are now
out of production due to a covering of two to six inches of sand.
The current evaluation of potential adverse environmental impacts does not discuss the presence or
absence of near shore hardbottom which could be harmed by the work. However, the risk of harm to
important near shore fisheries could be minimized by excluding the importation of clay, silt, and
extremely fine-grained sand. The same quality-control measures to benefit sea turtles and beach
invertebrates would reduce long term damage to any near shore hardbottoms.
The Service is concerned that the mining operation could lead to the dewatering of the wetlands on Kirby
Walter site. While the Service is pleased that no excavation is proposed within a 50-foot buffer
surrounding wetlands on the site, there is a risk that mine pits could alter the water table over a wider
area. Water previously held within the soil would experience much greater evaporation if collected in
exposed mine pits. Furthermore, clay lenses, which are present on the site, may serve as an impervious
layer and create a perched water table. If these lenses are removed by mining, water may drain deeper
into the soil and eliminate the existing wetland hydrology.
To ensure the continued existence of the wetlands on the site, the Service recommends that the DA permit
require monitoring of the wetlands for five years after the removal of the sediment. The jurisdictional
status of the wetlands should be evaluated twice a year and an annual report should be submitted to the
Corps. If, during period of average rainfall, any wetland area no longer has jurisdictional hydrology, the
applicant should be required to provide compensatory wetland mitigation.

8
Summary
Overall, the Service does not oppose beach construction efforts which replicate the physical
characteristics of the native beach and are scheduled to minimize harm to important coastal fish and
wildlife resources. The conservation measures outlined in the December 3, 2001, letter of ATM and
incorporated in the DA permit issued on February 28, 2002, contribute to the protection of these
resources. At that time the applicant agreed to use only beach quality sand suitable for sea turtle nesting,
successful incubation, and hatchling emergence. That effort was committed to using sediment with grain
size and color similar to the existing beach.
With regard to the work schedule, there is a four-month window (December through March) during which
adverse impacts to sea turtle nesting, shorebird nesting (including the piping plover), and beach
invertebrates could be minimized. Work during this period would seem to coincide with the desire of the
applicant to build the beach during the non-tourist season. The Service recommends that the DA permit
require that all sediment placement and grading be completed during the December through March
period.
As noted above, the available information raises concerns about sediment grain size and color of the
material to be carried to the beach. The avoidance of extremely small-grained material is important to sea
turtle nesting, the survival of beach invertebrates and the avoidance of turbidity and sedimentation in the
near shore zone. While average grain size values are useful, they can be misleading and pockets of silt
and clay may exist at the mine site. As part of the Town's quality-control effort, there should be a
procedure to prevent the loading of extremely fine-grained at the mine site.
There should be an objective evaluation of sediment color to ensure compatibility of the natural beach and
the imported material. Sands which are gray, brown, or reddish should not be carried to the beach. As
part of the ongoing effort to evaluate sand color, sand temperature, and sea turtle nesting success, the DA
permit should require funding for personnel and data loggers to monitor the constructed beaches.
Finally, we recommend that the DA permit require monitoring of the jurisdictional wetlands at the mine
site to determine whether wetland hydrology is maintained. If wetland hydrology is lost due the mining
operation, adequate compensatory mitigation should be provided.
With regard to section 7, the Service has recommended six measures to minimize adverse impact to
federally listed species that are likely to occur in the project area. As with the permit issued in February
2002, the incorporation of these measures would result in a project that is not likely to adversely affect
these species.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this permit application. If you have questions
regarding these comments, please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27 or by e-mail at <
[e-mail] >.
.~
B amin ~-
~ ical Services Supervisor

,'
Applied Technology and Management of North Carolina, Inc. and Land Management Group, Inc. 2001
• (July). Biological Assessment -Holden Beach -Beach Nourishment Project, Brunswick County,
North Carolina. Prepared for the Wilmington District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington, NC. 1 S pp.
Frankenberg, D. 1997. The Nature of North Carolina's Southern Coast: Barrier Islands, Coastal Waters,
and Wetlands. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill. 250 pp.
Hays, G. C., C. R. Adams, J. A. Mortimer, and J. R. Speakman. 1995. Inter- and intra-beach thermal
variation for green turtle nests on Ascension Island, South Atlantic. Journal of the Marine
Biology Association of the UK. 75:405-411.
_. C., J. S. Ashworth, M. J. Barnsley, A. C. Broderick, D. R. Emery, B. J. Godley, A. Henwood,
and E. L. Jones. 2001. The importance of sand albedo for the thermal conditions on sea turtle
nesting beaches. Oikos 93:87-94.
Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, Second Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,
NY. 722 pp.
National Research Council. 1995. Beach Nourishment and Protection. National Academy Press.
Washington, D.C. 334pp.
Peterson, C. H. and J. T. Wells. 2000. Bogue Banks beach renourishment project: Late fall 1999
assessment of benthic invertebrates and demersal fish resources in the offshore mining sites prior
to sand mining. Final Report prepared for Carteret County and CSE Baird, Inc. 13 pp + Figures
and Tables.
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.
T. M. Rice, and W. J. Neal. 2004. How to Read a North Carolina Beach -Bubble Holes,
Barking Sand, and Rippled Runnels. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. 162 pp.
Riggs, S. R. 1994. Nonliving resources. pp. 13-19. in Hart, K. (ed.) Managing the Coastal Ocean for the
21th Century: North Carolina's Role. A proceedings from a conference held May 20-21, 1993,
University of North Carolina at Wilmington. N.C. Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-94-02. 54 pp.
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
Ted Wilgis, North Carolina Coastal Federation, Wilmington, NC