20040393 Ver 2_Other Agency Comments_20150317

�/117
11 111, U,
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
2015
March 6, 2015
Mr. Josh Pelletier
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Subject: Action ID -4SAW- 2014 - 02203; 'Town of Kill Devil Hills
Dare County, NC
Dear Mr. Pelletier:
This letter provides the comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the
subject Public Notice (PN), dated February 5, 2015, and the Draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the Town of Kill Devil 1- fills. The Town proposes to dredge
947,500 Cubic yards of beach-quality sand from two Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
borrow areas, and deposit the material along approximately 2.75 miles (14,509 If) of
oceanfront shoreline. Dredging and sand placement activities are proposed to be
conducted in any month of the year. These comments are submitted in accordance with
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.0
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. Comments
related to the District Engineer's deten-nination of project impacts in the Batched
Biological Assessment (13A), pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973. as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) will be addressed during formal
C�
consultation.
Project Area, Proposed Activities, and Anticipated Impacts
The project area is the shoreline within the Town of Kill Devil Hills and the adjacent
Atlantic Ocean, including areas of the OCS. The waters of the project area are classified
as S13. The substrate of the project area is primarily sand.

2
The preferred alternative discussed io the draft E/\ includes dredging 0[material from
()CS Borrow Areas /\ and C located in federal vva1oro, offshore ofI)ncc County. l}cuch
quality sand will bc obtained via ocean certified hopper dredge, cutter suction dredge ocu
combination of the two and transported 10 the recipient beach byo submerged Orfloating
pipeline. The proposed borrow areas for the project arc |nco1cd in federal waters, and
range from 4.l to 6.5 miles offshore of the Dare County coastline. Sand will be pumped
onto the beach via submerged pipeline with direct pump-out. Sand placement activities
will be conducted along a2.75-coilc section nf1buTo\vuof Kill Devil }{i1lo' from just
South ofToiewoy Road io Kitty Hawk, <n just north o[ Prospect Avenue, The chosen
dc*iou includes a20-foot wide dune ai elevation f|5.O |eciY4/\\/L), fronted byu40-6»ot
berm. This design has a 5:1 slope.
Page 4 0[{he draft [/\ Stu\cu that the Town A[Kitty }1uvvk is also seeking permits to
allow the construction ofu beach protection project o}ong its entire ocean shoreline.
there ian possibility both the Kill Devil Hills and Kitty {u*k projects
could be constructed concurrently, which would eliminate the need for the north taper
section o[Ubr Kj|1 Devil Hills project. Likewise, a south taper for the Kitty l|un/k project
Would not bc needed if the two projects are constructed ut the same time. The Service ia
also aware of the Town of Duck's proposed beach nourishment project.
Federally Protected Species
The Service has reviewed available information oo federal |y-threatenedocendangered
species known \o occur in Dare County. Several species may occur io the project ureo,
including the West Indian manatee (Ti/cheohosmunutuv),piping p}ovor(Choraur/uy
me/oduxn,e/o(,Iuu), red knot /C(I//uriY conx/uxrzAi), roseate tern /Stxrno(Iougu////
do/(go////},acabcuch amaranth (4moroxV\uvyom//ux), and the Kcrop`aridley
/Lep/(lhrhc/vxkuog?/), hawksbill (Erehnochu/vuio/br/cu6o)`}cothorbouk(l)erzuocha/vx
ror/nceu), loggerhead (['are/&x cure//u), and gccco /Cho/ox/u »n«/os\ sea turtles. Of the
five sea turtle species, the loggerhead, green, lcuthcrbnck, and Kcrup`a zidlcy sea turtle
may nest in the project urco.
Whales, 8h0du0Se sturgeon (,4ci nxcrbovisru 1mm),AtlanticSturgeoo(Aci cmer
ozJviocho«), and sea turtles in the na\c/ are under the jurisdiction ufN(}/\/\ Fiehcdcx`
Protected Species Division.
The Corps has made u determination ofMay Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Federally-listed endangered or threatened species. There was no species list included io
the public notice.

General Comments to the Draft EA
|. 'The entire document should be searched for refcrenccu to "Duck" and revisions
made 10 "Kill Devil Ufi|la," as appropriate.
2. Table l0oo Page 44 incorrectly lists critical habitat units for nesting loggerhead
Zn
sea turtles and piping ylnvec There isno designated critical habitat within the
project area for nesting sea turtles orpiping nlovcr. We recommend that the
information be removed from the table to avoid confusion.
3. According to Section 7.2.3 on Page 20 o[ the Draft EA, the restored beach would
be maintained through u program of periodic maintenance nourishment. 'The
maintenance interval between nourishment activities is expected to be 5 years.
I lowever, based on the actual level of erosion, it appears that the applicant may
seek authorization more often than every 5years. 11is unclear from the public
notice and draft B/\ whether the applicant is seeking o long-term permit for
beach nourishment program, or whether the authorization will be lor a one-tirne
beach nourishment activity. The draft |k/\ should clarify the nature o[ the request
for authorization. The Service does not believe that more than one nourishment
event should bc permitted u\ this time, particularly when the requested
authorization involves work during the nesting season.
4� Section 2.2.3 indicates that 170,130 cubic yards (cv) ofu)uherul would be needed
for the initial oouciohcueotof Kill Devil Hills' beaches, and 650,A00 cubic yards
of material Would bc needed for each nourishment event along Duck, Kitty F{awk,
and Kill Devil Hills, However, Pages l0 and l2 appear to indicate that just the
Kill Devil Hills portion of nourishment would require 947,000 cy of material
every five years, based upon the proposed design template. Tkisdiacr*paooy
needs tobcaddressed.
Section 3.L3 describes the geotechnical and geophysical investigations ofthe
borrow areas, including washbozon,vibracorcs,mub-bottono profiling, sidcaouo
000ur, bathymetry and ruuooc1oruc1ersurveys. The Service has become aware of
one or more offshore borrow areas that contain large amounts of rock (greater
than 76 onou in diameter) not discovered until after dredging began. There in
evidence of many palco-channels along the northeastern coast of North Carolina,
which may have deposited river rock and other materials off'shocc. \/ibrocozcu
may not be of large enough in diameter to pick up the larger rock during
geophysical investigations. The draft E/\ should address this issue and present

M
data to show that the offshore borrow areas do not contain significant amounts of
large rock (greater than 76 mm in diameter).
6. The draft L"A does not indicate how many cy of beach - compatible material are
available in the two borrow areas. It is premature to request authorization for a
project when the amount of available compatible material is not known.
In Section 4.6.3.1, Page 55, the draft EA states that the earliest nesting date for
sea turtles in the past 5 years in North Carolina was May 11. However, looking
back a little farther, leatherback sea turtle nests have been laid much earlier.
According to Matthew Godfrey (personal communication), a leatherback sea
turtle nested on April 16, 2000 and April 18, 2007 on f latteras Island, and two
nests were laid on the night ollApril 30 (found on May 1) in 2004 and 2007 on
Cape Lookout. It is possible that other nests have been laid well before May 1,
but were not detected because the area was not monitored in April. 'T'he draft EA
should be revised to indicate that leatherback sea turtles may lay nests in North
Carolina before May 1.
8. Table 18 on Page 70 lists the dates when three leatherback sea turtle nests were
recorded. For one of the three dates, the draft EA states that "one occurred in
Kill Devil Hills on June 18, 2009." It is unclear what is meant by '*occurred."
These three records represent dates that leatherback nests were laid. Please revise
the draft EA to state as such.
9. On page 90, in Tables 20 and 21, please change the language to clearly indicate
Z71 t> z:1
that these numbers represent piping plover observations, not individuals. Any
reference to individuals should be removed.
10. In 'Fable 21 on page 90., please define "nesting pan-." Does the number represent
a pair of adult birds, a pair of adults with a scrape (egg present or not), a scrape
with one or more eggs in it, or adults with one or more chicks? If a definition
cannot be determined, then the EA should state so.
11. On page 91, the language concerning critical habitat for piping plover should be
4:�
deleted, since there is no critical habitat in the project area.
12. In Table 22 on page 94, please change the language to clearly indicate that these
numbers represent rufa red knot observations, not individuals.

13. Section 5.6.6.2 on Page 11.9 does not address the direct impacts of burial of
t,
scabeach amaranth plants that may be within the project footprint.
ootprint.
14. Section 5.6.7.2 on Page 120 does not address the indirect impacts to piping plover
from expending extra energy to find suitable foraging and nesting areas outside of
the project area.
15. Section 5.6.8.2 on Page 122 indicates that overall, the proposed project may have
a beneficial effect on red knots. However, considering that suitable habitat
4:1
already exists in the area (without the project), the project may significantly
deplete the prey base for up to two years, and considering the cumulative impacts
of potentially three nourishment projects occurring at the same time in the area,
the Service believes that the prospect of beneficial effects is rather slim.
16. Section 5 of the draft EA is inconsistent in the discussion of time period for
impacts. Section 5.8 on Page 123 discusses impacts to homes in the area over a
period of 25-30 years. Likewise, other portions of'Section 5, mainly sections
discussing the impacts of the Abandon and Retreat Alternative and No Action
alternative, discuss impacts over 20-25 years, However, none of the impacts to
species from the preferred alternative are discussed over the time frame of 20 to
25 or 25 to 30 years. It is unclear from the EA exactly what the proposed project
entails — is it one nourishment event, or a managernent program over 20 or 30
years or more? The draft EA should be revised to clarify the proposed project,
and all sections discussing potential impacts should be revised to reflect the length
(time) of the impacts proposed. Long-term impacts to each listed species should
be discussed. A program ot'5-year nourishment events over a period of decades
will have different impacts from one-time nourishment.
17. Section 5.8.2 should include estimated impacts to tourism and loss of rental
revenues due to project activities. A percentage of tourists may react negatively
C,
to visiting the area while beach. nourishment activities are ongoing, resulting in
losses of revenue to local hotels, restaurants, and rental units.
18. Section 6 (Cumulative Impacts) should address the potential impacts to Dare
County tourism from the three proposed area projects: Duck, Kitty Hawk, and
Kill Devil Mills. As all three projects are expected to be conducted at about the
same time, the cumulative impacts to local restaurants, hotels, and home rentals,
as well as other businesses, should be fully discussed and estimated.

rim"19-nn? in
Because sand placement activities are proposed 10 occur during any season of the year,
but particularly during spring, summer, and fall, the Service cannot concur with the
Corps' determination o[ May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect for the West Indian
manatee, piping plover, red knot, roseate tern, acabeucb ocoacnn1h, and Kcnop`a Ridley,
loggerhead, luntbcrbaok, and green sea \ud}e. Yyc recommend that the Corps initiate
fori-nal consultation pursuant toESA Section 7(a)(2).
Specifically,, The Service is 000uccocd with the potential for adverse impacts to sea turtle
nests that are not detected during daily monitoring, and potential adverse impacts N
females attempting to nest, eggs in nests, or hatchlings attempting to leave a nest in the
project area. In addition, work during spring, nuzomcr, and fall months may adversely
uffeotouig/atiugpiyingplovursnudordknoto,nndLheVVcs1Iodiu000uuu|ee. Work
conducted during the growing season may bury eenbeuoh ocoarmu1h individuals, which
would be an adverse effect. Prior to consultation, the Service recommends that the Corps
clarify the parameters ofthe consultation. The Draft EAarid Draft Batched f\/\both
include discussion 0[ potential projects propoaed by the towns o[ Kitty Hawk and Duck,
while the public notice only addresses the Town o[Ki|} Devil Hills proposed project. It
is ourcoo1|y unclear to the Service whether this formal consultation will oococopunu all
three potential future projects, oz only the Town ofKill Devil }fi|\`* proposal.
The Service does not believe that more than one nourishment event should be permitted
at this time. Due to potential changes iu regulations, coastal dynamics, quality or
quantity oPouotcrioiio the borrow areas, and dredge technology, we do not believe iiim
appropriate to authorize work during the nesting season for events that may occur several
years from now.
The Service isconcerned io general with the increasing number oF proposals todredge
and nourish during the nesting season for sea turtles and shorebirds, and the growing
eoouoo fhrscnbcoch amaranth. In addition to potential adverse effects to Fcdecu}ly-|iged
species, the Service is concerned about the potential adverse effects to other shorebirds.
The Service believes it is important to adhere to the winter work vviodovvx if at all
possible. According to Page 2Uo[ the draft EA, the Kill Devil Hills project is aooa}l
enough to be conducted within 2.5 months, much shorter than the time needed to conduct
the oouriahzncoto[ Nags Head Beach, which was u much larger project. Such ushort
ticunfiuzoc Would allow for delays due to weather and other issues, while still remaining
within the winter work window. The avoidance of work during spring, uuc000cr, and fall
is particularly important fhrnesting sea turtles, piping plover, and red knot. Avoiding
work during these seasons will also protect other shorebirds that migrate through,

overwinter or nest in the project area. These species are not federally-listed under the
Endangered Species Act, but many are considered to be at-risk and all are protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703 -712).
-712).
'The Service also has concerns related to potential cumulative impacts from multiple
projects conducted during the nesting season and growing season. The Cumulative loss or
degradation of nesting habitat for sea turtles, piping plovers, and other shorebirds, and
loss or degradation of foraging, and roosting habitat for piping plovers, red knots, and
other shorebirds, is of great concern to us. The Service will attempt to address these
concerns during formal consultation for these and other projects.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. We look forward to
working with the Corps during formal consultation. If you have questions regarding
these comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at 919-856-4520, ext. 27 or by e-mail at
<kathi-yn__iiiatthews(��,f,,vs.gov >.
Sincerely,
Peter Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc:
Daniel Holliman. USEPA
Fritz Rohde, NOAH Fisheries, Beaufort
Maria Dunn, NCWRC, Washington
Dow I luggett, NC DCM, Morehead City
Debra Wilson, NC DCM, Wilmington
Karen Higgins, NC DWR, Raleigh