20040393 Ver 2_Environmental Assessment_20150205

Draft
January2015
ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT
For the Town of Kill Devil Hills Shore Protection Project

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TOWN OF KILL DEVIL HILLS SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT
Prepared for:
The Town of Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Prepared by:
Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.
Wilmington, North Carolina
January 2015

TABLEOFCONTENTS
1INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1Where is the Proposed Action Located? .......................................................................... 1
1.2Scoping and Consultation History .................................................................................... 1
1.3What is the Proposed Action? .......................................................................................... 3
1.4What are the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action? ................................................ 3
2DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................. 3
2.1Alternative #1: Abandon and Retreat ............................................................................... 6
2.2Alternative #2: Applicant’s Preferred Alternative - Beach Nourishment with Offshore
Borrow Areas within BOEM waters ........................................................................................... 9
2.2.1Borrow Source ........................................................................................................ 12
2.2.2Construction Methods ............................................................................................. 16
2.2.3Periodic Nourishment ............................................................................................. 20
2.3Alternative #3: No Action Alternative ........................................................................... 20
3ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .......................................................................................... 21
3.1Physical Environment .................................................................................................... 21
3.1.1Geology and Geomorphology ................................................................................. 21
3.1.2Native Beach Sand Quality and Composition ........................................................ 22
3.1.3Borrow Area Sand Quality and Composition ......................................................... 24
3.2Littoral Processes ........................................................................................................... 25
3.2.1Waves ...................................................................................................................... 25
3.2.2Storms ..................................................................................................................... 26
3.2.3Erosion .................................................................................................................... 27
3.2.4Sea Level Rise ......................................................................................................... 27
4AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................ 27
4.1Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 27
4.2Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 29
4.3Noise............................................................................................................................... 30
4.4Natural Setting and Wildlife .......................................................................................... 30
4.4.1Beach and Dune ...................................................................................................... 30
4.5Essential Fish Habitat ..................................................................................................... 31
4.5.1Fishery Management ............................................................................................... 31
4.5.2Habitat Areas of Particular Concern ....................................................................... 35
i

4.5.3Nursery Areas ......................................................................................................... 35
4.5.4Significant Natural Heritage Areas ......................................................................... 36
4.5.5Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................................. 36
4.5.6Marine Water Column ............................................................................................ 36
4.5.7Offshore Shoals ....................................................................................................... 36
4.5.8Managed Species .................................................................................................... 38
4.6Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. 43
4.6.1Species Biology ...................................................................................................... 45
4.7Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 94
4.8Socioeconomic Resources .............................................................................................. 95
4.9Recreational and Scenic Resources ................................................................................ 96
5IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE ............................................... 96
5.1Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 97
5.1.1Associated Impact with Abandon and Retreat Alternative ..................................... 97
5.1.2Associated Impact with Preferred Action Alternative ............................................ 97
5.1.3Associated Impact with No Action Alternative ...................................................... 98
5.2Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 98
5.2.1Associated Impact with Abandon and Retreat Alternative ..................................... 98
5.2.2Associated Impact with Preferred Action Alternative ............................................ 99
5.2.3Associated Impact with No Action Alternative ...................................................... 99
5.3Noise............................................................................................................................... 99
5.3.1Associated Impacts with Abandon and Retreat Alternative ................................... 99
5.3.2Associated Impact with Preferred Action Alternative ............................................ 99
5.3.3Associated Impact with No Action Alternative .................................................... 100
5.4Beach and Dune Habitat ............................................................................................... 100
5.4.1Associated Impact with Abandon and Retreat Alternative ................................... 100
5.4.2Associated Impact with Preferred Action Alternative .......................................... 100
5.4.3Associated Impact with No Action Alternative .................................................... 101
5.5Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................................................... 102
5.5.1Associated Impact with Abandon and Retreat Alternative ................................... 102
5.5.2Associated Impact with Preferred Action Alternative .......................................... 102
5.5.3Associated Impact with No Action Alternative .................................................... 106
5.6Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................ 106
5.6.1West Indian Manatee ............................................................................................ 106
ii

5.6.2Whales................................................................................................................... 106
5.6.3Sea Turtles ............................................................................................................ 108
5.6.4Shortnose Sturgeon ............................................................................................... 115
5.6.5Atlantic Sturgeon .................................................................................................. 116
5.6.6Seabeach Amaranth .............................................................................................. 118
5.6.7Piping Plovers ....................................................................................................... 120
5.6.8Red Knot ............................................................................................................... 121
5.6.1Roseate Turn ......................................................................................................... 123
5.7Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 123
5.7.1Associated Impact with Abandon and Retreat Alternative ................................... 123
5.7.2Associated Impact with Preferred Action Alternative .......................................... 123
5.7.3Associated Impact with No Action Alternative .................................................... 123
5.8Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................ 123
5.8.1Associated Impact with Abandon and Retreat Alternative ................................... 123
5.8.2Associated Impact with Preferred Action Alternative .......................................... 124
5.8.3Associated Impact with No Action Alternative .................................................... 125
5.9Recreational and Scenic Resources .............................................................................. 125
5.9.1Associated Impact with Abandon and Retreat Alternative ................................... 125
5.9.2Associated Impact with Applicant’s Preferred Alternative .................................. 125
5.9.3Associated Impact with No Action Alternative .................................................... 126
5.10Impacts Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................ 126
6Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... iii
6.1Water Quality .................................................................................................................. iv
6.2Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ v
6.3Noise................................................................................................................................. v
6.4Natural Setting and Wildlife ............................................................................................ v
6.5Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................... vi
6.5.1West Indian Manatee ............................................................................................... vi
6.5.2Humpback and North Atlantic Right Whales .......................................................... vi
6.5.3Sea Turtles ............................................................................................................... vi
6.5.4Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon ........................................................................... viii
6.5.5Seabeach Amaranth ............................................................................................... viii
6.5.6Piping Plover .......................................................................................................... viii
6.5.7Rufa Red Knot ......................................................................................................... ix
iii

6.5.8Roseate Tern ............................................................................................................. x
7CONSERVATION AND MONITORING MEASURES ....................................................... x
7.1Construction Practices ...................................................................................................... x
7.1.1Borrow Area Design ................................................................................................. x
7.1.2Dredge Type.............................................................................................................. x
7.1.3Dredge Positioning.................................................................................................... x
7.1.4Pipeline Positioning ................................................................................................. xi
7.2Construction Observations .............................................................................................. xi
7.2.1Sediment Compatibility ........................................................................................... xi
7.2.2Escarpments ............................................................................................................ xii
7.2.3Water Quality .......................................................................................................... xii
7.2.4Pipeline Observations ............................................................................................ xiii
7.3Species Monitoring and Impact Minimization .............................................................. xiii
7.3.1West Indian Manatee, Humpback and North Atlantic Right Whales Monitoring . xiii
7.3.2Sea Turtle Monitoring ............................................................................................ xiii
7.3.3Bird Monitoring ..................................................................................................... xiv
8REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ i
ListofFigures
Figure 1. Map showing general site location (inset), and project locations, including project and
town limits for each town and locations of preliminary sand source areas. ........................... 1
Figure 2. Proposed placement area for the Kill Devil Hills shore protection project. .................... 4
Figure 4. Typical beach design template for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, depicting a
20-ft. wide dune at elevation +15.0 ft. NAVD 88 with a 40 ft. berm at +6.0 ft. NAVD 88 . 11
Figure 5. Borrow Area A with preliminary design cuts................................................................ 14
Figure 6. Borrow Area C with preliminary design cuts. ............................................................... 15
Figure 7. Monthly averaged wave heights near Nags Head, NC for the period 1986 – 2006 (graph
from USACE, 2010a; source data courtesy USACE-FRF). ................................................. 18
Figure 8. Estimated pipeline dredging efficiencies at Dare County, NC (graph from USACE,
2010a; source data from USACE, 2000) .............................................................................. 19
Figure 9. Generalized geologic map of the North Carolina Coastal Plain illustrating the regional
outcrop/subcrop patterns of the various stratigraphic units (Mallinson et al.., 2009) . ........ 22
Figure 10. Wave rose from Wave Information System (WIS) 63221 (1980-1999) located
offshore of the Project Area (USACE, 2010b) ..................................................................... 26
Figure 11. Water quality sampling stations in proximity to the Permit Area in Kill Devil Hills.
Green indicates no alert/advisory, meaning the enterococci levels are within the EPA
standards for swimming. ....................................................................................................... 29
iv

Figure 12. Beach and dune community at Kill Devil Hills showing sea oats and beach grass
(photo taken October 2009). ................................................................................................. 30
Figure 13. Regional Bathymetry with Potential Borrow Areas and Major Shoal Features. ......... 37
Figure 14. Number and species of sea turtle nests recorded from Oregon Inlet to the North
Carolina/Virginia border in 2009. Data provided by the NCWRC (Matthew Godfrey, pers.
comm.,May 22, 2014). ......................................................................................................... 50
Figure 15. Number and species of sea turtle nests recorded from Oregon Inlet to the North
Carolina/Virginia border in 2010. Data provided by the NCWRC (Matthew Godfrey, pers.
comm., May 22, 2014). ......................................................................................................... 51
Figure 16. Number and species of sea turtle nests recorded from Oregon Inlet to the North
Carolina/Virginia border in 2011. Data provided by the NCWRC (Matthew Godfrey, pers.
comm., May 22, 2014). ......................................................................................................... 52
Figure 17. Number and species of sea turtle nests recorded from Oregon Inlet to the North
Carolina/Virginia border in 2012. Data provided by the NCWRC (Matthew Godfrey, pers.
comm., May 22, 2014). ......................................................................................................... 53
Figure 18. Number and species of sea turtle nests recorded from Oregon Inlet to the North
Carolina/Virginia border in 2013. Data provided by the NCWRC (Matthew Godfrey, pers.
comm., May 22, 2014). ......................................................................................................... 54
Figure 19. Daily nesting (blue line) and hatchling emergence (red line) observed for all sea turtle
species throughout North Carolina between 2009 and 2013. ............................................... 55
Figure 20. Total number of nests counted within two-week increments over the course of 2009
through 2013 throughout North Carolina. ............................................................................ 56
Figure 21. Total number of emergences counted within two-week increments over the course of
2009 to 2013. ........................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 22. Mean nesting density (± standard error) and mean emergence density (± standard
error) per region throughout the five years of analysis (2009-2013). ................................... 61
Figure 23. Monthly nesting observed within each region throughout the five years of analysis
(2009-2013)........................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 24. Monthly hatchling emergences observed at each region throughout the five years of
analysis (2009-2013). ............................................................................................................ 64
Figure 25. Loggerhead turtle sightings during the Southeast AMAPPS spring 2012 aerial survey.
Image from NOAA, 2012. .................................................................................................... 66
Figure 26. Migration routes (post-nesting and inter-foraging segments) of satellite-tracked
loggerhead turtles (N = 15) represented by individual black lines in the Cape Hatteras,
North Carolina (NC) region. The horizontal dotted line separates the Mid-Atlantic and
South Atlantic Bights. Figure from Griffin et al., 2013........................................................ 67
Figure 27. Sightings of leatherback sea turtles during the spring 2012 AMAPPS surveys. Image
from NOAA, 2012. ............................................................................................................... 71
Figure 28. Number of loggerhead sea turtle nests recorded along the northern portion of the
Outer Banks, north of Oregon Inlet, from 2009 to 2014. Data provided by the NCWRC
(Matthew Godfrey, pers. comm., 2014). ............................................................................... 76
Figure 29. Terrestrial critical habitat proposed by the USFWS for the loggerhead sea turtle
(Northwest Atlantic DPS). The northernmost unit is LOGG-T-NC01, located in Carteret
County, NC and does not extend into the towns of Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk or Duck. 78
Figure 30. Location of the NMFS designated loggerhead sea turtle critical habitat in proximity to
the Towns. ............................................................................................................................. 79
v

Figure 31. Atlantic sturgeon detections recorded by acoustic array located offshore Cape
Hatteras, NC. Sturgeon were tagged by the Atlantic Cooperative Telemetry Network
(Charles Bangley, pers. comm., September 15, 2014) .......................................................... 83
Figure 32. Wintering piping plover critical habitat unit NC-1. Image from 73 FR 62840. .......... 91
ListofTables
Table 1. Average shoreline change rates from LiDAR data. .......................................................... 7
Table 2. Number of ocean front structures that would be imminently threatened by long-term
erosion over the next 30 years. ............................................................................................... 7
Table 3. Distribution of material for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. ................................ 12
Table 4. Characteristics of the Kill Devil Hills native beach material. ........................................ 24
Table 5. Sediment characteristics of the offshore borrow area within BOEM jurisdiction. ......... 25
Table 6. Essential Fish Habitat identified in FMP Amendments of the South Atlantic and Mid-
Atlantic FMC’s (NMFS, 2010). ............................................................................................ 32
Table 7. EFH for managed species within coastal North Carolina. Not all species within a
management unit have EFH designated; such species have ‘none’ within the life stages
column................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 8. Geographically defined HAPC identified in the FMP Amendments affecting the South
Atlantic area (NMFS, 2010). ................................................................................................ 35
Table 9. HMS and their life stage that have marine waters in vicinity of the Project designated as
EFH. ...................................................................................................................................... 39
Table 10. Federally threatened, endangered or proposed listed species that may occur in the
Project Area. ......................................................................................................................... 44
Table 11. Total number of nests observed within each two-week increment used in the analyses.
Nesting counts were combined over the five years of analysis (2009 to 2013). .................. 56
Table 12. Post-hoc multiple comparisons p-values (2-tailed) of mean ranks of nesting counts.
Mean rank of each two-week group are also provided (R). Red values indicate a significant
difference. ............................................................................................................................. 58
Table 13. Summary of hatchling emergence activity per two-week block observed throughout the
five year period (2009 to 2013). The term n refers to the number of days for which
emergences were observed. .................................................................................................. 60
Table 14. Post-hoc multiple comparisons p-values (2-tailed) of mean ranks. Mean ranks (R) of
each two-week group are also provided. Red values indicate a significant difference. ....... 60
Table 15. Multiple comparisons of nesting per month within the Outer Banks using the Games-
Howell test. ........................................................................................................................... 63
Table 16. Multiple comprisons of hatchling emergences per month within the Outer Banks using
the Games-Howell test. ......................................................................................................... 64
Table 17. Total number of sea turtle strandings recorded in per month in North Carolina in 2013.
Totals are reported for each species. Abbreviations in the table are interpreted as the
following: CC, Caretta caretta; CM, Chelonia mydas; LK, Lepidochelys kempii; DC,
Dermochelys coriacea; EI, Eretmochelys imbricata; HY, hybrid; UN, unidentified. (Table
modified from seaturtle.org, 2013) ....................................................................................... 68
Table 18. Leatherback sea turtle nests recorded in North Carolina between 2009 and 2013. Data
provided by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Matthew Godfrey, pers.
comm.,2014). ........................................................................................................................ 70
vi

Table 19. Kemp’s ridley sea turtle nests documented in North Carolina from 2009 to 2013. Data
provided by the NCWRC (Matthew Godfrey, pers. comm., 2014). ..................................... 73
Table 20. Total number of individual piping plovers observed per month within the northern,
central and southern regions of North Carolina as compared to the total number of
individuals observed within Bodie Island, North Carolina from 1965 to 2013. The last two
rows in the table display the Bodie Island observations as a percentage of both statewide
and northern region observations. To display monthly trends, rows are color-coded such that
the lowest values are shaded green and the highest values are shaded red. .......................... 90
Table 21. Total number of piping plovers nesting pairs observed per month within the northern,
central and southern regions of North Carolina as compared to the total number of nesting
pairs observed within Bodie Island, North Carolina from 1965 – 2008. The last two rows in
the table display the Bodie Island observations as a percentage of both statewide and
northern region observations. To display monthly trends, rows are color-coded such that the
lowest values are shaded green and the highest values are shaded red. ............................... 90
Table 22. Total number of red knots observed per month within the northern, central and
southern regions of North Carolina as compared to the total number observed within Dare
County, North Carolina from 1986 to 2013. The last two rows in the table display the Dare
County observations as a percentage of both statewide and northern region observations. To
display monthly trends, rows are color-coded such that the lowest values are shaded green
and the highest values are shaded red. .................................................................................. 94
Table 23. Typical dredging operations based on information provided by potential dredge
contractors. .......................................................................................................................... 107
Table 24. Dredging projects within the Wilmington District of the USACE South Atlantic
Division using offshore borrow areas. Any records of turtle takes, conditions at time of take,
and pertinent biological information are also included. A designation of ‘n/a’ indicates no
data are available. ................................................................................................................ 110
Table 25. Comparison of potential impacts for each resource resulting from the three
alternatives. .............................................................................................................................. i
Table 26. Proposed federal and non-federal beach nourishment projects within North Carolina
and the projected start dates. .................................................................................................. iii
Table 27. Summary of beach nourishment projects in North Carolina that are authorized, being
pursued, or may be pursued in the foreseeable future. .......................................................... iv
Appendices
Appendix A- Interagency Scoping Meeting
Appendix B- Project Information Document
Appendix C- Engineering Report
vii

1INTRODUCTION
1.1WhereistheProposedActionLocated?
The Kill Devil Hills Shoreline Protection Project is located in Kill Devil Hills, along the Atlantic
coast of the Outer Banks within Dare County, North Carolina (Figure 1). Specifically, the project
includes a 2.77-mile section of oceanfront shoreline spanning the northern portion of Kill Devil
Hills and a small part of the southern portion of Kitty Hawk. Material will be obtained from two
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) borrow areas located in federal waters offshore of Dare County
(Figure 1). Borrow area A is located between 5.0 and 6.5 miles offshore, while Borrow Area B is
located 4.1 to 5.2 miles offshore.
Figure 1. Map showing general site location (inset), and project locations, including project and town limits
for each town and locations of preliminary sand source areas.
1.2ScopingandConsultationHistory
The intent of the Kill Devils Hills Shore Protection Project is to construct a beach nourishment
project similar in scope and design to the portion of the federally authorized project within the
Town’s jurisdiction. On September 14, 2011, the Town held an interagency meeting in
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
1

Washington, NC with representatives from various state and federal agencies including the US
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The
purpose of the meeting was to present the scope of the proposed locally sponsored project and to
develop an agreed upon permitting approach and scope of necessary environmental
documentation. One outcome of the meeting was the decision for the Town to develop a “Project
Information Document” that would provide the USACE with a summary of the relevant existing
environmental documentation and biological data that pertains to the proposed Kill Devil Hills
Shore Protection. The information provided within the document was used to assist the USACE
in determining the necessary permitting requirements. Following the submittal of the document,
the USACE responded that due to the likelihood of determining a Finding of No Significant
Impacts (FONSI), an Environmental Assessment (EA) would be the recommended approach
regarding the required environmental documentation. The meeting minutes from the September
14, 2011 interagency meeting are included in Appendix A. Appendix B contains the Project
Information Document.
Soon after the 2011 interagency meeting, two other beach towns in Dare County, Duck and Kitty
Hawk, expressed interest in pursuing their own beach nourishment projects in light of continued
erosion on their respective shorelines. Another interagency meeting was held on June 19, 2013
with representatives from many of the same agencies to discuss proposed permitting and
environmental documentation approaches for Kill Devil Hills, Duck and Kitty Hawk. Because
the potential borrow areas under consideration for the three nourishment projects are located in
federal waters, it was determined that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) would
act as a co-lead agency along with the USACE. Representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) agreed that while
individual EAs could be drafted for each of the three proposed projects (resulting in three
individual sets of permits), a single regional Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessment and a
single batched Biological Assessment (BA) could be submitted for all three beach towns to
satisfy consultation requirements with NMFS and USFWS. The meeting minutes from the
interagency meetings are presented in Appendix A.
It is important to note that the proposed dredging of OCS borrow areas falls outside the
jurisdiction of several existing biological opinions. The 1995/1997 South Atlantic Regional
Biological Opinion (SARBO) does not apply because 1) the USACE does not have regulatory
jurisdiction over OCS borrow areas, and 2) the project is not being funded or undertaken by the
USACE. The USACE has re-initiated consultation with the USFWS and the NMFS to include
new species, actions and geographic areas in the SARBO. The presently proposed dredging
activities would be covered under this re-initiated SARBO, since both the USACE and BOEM
would be party to it. However, it cannot be assumed that the SARBO will be completed in time
to be applicable to the Duck project; therefore, BOEM will need its own “stand-alone’ biological
opinion and Incidental Take Statement to authorize any potential protected species interactions
occurring in federal waters.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
2

1.3WhatistheProposedAction?
The project would involve construction of a portion of the federal Dare County Beaches project
that falls within the Town limits of Kill Devil Hills including tapers on both the north and south
end (Figure 2). The proposed action will include sand placement along a 13,597 ft. section of
Kill Devil Hills and a 912 ft. section of Kitty Hawk oceanfront shorelines, for a total of 14,509 ft.
of shoreline (Figure 2). Beach quality sand will be obtained via ocean certified hopper dredge,
cutter suction dredge or a combination of the two from an offshore borrow area and transported
to the recipient beach by a submerged or floating pipeline. The proposed borrow areas for the
project are located in federal waters, and range from 4.1 to 6.5 miles offshore of the Dare County
coastline. Details of the proposed action are discussed in section 2.2 under Alternative 2, the
Applicant’s Preferred Alternative.
1.4WhatarethePurposeandNeedoftheProposedAction?
The Town of Kill Devil Hills is focused on a long-term shoreline management program that will
serve to sustain the beaches that support a significant portion of their local economy and
maintains the tax base of the Town. Infrastructure protection, storm damage mitigation and rapid
recovery from storm events are important considerations. In order to accomplish these stated
goals, the Town is taking steps to maintain its oceanfront beach and dune to a configuration that
1) provides a reasonable level of storm damage reduction to public and private development, 2)
mitigates long-term erosion that could threaten public and private development as well as
recreational opportunities and biological resources, and 3) maintains a healthy beach habitat that
supports valuable shorebird and sea turtle nesting habitat.
Based on long-term shoreline and volume change rates and storm vulnerability analyses, the
southern 2.3 miles of oceanfront shoreline currently meets the Town’s threshold to provide an
adequate level of storm damage reduction and to mitigate long-term erosion. However, the
northern 2.45 miles of shoreline currently do not meet this threshold. The proposed action for
which the Town is seeking permits and approvals therefore includes the northern 2.45 miles of
the oceanfront shoreline with a small taper section extending into Kitty Hawk. The Town is
seeking the permits and approvals necessary to construct the proposed project. The project also
includes advanced nourishment to maintain the integrity of the project design for a period of 5
years. The Town will regularly monitor and re-evaluate on 5-year intervals the level of storm
damage reduction and erosion mitigation that the existing beach provides.
2DESCRIPTIONOFALTERNATIVES
This section describes the various alternatives evaluated for responding to the erosion threat and
the risk of storm damage to existing structures and infrastructure along the northern 2.57 mi (4.14
km) of the Town of Kill Devil Hills. The area of concern begins at the north town limits, located
near baseline station 190+00, and extends south to Windsong Way located near baseline station
315+50. The alternatives include:
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
3

Figure 2. Proposed placement area for the Kill Devil Hills shore protection project.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
4

Alternative 1 – Abandon/Retreat
Alternative 2 – Applicant’s Preferred Alternative – Beach Nourishment with Offshore
Borrow Areas within State and BOEM Waters
Alternative 3 – No Action
The primary tools used to evaluate the effectiveness of the various alternatives in meeting the
needs and objectives included:
LiDAR surveys;
NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) 2011 Shoreline Change Update; and
SBEACH model
LiDAR surveys
Shoreline changes along the Town of Kill Devil Hills were evaluated using LiDAR (Light
Detection and Ranging) data collected by USACE JALBTCX (Joint Airborne LiDAR
Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise), USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), NASA (National
Aeronautics and Space Administration), and NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration). LiDAR is an optical remote sensing technology that measures the ground
elevation or seafloor at relatively high spatial resolutions. LiDAR data are better suited for
surveying subaerial platforms since light penetration may be restricted by water clarity. For this
analysis, only elevations collected along the dry beach were evaluated. Twelve (12) sets of
LiDAR data collected over a 16-year period between 1996 and 2012 were used for the shoreline
study. Details of the shoreline change analysis are provided in Appendix C and summarized in
Chapter 4.
NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) 2011 Shoreline Change Update
The North Carolina DCM periodically updates shoreline change rates for the entire state for
purposes of computing ocean hazard setback factors. DCM computes shoreline change rates using
the “end point” method that essentially measures the difference in position of an “early shoreline”
with the shoreline shown on a more recent set of aerial photographs. For the 2011 update, DCM
actually used an early shoreline interpreted from a 1940 set of aerial photos and the more recent
shoreline determined from 2009 aerial photos. Since the DCM data covered a larger timeframe,
the DCM shoreline change rates along Kill Devil Hills had less variability than the rates computed
from the LiDAR data. A full discussion of the DCM shoreline change rates and a comparison of
those rates with the LiDAR data rates is provided in Appendix C and summarized in Chapter 4.
SBEACH model
SBEA
Storm erosion modeling for Kill Devil Hills was conducted using the torm- Induced ch
CH
ange Model (SBEACH, Larson and Kraus, 1989). SBEACH simulates the beach profile
changes due to storm generated waves and water levels over the duration of the storm. The
SBEACH analysis for Kill Devil Hills used storm characteristics associated with Hurricane
Isabel to 1) determine which structures would be vulnerable to storm damage under existing
conditions and 2) evaluate the potential for erosion response alternatives to reduce storm damage
vulnerability. Hurricane Isabel impacted the area in September 2003 and produced a maximum
water level of +5.6 feet NAVD. The storm still water level was measured at the USACE Field
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
5

Research Facility (FRF) located in Duck, NC, which is about 9.5 miles (15.3 km) north of the
northern town limits of Kill Devil Hills.
In general, a storm similar to Hurricane Isabel would have a 4% to 5% probability of occurring
in any given year, i.e., a storm similar to Hurricane Isabel would be expected to impact the area
an average of once every 20 to 25 years. Notwithstanding the storm frequency, there is a 70% to
nearly 80% risk that a storm similar to Hurricane Isabel will impact Kill Devil Hills over the next
30 years.
The SBEACH model was applied to each of the approximate 500-foot baseline transects along
Kill Devil Hills and the landward most point where the post-storm profile was one (1) foot below
the pre-storm profile was used as an indication of the landward limit of the storm’s “impact”.
The impact point at each transect was superimposed on 2012 aerial photographs and an impact
line connecting the impact points was generated using GIS software. If the impact line reached
the front of a structure, as defined by the Dare County GIS data, or bisected the structure, that
structure was deemed impacted by the storm. No attempt was made to determine the extent of
the potential damage only that the structure would be impacted to some degree.
Details of the SBEACH analysis along with figures showing the impact line for the Alternative 1
– Abandon/Retreat (which is also applicable to Alternative 3 – No Action) as well as the impact
lines for various beach design options evaluated for Alternative 2 are provided in Appendix C.
The SBEACH analysis for the Abandon/Retreat Alternative (Alternative 1) provided an
assessment of the number of structures at risk of storm damage should measures not be
implemented to reduce the level of risk. The SBEACH analyses for the various beach design
options provided a relative measure of the potential reduction in storm damage to existing
development relative to Alternative 1. This provided a basis for selecting the most cost-effective
beach design option.
In this EA, all three (3) alternative actions listed above were considered viable and were thus
subjected to analysis of impacts to the human, physical and biological environments and
threatened and endangered species.
2.1Alternative#1:AbandonandRetreat
The existing shoreline management initiatives within the Town of Kill Devil Hills includes a
town sponsored program to install sand fences along vulnerable sections of its shoreline in an
attempt to rebuild dunes, and actions by individual property owners to rebuild storm damaged
dunes through the use of beach scraping (bulldozing). In addition, a limited number of individual
property owners have installed temporary sandbag revetments to protect imminently threatened
structures. Under Alternative 1, these activities would cease and buildings threatened by erosion,
or those that have a high probability of being damaged by storms, would be either moved
landward to existing vacant lots or abandoned and demolished.
Shoreline erosion rates determined from the analysis of the LiDAR data sets spanning the 16-
year period from October 1996 to November 2012 varied along the shoreline. Rates ranged from
st
a maximum recession of 3.6 feet/year between baseline stations 290+00 (just north of 1 St.) and
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
6

340+00 (south of Raleigh Ave.) to 2.3 feet of accretion between stations 190+00 (south of E.
Sibbern Dr.) and 215+00 (approximately E. Sothel St.). In general, the shoreline change rates
determined from the LiDAR data alternated between recession and accretion every 2,000 feet to
5,000 feet beginning at the north end of town (Appendix C). Average shoreline change rates
determined from the LiDAR data applicable to various shoreline segments are provided in Table
1.
Table 1. Average shoreline change rates from LiDAR data.
Shoreline Segment Shoreline Distance Average Rate Shoreline
(feet)Change (ft/yr)
From Station To Station
170+00 190+00 2,000 -2.5
190+00 215+00 2,500 +2.3
215+00 240+00 2,500 -1.3
240+00 290+00 5,000 +1.1
290+00 340+00 5,000 -3.6
Updated shoreline change rates published by the NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) in
2011, which were based on measured changes between 1940 and 2009, indicate a more
consistent recession trend between baseline stations 170+00 and 290+00 with rates varying from
-1.4 feet/year to -1.9 feet/year. The DCM rates indicated the 5,000-foot shoreline segment
between stations 290+00 and 340+00 (south end of the area of concern) accreted at a rate of 0.6
feet/year. Note the long-term trend determined by DCM between 290+00 and 340+00 was
completely different from the trend computed from the sixteen-year LiDAR data that indicated a
recession rate of 3.6 feet/year.
The relatively moderate shoreline recession rates along the northern portion of Kill Devil Hills
indicated by the LiDAR data, as well as the DCM data combined with the location of the ocean
front structures relative to the shoreline suggests that very few ocean front structures would be
impacted by long-term erosion over the next 30 years. In this regard, erosion of the shoreline was
deemed to render the structures imminently threated once the +6-foot NAVD contour encroached
within 20 feet of the front of the structure. The +6-foot NAVD contour represents the
approximate elevation of the natural berm crest in the area and is representative of the average
wave run-up elevation under normal conditions. The 20-foot criteria used to determine if a
structure would be imminently threatened by long-term erosion is generally the same definition
of imminently threated used by DCM.
Based on the relatively low rates of shoreline change along the north end of Kill Devil Hills, only
16 ocean front structures would be imminently threated over the next 30 years. The estimated
number of ocean front structures that could be impacted by long-term erosion is summarized in
5-year increments in Table 2.
Table 2. Number of ocean front structures that would be imminently threatened by long-term erosion over
the next 30 years.
Time Increment (years)/Structures Imminently Threatened
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30
0 1 0 1 8 6
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
7

Notwithstanding the apparent relatively minor threat of damage to the ocean front structures due
to long-term shoreline erosion, the SBEACH analysis of potential impacts to ocean front
structures during storms similar in magnitude to Hurricane Isabel identified 35 residential and 5
commercial structures that could be impacted by a storm similar to Hurricane Isabel. For this
analysis, commercial structures included motels and condominium complexes. The majority (30)
of the residential structures at risk of storm damage are located between the north town limits
and the Avalon Pier (approximate baseline station 235+13). Commercial buildings that are
th
vulnerable to storm damage are all located south of 4 St. and include the Mariner Motel and the
Sea Ranch Resort and three large condominium complexes. More detailed information on the
impacted structures is provided in Appendix C.
Of the 35 residential structures that are at risk of damage due to a hurricane similar to Hurricane
Isabel, only 1 appeared to be on a lot that was large enough to allow the structure to be moved
back on its existing lot. In that particular case, the structure would only have to be moved about
35 feet landward to put it in line with the adjacent structures and landward of the SBEACH
impact line. The other 34 structures deemed to be at risk would have to be moved to another lot
entirely or demolished. In order to implement the Abandon/Retreat alternative, it is
recommended the Town of Kill Devil Hills proactively invest in at least 30 vacant lots north of
the Avalon Pier in anticipation of relocating many of the at-risk structures.
The 5 commercial buildings at risk of damage due to a storm similar to Hurricane Isabel include
portions of 2 motels (The Mariner and the Sea Ranch) and 3 large condominium complexes.
Potential storm impacts to the Mariner include the swimming pool located on the seaward edge
of the property and the building situated along the south boundary of the property. The main
building fronting Virginia Dare Trail is not at risk. Based on the position of the impact line, the
swimming pool would be cut in half while the building along the south boundary of the property
could lose the seaward end. Given the size of the property, the swimming pool could be
demolished and a new pool constructed elsewhere on the property while the seaward end of the
building along the south boundary of the property would properly have to be demolished and the
building reconfigured. The Sea Ranch complex, which includes the older main building on the
oceanfront and a new newer building along the north property line, would both be subject to
potential storm damage during a hurricane similar to Hurricane Isabel. Other buildings on the
property could also suffer some damage. Given the size and type of construction of the Sea
Ranch structures, moving is probably not an option. One possibility would be to demolish all or
portions of the existing structures and rebuild a smaller facility on the existing property. This
could be done at the expense of sacrificing portions of the existing parking lot.
The condominium complexes that could experience significant damage during a storm similar to
Hurricane Isabel include the Sands, Golden Strand and Sea Oat Villas. Based on the size of the
condominium properties, the existing structures could be demolished and rebuilt closer to
Virginia Dare Trail. This type of response would normally have to be approved by some
percentage of the property owners.
The threat of a storm comparable to Hurricane Isabel impacting the area over the next 5 to 15
years was evaluated in order to provide some guidance as to the most prudent timeframe
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
8

structures should be moved or abandoned, since very few of the structures appear to be at risk
from damage due to long-term erosion. In this regard, assuming Hurricane Isabel has a
probability of 4% to 5% in any given year, the risk of a similar storm impacting Kill Devil Hills
within the next 5 years would be between 18.5% and 22.6%. Over the next 15 years, the risk
would increase to 45.8% to 53.7%. While there is not a definitive way to dictate when action
should take place to move and/or abandon the at-risk structures, given the risk of a reoccurrence
of a storm similar to Hurricane Isabel, most of the at-risk structures should be moved or
abandoned within the next 15 years.
2.2Alternative#2:!∞∞¨©£°Æ¥΄≥PreferredAlternativeBeachNourishment
withOffshoreBorrowAreaswithinBOEMwaters
A portion of the ocean shoreline of the Town of Kill Devil Hills is included in the federal storm
damage reduction project for the Dare County Beaches, which was authorized by the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000. The section of the Kill Devil Hills shoreline included in the
main portion of the federal project begins at the north town limit (baseline station 189+00) and
ends at baseline station 297+30, or approximately 500 feet south of E. First Street. The design
template for the federal project included a 25-foot wide dune at elevation +12.0 feet NAVD
fronted by a 50-foot wide berm at elevation +6.0 feet NAVD.
Due to federal budget priorities, Dare County has been unsuccessful in obtaining federal
construction funds for the project and the prospects of obtaining federal funding for the project in
the near future appear remote. Consequently, the Town of Kill Devil Hills has elected to pursue a
locally funded beach protection project. The proposed local project maintains some elements of
the federal design, but extends the limits of the main portion, while also considering additional
borrow areas. Henceforth, the physical boundary of the nourished beach, including the main
portion, tapers and the proposed borrow areas will collectively be referred to as the “Project
Area”.
The main portion of the proposed local project begins at the north town limit (baseline station
189+00) and extends south to Windsong Way located near baseline station 314+88. The length of
the main portion of nourished shoreline, excluding the tapers, is 12,588 feet. If the Kill Devil Hills
project is constructed as a stand-alone project, two taper sections would be included, one on the
south end and the other on the north end of the main placement area (Figure 2). The south taper
would end just north of the Prospect Ave. public access at station 324+97 (1,009 ft.), while the
north taper would extend into the Town of Kitty Hawk, terminating just south of Tateway Road at
station 179+88 (912 ft.). Thus, the Kill Devil Hills project would include 14,509 (2.75 mi.) of
shoreline.
Currently, the Town of Kitty Hawk is also seeking permits to allow the construction of a beach
protection project along its entire ocean shoreline. Consequently, there is a possibility both the
Kill Devil Hills and Kitty Hawk projects could be constructed concurrently, which would
eliminate the need for the north taper section of the Kill Devil Hills project. Likewise, a south
taper for the Kitty Hawk project would not be needed if the two projects are constructed at the
same time.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
9

Formulation of the beach nourishment project focused on developing a design template that would
provide a reasonable level of storm damage protection to ocean front development within the
Project Area. While any beach nourishment project would also address issues associated with the
damaging impacts of continued shoreline recession, if the shoreline change rates indicated by the
analysis of the LiDAR data between 1996 and 2012 (Table 1) continued, very few ocean front
structures would be impacted by long-term erosion over the next 30 years (Chapter 4 and
Appendix C).
Consequently, the formulation of the design template was based primarily on the results of an
SBEACH analysis, which evaluated the number of structures that could be impacted by a storm
similar in magnitude to Hurricane Isabel that impacted the area in September 2003. This analysis
is provided in detail in Appendix C. Design templates evaluated included ‘berm-only’ plans in
which berms at elevation +6.0 feet NAVD were extended seaward of the existing dune by 40 and
50 feet. However, the 50-ft berm-only plan would afford only a moderate level (60%) of potential
storm damage reduction to the 30 residential structures deemed at-risk from storm damage in
Alternative 1. Specifically, of the 35 residential structures determined to be at-risk, 14 (40%)
would still be impacted if a berm-only project were in place. Furthermore, two of the five large
commercial buildings could also experience significant storm damage with a berm-only design.
Design templates that included enhancement of the existing dune combined with berms fronting
the dune were also evaluated for their potential to decrease storm damage. The design chosen as
the most optimal design included a 20-foot wide dune at elevation +15.0 feet NAVD fronted by a
40 ft. berm. Two other options that provided a relatively high level of potential storm damage
reduction that were assessed earlier on in the analysis included a 25-foot wide dune at elevation
+18.0 feet NAVD and one at elevation +20.0 feet NAVD, both of which were fronted by a 50-
foot wide berm at elevation 6.0 feet NAVD. These options are designated as the15/40 Design,
18/50 Design and 20/50 Design, respectively. Other options evaluated, which are presented in
Appendix C, included the same 18-foot NAVD and 20-foot NAVD dunes fronted by 75-foot and
100-foot berms; however, they did not afford any additional protection over the 50-foot berm. For
the 15/40 Design, the SBEACH analysis indicated only one residential structures would be
impacted by a storm comparable to Hurricane Isabel compared to 21 for the No Action
Alternative. This represents a 95% reduction. With the 15/40 Design, none of the at-risk
commercial structures were impacted. Preliminary estimates suggest 947,500 cy of sand would be
required to be placed to construct the 15/40 Design including five (5) years of advanced
nourishment. Given the fact that larger designs considered such as the 18/50 Design and 20/50
Design provided minimal additional potential storm damage reduction, the preferred design
alternative is the 15/40 Design. A typical cross-section of the design template is provided in
Error! Reference source not found.
Figure 3, and the distribution of the sand between
baseline stations given in Table 3.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
10

Figure 3. Typical beach design template for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, depicting a 20-ft. wide dune at
elevation +15.0 ft. NAVD 88 with a 40 ft. berm at +6.0 ft. NAVD 88
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
11

Table 3. Distribution of material for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative.
Sand Density (cy/lf)
Station To Station Distanceincluding advanced fillVolume (cy)
(ft)
from to
179+00 189+87 1000 0.0 71.9 36,000
189+87 194+90 503 71.9 66.0 35,000
194+90 199+93 503 66.0 70.3 34,000
199+93 204+84 491 70.3 74.0 35,000
204+84 209+74 491 74.0 72.7 36,000
209+74 214+87 513 72.7 73.5 37,000
214+87 220+00 513 73.5 89.2 42,000
220+00 224+92 492 89.2 74.1 40,000
224+92 229+83 492 74.1 67.2 35,000
229+83 235+13 529 67.2 70.3 36,000
235+13 240+42 529 70.3 69.3 37,000
240+42 245+12 470 65.5 65.2 31,000
245+12 249+82 470 65.2 68.3 31,000
249+82 254+99 518 68.3 63.5 34,000
254+998 260+17 518 63.5 64.7 33,000
260+17 264+83 466 64.7 64.5 30,000
264+83 269+49 466 64.5 65.0 30,000
269+49 274+65 516 71.0 83.3 40,000
274+65 279+81 516 83.3 70.7 40,000
279+81 284+90 510 70.7 70.4 36,000
284+90 289+99 510 70.4 69.0 36,000
289+99 294+96 497 69.0 74.2 36,000
294+96 299+92 497 74.2 70.9 36,000
299+92 304+82 489 70.9 71.3 35,000
304+82 309+71 489 64.2 63.9 31,000
309+71 314+88 517 63.9 64.4 33,000
314+88 324+88 1000 64.4 0.0 32,000
Total 947,000
2.2.1BorrowSource
Material to construct the project would be obtained from one or both of the borrow areas shown
inFigure 1. Both borrow Area A and C are located entirely within federal waters, i.e., seaward
of the Three Nautical Mile Line, placing them under the jurisdiction of the Department of the
Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Borrow Area A is the closest to the Kill
Devil Hills shoreline; therefore, it would be the primary borrow source provided the material is
found to be compatible with the native beach material, and that it meets engineering
requirements for beach placement performance.
Initial coordination with BOEM has been completed with geotechnical investigations of the
potential borrow areas currently in process. The geotechnical investigations include geophysical
(sonar) surveys, vibracores, hydrographic surveys, cultural resources surveys and sand
compatibility analysis. These efforts lead to the development of the borrow area designs.
Preliminary designs are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 below. The compatibility analysis
(discussed in section 3.1.2 and 3.1.3) determines if the offshore borrow material meets the
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
12

engineering requirements for the Kill Devil Hills design template and the compatibility
requirements established by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (CRC).
To obtain material from the borrow areas, the Applicant proposes to use an ocean-certified, self-
contained hopper dredge with direct pump-out, a cutterhead suction dredge or a combination of
the two. The types utilized will depend on many factors, including competition in the bid
process, pumping or haul distance, and depth and extent of dredging. The offshore borrow area
locations are subjected to the most severe wave climate along the entire East Coast of the United
States. Therefore, the potential for adverse sea conditions and construction schedule will be a
major consideration in the selection of the dredging methods and equipment used. A hopper
dredge is a self-propelled, maneuverable vessel that can independently load, transport and unload
dredged material. The hopper dredge has a trailer suction pipe with a draghead that strips off
layers of sediment and hydraulically suctions the material into the hopper. For the proposed
project, material would be offloaded by direct pump-out through a submerged pipeline while the
vessel is moored offshore. There are potential environmental impacts associated with using
hopper dredges, such as entrainment of threatened and endangered species by the draghead,
localized turbidity plumes at the draghead site and near the surface as the hoppers are filled.
However, advances in design have included under hull release of overflow sediment and anti-
turbidity valves, which help reduce sediment plumes (W.F. Baird and Associates, 2004). Efforts
to mitigate the take of listed species include pre-dredge and relocation trawls and inclusion of
turtle deflectors on dragheads.
A cutter suction dredge can be self-propelled, or require a barge for transport. During operation,
the cutter suction dredge is anchored at one corner by a spud, and the cutter suction dredge
moves in an arc over the dredge area rotating around the spud. During dredging, material is
hydraulically pumped up the suction pipe and discharged at a disposal site (may be upland or in-
water) or to a barge for transport to the disposal site. Cutter suction dredges are limited by sea-
state condition and do not perform well in areas of elevated sea states. Environmental effects
include suspension of sediment around the cutterhead, or turbidity plumes resulting from leaks or
dredge overflow. Turbidity created by a cutter suction dredge is generally less than that of a
trailing suction hopper dredge since sediment re-suspension is confined to near the substrate and
around the cutterhead. Environmentally conscious developments have involved design
improvements to the cutter suction dredge that increase accuracy and reduce mechanical
disturbance of the seabed (McLelland and Hopman, 2000).
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
13

Figure 4. Borrow Area A with preliminary design cuts.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
14

Figure 5. Borrow Area C with preliminary design cuts.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
15

2.2.2ConstructionMethods
To obtain material from the borrow areas, the Applicant proposes to use either an ocean-
certified, self-contained hopper dredge with direct pump-out, a cutterhead suction dredge, or a
combination of the two. The types utilized will depend on many factors, including competition in
the bid process, pumping or haul distance, and depth and extent of dredging. The offshore
borrow area locations are subjected to the most severe wave climate along the entire East Coast
of the United States. Therefore, the potential for adverse sea conditions and construction
schedule will be a major consideration in the selection of the dredging methods and equipment
used.
Hopper Dredges.
A hopper dredge is a self-propelled, maneuverable vessel that can
independently load, transport and unload dredged material. The hopper dredge has a trailer
suction pipe with a draghead that strips off layers of sediment and hydraulically suctions the
material into the hopper. For the proposed project, material would be offloaded by direct pump-
out through a submerged pipeline while the vessel is moored offshore. There are potential
environmental impacts associated with using hopper dredges, such as entrainment of threatened
and endangered species by the draghead, localized turbidity plumes at the draghead site and near
the surface as the hoppers are filled. However, advances in design have included under hull
release of overflow sediment and anti-turbidity valves, which help reduce sediment plumes
(W.F. Baird and Associates, 2004). Efforts to mitigate the take of listed species include pre-
dredge and relocation trawls and inclusion of turtle deflectors on dragheads.
Cutter Suction Dredge.
A cutter suction dredge can be self-propelled, or require a barge for
transport. During operation, the cutter suction dredge is anchored at one corner by a spud, and
the cutter suction dredge moves in an arc over the dredge area rotating around the spud. During
dredging, material is hydraulically pumped up the suction pipe and discharged at a disposal site
(may be upland or in-water) or to a barge for transport to the disposal site. Cutter suction dredges
are limited by sea-state condition and do not perform well in areas of elevated sea states.
Environmental effects include suspension of sediment around the cutterhead, or turbidity plumes
resulting from leaks or dredge overflow. Turbidity created by a cutter suction dredge is generally
less than that of a trailing suction hopper dredge since sediment re-suspension is confined to near
the substrate and around the cutterhead. Environmentally conscious developments have involved
design improvements to the cutter suction dredge that increase accuracy and reduce mechanical
disturbance of the seabed (McLellan and Hopman, 2000).
Management of Material on the Beach.
Once the material is discharged from the pipe onto the
beach, onshore construction crews will shape the material into the desired construction template.
The material is typically managed in a way that reduces turbidity by constructing shore parallel
berms along which the water from the slurry will run, allowing additional time for material to
settle out of suspension before the seawater returns to the ocean. Equipment such as bulldozers
and front-end-loaders are typically used to shape sand on the beach and move pipes as necessary.
At the location where the submerged pipeline comes ashore, the slurry flow is typically diverted
with a 90-degree elbow to direct the flow towards the project area. As portions of the project are
constructed, the pipeline is extended to allow for the next section of beach to be constructed.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
16

Relocation Trawling.
Should hopper dredges be utilized, the proposed projects will employ relocation trawling as a
means to reduce the potential for entrainment of protected species, such as sea turtles and
Atlantic sturgeon. Relocation trawling has been employed in select USACE dredging projects
since the 1980’s, and has proved to be a successful method for temporary displacement of sea
turtles from a project area when hopper dredging was ongoing (Bargo et al., 2009).
The protocols and techniques of relocation trawling were researched and developed by the
USACE, and have become a standard practice for reducing lethal sea turtle takes during dredging
projects. Two types of trawls are used during hopper dredging projects. Sea turtle abundance
trawling is employed several days before commencement of dredging activity, and is used to
determine the abundance of sea turtles in the area. A finding of high sea turtle abundance
initiates the need for relocation trawling. Essentially, this method employs a capture-relocation
technique, and is targeted at the active dredging site within the borrow area. The distance
covered by each tow may vary as dictated by large vessel traffic in the area, or by the size and
configuration of the borrow site. A separate vessel, usually a shrimp trawler, deploys a trawling
net ahead of the approaching dredge to remove sea turtles from the dredge’s path. Typically,
trawlers tow two specially designed 60-ft trawl nets in the vicinity of the dredge on a 12 or 24
hour schedule. The position at the beginning of each tow is determined from GPS positioning
equipment, and tow speed is recorded at the approximate midpoint of each tow. Water
temperature measurements are also taken twice per day, and weather conditions (air temperature,
wind velocity and direction, sea state, wave height, precipitation) are recorded by
instrumentation and visual observations aboard the trawler.
If relocation trawling is implemented,
standard relocation trawling conditions will be observed as set forth by NMFS including
specification for trawl time, handling, holding conditions, take and release, any tagging, etc.
Construction Schedule
The Town aims to complete the project in the shortest time practicable, during a safe operating
period and with the least environmental impact possible. Weather and sea-state conditions play a
crucial role in the safety and efficiency of offshore dredging projects, particularly during the
winter. The wave climate in the northern Outer Banks is reportedly among the most inclement on
the U.S. eastern coast (Leffler et al., 1996). The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
written in association with the 2010 Nags Head Beach Nourishment project presents a detailed
analysis of the local offshore wave climate. Data were obtained from the USACE Field Research
Facility (FRF), located in Duck, NC, and are considered representative of conditions offshore of
Kill Devil Hills. The USACE (2010a) analyzed a three-year record of wave heights between
January 2003 and December 2005 collected by Waverider Buoy 630, located 2.4 miles offshore
in 55 ft. of water. Waves were predominately from the east, with the highest-energy waves
originating from the northeast. The USACE reported that during the three-year period analyzed,
there was an annual average of 59 weather events producing wave heights in excess of 1.6 m,
and an average of 5.3 storm events producing wave heights greater than 3.4 m. Two storm
events, one of which was Hurricane Isabel, produced wave heights in excess of 7 m.
Historical data also show the wave climate in the northern Outer Banks varies seasonally. Using
a 21-year record of wave data area maintained by the USACE-FRF station, the USACE
described:
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
17

“…average significant wave heights are greatest from September through April (3.4 –
3.9 ft.) and decrease from May through August (2.1 – 3.0 ft). Average wave periods
remain consistent (~8–9 sec), with highest wave period being in September, coinciding
with the peak of Atlantic hurricane season. Wave direction during the fall and winter is
from the east-northeast, averaging between 70E and 80E from north, coinciding with
larger waves produced from northeaster storms. During the spring and summer months,
waves approach more from the east, averaging between 84E and 96E.”
The Nags Head EIS and feasibility study developed for the 2010-2011 Nags Head project
suggest that, based on conditions encountered during two previous projects constructed in North
Carolina, there is an inverse relationship between wave height and dredging efficiency (Figure 6
and Figure 7) (USACE, 2000; USACE 2010a). Larger, steeper waves are frequently generated
by wintertime storms, and adversely impact dredging operations by decreasing safety, increasing
downtime and total project cost. In the Nags Head FEIS, dredging efficiency for Dare County
was calculated based on two other dredging projects completed in North Carolina, and was
estimated to range from 81% in July to only 46% in February (USACE, 2000). A complete,
detailed analysis is included in the Biological Assessment developed for the 2010 Nags Head
Beach Nourishment project (USACE, 2010a, Appendix H – Attachment 8), and is incorporated
here by reference.
Figure 6. Monthly averaged wave heights near Nags Head, NC for the period 1986 –
2006 (graph from USACE, 2010a; source data courtesy USACE-FRF).
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
18

Figure 7. Estimated pipeline dredging efficiencies at Dare County, NC (graph from
USACE, 2010a; source data from USACE, 2000)
Due to the aforementioned sea state conditions, dredging during the winter months (October to
March) increases the risk to crews and equipment, and reduces dredging efficiency. This, in turn
can result in a longer construction period, potentially prolonging environmental impacts. Risks
translate directly into costs whether the risks are related to safety, weather, financial,
environmental or other factors. The downtime associated with shutdown and redeployment
represents the main factor contributing to inefficiency and the overall economics of the project.
In a letter addressed to the Town of Nags Head, the Technical Director from the Dredging
Contractors of America (DCA) stated “…it would be extremely dangerous and expensive” to
conduct dredging operations during the winter months north of Oregon Inlet, due to the high risk
of dangerous wave and storm events and the associated potential for frequent shut-downs of
dredging operations (CSE, 2007 – Attachment 6). The warmer months between April and
September are relatively calm compared to the fall and winter months. This period also
corresponds with recommended “environmental windows” during which time sand placement
and hopper dredging is typically discouraged to avoid construction during periods of high
biological activity within coastal waters and beaches along the U.S. Atlantic coast. In North
Carolina, it is generally recommended that sand placement and dredging projects occur from
November 16 through April 30, to avoid peak sea turtle activity in nesting and marine areas, and
from September 1 through March 31 to avoid the peak shorebird nesting seasons.
Year-round construction would provide the contractor the most flexibility and provide a safer
and more economical work environment for offshore dredging activities in the Northern Outer
Banks. Based on estimated production rates, the Duck project will likely require approximately 3
months, the Kitty Hawk project will require approximately 3.5 months and the Kill Devil Hills
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
19

project will require approximately 2.5 months. Construction of the three projects could be
independent or concurrent. The maximum time anticipated for completion of the three projects is
9 months; however, the contractor could utilize multiple pieces of equipment and construct the
projects in parallel, leading to a minimum construction time of 3.5 months. These timeframes are
based on the production rates for hopper dredges achieved during the 2010-2011 Nags Head
project. The production rates have been adjusted to account for distances from the project areas
to the identified borrow areas. All timeframes assume that material will be obtained from Area
A; however, if Area C is used, the construction time for the Duck project may decrease.
2.2.3PeriodicNourishment
The restored beach would be maintained through a program of periodic maintenance
nourishment with the material also obtained from one of the borrow areas discussed above. The
initial design volume for the beach fill provided in Table 3 includes five years of advanced
nourishment totaling 170,130 cubic yards. This initial estimate of the 5-year nourishment
requirement was based on the shoreline changes determined from the LiDAR data. The actual
performance of the restored beach and the periodic nourishment needed to maintain the design
template will be determined from beach profile monitoring surveys taken at designated transects
at least once a year.
Typically, the costs associated with obtaining material from an offshore borrow area involves
relatively high costs for mobilization and demobilization of the dredge, pipeline, and all of the
ancillary equipment needed to support the operation in addition to the actual cost of pumping the
material from the offshore site to the shoreline. If the volume of material for the operation is
relatively small, the effective unit cost of a cubic yard of sand (which includes mobilization and
demobilization costs plus the actual cost of pumping the material to the shoreline) would be
relatively high. With mobilization and demobilization costs running in the millions, the volume of
material to be dredged in any one operation should be as large as possible in order to keep the
effective unit cost within reason.
In this regard, the Kill Devil Hills project is being developed in conjunction with similar projects
for the towns of Duck and Kitty Hawk. By combining periodic nourishment of all three projects
into one operation, the effective unit cost of the operation would be lowered to the benefit of all
three towns. Based on preliminary periodic requirements for all three projects, the combined
volume of material that will be needed every five years to nourish the three projects is around
650,000 cubic yards.
Estimates of the initial costs for constructing the Kill Devil Hills Shore Protection Project and the
cost for periodic nourishment assuming it is combined with the other two projects are provided in
Appendix C.
2.3Alternative#3:NoActionAlternative
The existing shoreline management program of the Town of Kill Devil Hills is limited to the
installation of sand fencing along vulnerable portions of its shoreline. Individual property owners
on occasion have used beach scraping or bulldozing to push-up or rebuild a dune that had been
damaged by a storm. Also, a few property owners have installed sandbag revetments to provide
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
20

temporary protection to homes deemed to be imminently threatened. Under Alternative 3, the
status quo will be maintained and these activities will continue.
Even if the limited measures by the town and individual property owners listed above continue,
the same 35 residential structures and 5 commercial buildings identified under Alternative 1 as
being at risk of damage by a storm similar in character to Hurricane Isabel would still be at risk
under Alternative 3. However, in the case of Alternative 3, the at-risk ocean front structures
would remain in place and would eventually be damaged beyond repair and have to be
demolished or abandoned. Based on the risk analysis for a storm similar to Hurricane Isabel,
there is a better than 50% chance that all 35 of the at-risk residential structures would be
damaged beyond repair within the next 15 years. This would remove the tax value of the
structures from the town’s tax base. The lots on which the at-risk structures are on would also
decrease in tax value with the value essentially dropping to zero.
3ENVIRONMENTALSETTING
3.1PhysicalEnvironment
The Town of Kill Devils Hills is located on the Outer Banks, a coastal barrier island system
along the Atlantic coastline of northeastern North Carolina. Kill Devil Hills is located at
approximately at 36.0256° N, 75.6700° W with a maximum elevation of 15 feet above sea level.
The town is situated between Kitty Hawk (at its northern boundary) and Nags Head (at its
southern boundary), and is bordered by the Albermarle sound to the west. The town encompasses
5.52 sq. miles and is oriented in a north-northwest/south-southeast direction. The natural habitats
follow a profile typical of a coastal barrier island system, transitioning from open ocean to island
shoreline, dune, over-wash (mud flat), salt marsh and finally, marine sound.
3.1.1GeologyandGeomorphology
The North Carolina coastal system consists of 325 miles of oceanfront shoreline, 23 inlets, over
5,000 miles of estuarine shoreline and over 3,000 square miles of brackish-water estuaries (Riggs
et al., 2008). The geomorphology of the North Carolina coastal environment can be
geographically divided into northern and southern zones by the paleotopographic high referred to
as the Cape Lookout High (Mallinson et al., 2009). The region north of Cape Lookout, or the
Northern Coastal Zone, consists of a 90 m thick Quaternary stratigraphic record (Mallinson et
al.., 2009). This northern zone has been shaped by multiple cycles of deposition and erosion
related to global sea-level cycles during the Pleistocene epoch. Sea level rise during the present
geological epoch (Holocene) has resulted in non-uniform deposition of coastal sediments over
the eroded embayments. The modern North Carolina barrier island system is therefore
superimposed upon multiple geological layers and consists of sediments ranging from peat and
mud to unconsolidated or semi-unconsolidated sands, gravel and shell beds.
The development of the slope and sandbars that characterize the beach and nearshore is highly
influenced by this underlying geological framework (McNinch, 2004). The influence of this
framework is even greater in areas with limited sand supply, such as North Carolina, where
sediments for beach development are derived from the erosion and transport of sediments from
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
21

adjacent beaches or the inner continental shelf (Thieler et al.., 2014). Some of the characterizing
features of the coastal zone of North Carolina’s Outer Banks include the development of shore-
oblique sandbars adjacent to large gravel outcrops and identical redevelopment or sustained
maintenance of large-scale sandbar morphology and position before and after very energetic
conditions, and close spatial alignment between the location of outcrops/shore-oblique bars and
shoreline erosional hotspots (McNinch, 2004).
The Northern Coastal Zone is characterized by a gentler land slope than the steeper Southern
Coastal Zone, such that rising seas have produced longer barrier islands and the broad expanse of
drowned river estuaries called the Albermarle-Pamlico estuarine system. These northern barrier
islands project seaward to form Cape Hatteras and the Outer Banks, and are interspersed by five
inlets. The coastal system can be further divided into four geomorphic compartments, known as
embayments, which are defined by capes and associated cape shoals (Riggs et al., 2008). The
Hatteras compartment, bounded in the south by Cape Hatteras and the associated shore-
perpendicular sand shoal called Diamond Shoals, is oriented northeast, and therefore takes the
brunt of frequent nor’easters (Riggs et al., 2008)
Figure 8. Generalized geologic map of the North Carolina Coastal Plain illustrating the regional
outcrop/subcrop patterns of the various stratigraphic units (Mallinson ., 2009) .
et al.
3.1.2NativeBeachSandQualityandComposition
The oceanfront beach and dunes are deposits of sand that are constantly changing their shape,
and hence position, with time as they respond to coastal processes. Along with the many
variables that can affect a coastline’s morphology, regional sediment composition, sediment size
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
22

and sediment shape can play a major role. The coastal zone of North Carolina’s Outer Banks is
characterized by a vertical and horizontal heterogeneity of lithology and grain-size and a
minimum volume of sand, ranging from 0 to 1.5 m thick (McNinch, 2004). Barrier islands in
North Carolina, such as the Outer Banks and the beachfront of the Town of Kill Devil Hills, are
primarily composed of unconsolidated fine- to medium-sized quartz and shell (calcium
carbonate) material that is in a constant state of flux due to wind, waves, currents and storms.
Taking material from offshore and placing it onto the beach has the potential to alter the physical
characteristics of the native beach. To minimize the risk of such alterations, projects are designed
to use similar sediment with regards to sorting, mean grain size, median grain size, and sediment
composition. The North Carolina State Sediment Criteria Rule (15A NCAC 07H .0312) sets state
standards for borrow material aimed at preventing the disposal of incompatible material on the
native beach. The rule limits the amount of material by weight in a borrow area with a diameter
equal to or greater than 4.76 mm and less than 76 mm (gravel), between 4.76 mm and 2.0 mm
(granular), and less than 0.0625 mm (fines) to no more than 5% above that which exists on the
native beach. Additionally, the rule requires the proportion of calcium carbonate in borrowed
material not to exceed 15% above that of the native beach (Table 4).
Based on the State Sediment Criteria, sampling of the native material are required from a
minimum of five transects regardless of the total length of the project. At least 6 samples are to
be taken landward of the mean low water line to the dune and 6 samples seaward of mean low
water to the depth of closure. One sample is also required from the mean low water line for 13
samples per transect. The rule also sets forth guidelines to ensure the sediment characteristics of
material placed on the recipient beach are compatible with the native sediment. Essentially, the
rule states:
The average percentage by weight of fine-grained sediment (less than 0.0625 mm) in each
borrow site shall not exceed the average percentage by weight of fine-grained sediment of the
recipient beach characterization plus five (5) percent.
The percentage by weight of granular sediment (greater than or equal to 2 mm and less than
4.76 mm) in each borrow site shall not exceed the average percentage by weight of coarse-
grained sediment of the recipient beach characterization plus five (5) percent.
The percentage by weight of gravel (greater than or equal to 4.76 mm) in a borrow site shall
not exceed the average percentage by weight of gravel-sized sediment for the recipient beach
characterization plus five (5) percent.
The average percentage by weight of calcium carbonate in a borrow site shall not exceed the
average percentage by weight of calcium carbonate of the recipient beach characterization
plus 15 percent
.
In 1996, the USACE collected and analyzed samples of the native beach material from the Kill
Devil Hills shoreline for the federal Dare County Beaches project. Four of the profiles sampled
(stations 160+00, 210+00, 260+00 and 320+00) fell within the limits of the proposed Kill Devil
Hills project. Since the State Sediment Criteria requires samples from a minimum of five
transects, CPE-NC collected and analyzed samples from transect 240+00 in September 2013. In
addition, the location of the samples collected by the USACE did not meet the sampling
requirements of the State Sediment Criteria necessitating the collection and analysis of three
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
23

additional samples from each of the four transects previously sampled by the USACE. Collection
and analysis of the additional samples of the native beach material was accomplished in
September 2013 by CPE-NC with a summary of the characteristics of the native material derived
from the two sampling operations provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Characteristics of the Kill Devil Hills native beach material.
Mean Grain
% Carbonate % Granular % Gravel % Silt
Size (mm)
State Standard Allowance Native +15 Native + 5 Native +5 Native + 5
Kill Devil Hills Native
0.39 3.0 6.76 1.92 1.13
Beach
State Standard Cutoff 18.0 11.76 5.92 6.13
3.1.3BorrowAreaSandQualityandComposition
Four offshore borrow areas were investigated as potential sand sources for this project - one
within state waters, two within federal waters, and one that straddles the state/federal border. The
primary investigation areas included Area A, B, C and S1-4. Because the sediment in these
offshore areas are not part of the active littoral system, the sediment may be differ from the
beach in terms of size and composition. Using material for beach nourishment that differs
significantly from the recipient beach can affect project performance and the natural and human
environment. In order to identify and characterize sand source material, CPE-NC used a
systematic approach to marine sand searches developed by Finkl, Khalil and Andrews (1997),
Finkl,Andrews and Benedet (2003), Finkl, Benedet andAndrews (2005), and Finkl and Khalil
(2005). CPE-NC divided the investigation into three (3) sequential phases. These included a
comprehensive review of the recipient beach/project area and sediment resources offshore of the
project area; a reconnaissance level geotechnical (washbores) and geophysical (sub-bottom
profiler, sidescan sonar, bathymetry and magnetometer) survey; and design level geotechnical
(vibracores) and geophysical (sub-bottom profiler, sidescan sonar, bathymetry, and
magnetometer) investigations and borrow area design. These investigations were conducted to
evaluate the four target areas and ultimately delineate the borrow areas presented in the
following section.
3.1.3.1OffshoreBorrowAreas
There are potential areas of beach compatible sand located further offshore than borrow area S1-
4, and closer to the proposed project location. These areas are located more than three miles
offshore, and are therefore within federal waters managed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM). These areas, referred to as area A, B, and C, were investigated by CPE-
NC geologists in 2013 and 2014. A reconnaissance washbore survey was conducted in
September 2013, which confirmed that the quality of the material within area A and B warranted
further investigations. Based on the results of the washbore survey and the similar morpho-
sedimentary characteristics of Area C, this third area was also targeted for further investigation.
During the geophysical survey conducted in June 2014, additional geophysical (sub-bottom
profile, sidescan, magnetometer and bathymetric) data were collected further suggesting that the
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
24

material within these areas warranted vibracore investigations. During the preliminary
geotechnical (vibracore) investigations conducted in July/August 2014, CPE-NC geologists
determined that the material contained in Area B did not appear to be of as high a quality and in
sufficient volume to warrant design level surveys. However, areas within Area A and C were
identified and additional vibracores were collected to support borrow area design. A cultural
resource/design survey is currently planned for October 2014, which will result in final
delineation of borrow areas A and C. Preliminary designs are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
The sediment characteristics suggest that the material within borrow areas A and C meets or
exceeds the State Sediment Criteria (Table 5).
Table 5Sediment characteristics of the offshore borrow area within BOEM jurisdiction.
.
Parameter Borrow Area A Borrow Area C
Mean Grain Size (mm)
0.36 0.27
Sorting (Phi)
0.90 1.09
Silt (%) (<0.0625mm)
0.83 1.59
Granular (%) (2mm < and <
1.48 2.05
4.76mm)
Gravel (%) (>4.76mm) 0.52 1.07
3.2LittoralProcesses
Kill Devil Hills is subject to littoral processes typical of the barrier islands that line the North
Carolina coast, referred to as the Outer Banks. The islands are subject to winds, rising sea levels
and strong storms that gradually push sand from the ocean side of the islands to the land side.
The Project Area includes the intertidal and subtidal unconsolidated bottoms, as well as the
offshore sand shoals within the borrow areas. Coastal salinity is maintained at approximately 35
ppt year round and water temperatures range from 49ºF in January to 80ºF in August. This
coastline experiences semi-diurnal tides with an average tidal range of approximately 3 ft. Net
water movement is from north to the south via a longshore current that veers toward the
southeast in the summer and toward the southwest in the winter (Inman and Dolan, 1989).
3.2.1Waves
The predominant wave direction is from the south to southeast in the spring and summer and
from the north to northeast in the fall and winter. Annually, the wave heights typically range
from 1.6 to 4.9 ft., with a mean wave height of about 3.3 ft. (USACE, 2006). Highest waves are
generally associated with tropical storms and may occur in phase with hurricane surges.
According to the USACE (2006), this area can experience waves in excess of 15 ft. during
tropical storms, although they occur sporadically. Figure 9 presents a wave rose from Wave
Information System (WIS) station 63221 located offshore and in the vicinity of Duck in 17m
depth. Examination of hindcast data shows the majority of waves higher than 0.5 m come from
the northeast and the east northeast.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
25

Figure 9. Wave rose from Wave Information System (WIS) 63221 (1980-
1999) located offshore of the Project Area (USACE, 2010b)
3.2.2Storms
Although not available for Kill Devil Hills, historical storm data for nearby Elizabeth City
(approximately 37 miles northwest of Kill Devil Hills) show the area is brushed or hit by a
tropical system every 2.37 years. This area is directly hit by a hurricane (experiences hurricane
force winds for at least a few hours) once every 14.2 years, and is most likely to be hit in late
August to early September. In the past 142 years, Elizabeth City was hit by a tropical system 60
times. Of these storms, 39 (65%) were tropical storms and 21 (35%) were hurricanes
(hurricanecity.com, 2014). Nor’easters, or strong areas of low pressure that tend to form off the
east coast, tend to influence the coastline of the Outer Banks more frequently than hurricanes and
tropical storms. Nor’easters can cause severe coastal flooding, coastal erosion, hurricane force
winds or blizzard conditions; these conditions are usually accompanied with very heavy rain or
snow, depending on when the storm occurs.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
26

3.2.3Erosion
Coastal erosion as a whole is the wearing away of land or the removal of beach and dune
sediments by wave action, tidal currents, wave currents or drainage. Waves and wind generated
by storms, contribute to coastal erosion. Erosion may take the form of long-term losses of
sediment and rocks or merely the temporary redistribution of coastal sediments whereby erosion
in one location may result in accretion elsewhere, as the sand is veritably "moved" from one
stretch of beach to another. Wave action can be either constructive or destructive. While
constructive wave action aids in building up the beach by leaving deposits of sand, alternatively
destructive wave action may remove more sand than is deposited. An imbalance of the latter
results in an eroded beach and the aforementioned oceanographic and littoral variables contribute
to this occurring.
3.2.4SeaLevelRise
According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2013), the long-term global
mean sea level trend estimate from 1901 to 2010 is 1.7 mm/year, for a total sea level rise of 0.19
st
m. The latest IPCC report states that global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21
century, and climate models predict that rates of sea level rise will increase due to increased
ocean warming and melting glaciers and ice sheets (IPCC, 2013). Therefore, the impacts of
changing sea levels to coastal and estuarine zones must be considered in Civil Works programs.
On October 1, 2011, the USACE distributed an Engineering Circular (EC) setting parameters for
the inclusion of the effects of projected sea level rise for all phases of USACE coastal projects.
This consideration includes the planning, engineering, design, construction, operation and
maintenance phases (EC 1165-2-212). Because projects are implemented at a local or regional
scale, it is important to distinguish between global mean sea level (GMSL) and local mean sea
level (MSL). According to the USACE (1996), global mean sea level (GMSL) change is defined
as a global change of oceanic water level. Local mean sea level (MSL) changes result from the
collective effects of GMSL and regional changes, such as local land elevation changes. Local
mean sea level trends can be estimated using historical tidal gauge records. The National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has maintained a tide observation
station at Duck, North Carolina called Tide Station 8651370 since 1977 (NOAA, 2013b). This
station presently is in working order and continues to collect tide data. This tide station is located
approximately 12.6 miles to the north of Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina. The mean sea level
trend for Duck is estimated at 4.59 mm/year, based on monthly mean tidal data recorded by Tide
Station 8651370 from 1978 to 2011 (NOAA, 2013b).
4AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT
4.1WaterQuality
The waters of the Atlantic Ocean contiguous to that portion of Pasquotank River Basin that
extends from the North Carolina-Virginia State Line to the northeast tip of Ocracoke Island are
classified as SB by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Resources. Class SB waters are tidal salt waters protected for all SC uses in
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
27

addition to primary recreation. Primary recreational activities include swimming, skin diving,
water skiing and similar uses involving human body contact with water where such activities
take place in an organized manner or on a frequent basis. Class SC waters are all tidal salt waters
protected for secondary recreation such as fishing, boating and other activities involving minimal
skin contact; fish and noncommercial shellfish consumption; aquatic life propagation and
survival; and wildlife.
The North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Marine Fisheries
maintains water quality sampling sites throughout the state. Two stations near the project area
within Kill Devil Hills indicate good water quality levels, with enterococci levels within the EPA
standards for swimming (Figure 10).
Water quality can be measured by a number of different methods that quantify re-suspended
sediments and the related effects of turbidity, light attenuation and water chemistry. Turbidity,
expressed in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU), quantitatively measures the clarity of water,
taking into account the scattering and absorption of light by suspended particles. The two
reported major sources of turbidity in coastal areas are very fine organic particulate matter and
sand sized sediments that are re-suspended around the seabed by local waves and currents
(Dompe, 1993). Total Suspended Solids (TSS) are solids that are present anywhere in the water
column. TSS can include a wide variety of material, such as silt, decaying plant and animal
matter, industrial wastes and sewage. Currently, there are no standards associated with TSS in
North Carolina.
The inshore zone along Kill Devil Hills has free circulation of oceanic waters with little direct
input of fine-grained material from inlets or estuaries. The surf zone is devoid of fines because of
relatively high, wave-energy characteristics of the beach environment. The combination of low
amounts of fine-grained sediments and frequent, high-wave energy off the Kill Devil Hills coast
tends to inhibit the accumulation of silts and clays. Low concentrations of fine-grained material
tend to minimize the potential for pollutants to adsorb on particles and become concentrated
within the proposed project area.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
28

Water
Figure 10. quality sampling stations in proximity to the Permit Area in
Kill Devil Hills. Green indicates no alert/advisory, meaning the enterococci levels
are within the EPA standards for swimming.
4.2AirQuality
Ambient air quality standards are based on six common pollutants: particulate matter less than
2.5 m (PM-2.5); particulate matter 2.5 to 10 m (PM-10); carbon monoxide (CO); ozone (O3);
sulfur dioxide (SO2); nitrogen dioxide (NO2); and lead (Pb). According to the EPA, a
geographic area that meets or is within the national ambient air quality standard is deemed an
“attainment area”; an area that doesn't meet this standard is called a nonattainment area. Dare
County as a whole is designated as an attainment area (USEPA, 2014).
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
29

4.3Noise
Noise levels in the proposed project area are relatively low. No commercial or industrial
activities exists within the proposed project area, the residential nature of the shoreline in Kill
Devil Hills generally equates to low ambient noise. Increases of the ambient noise levels in Kill
Devil Hills tend to originate from public use, such as recreational activity and traffic along
Virginia Dare Trail. Natural noise levels, such as wind and pounding surf, vary and decibel
levels can increase during storm events.
4.4NaturalSettingandWildlife
Natural habitats and significant resources found within the Permit Area include the dry beach,
dunes and foredunes. Other natural habitats, including marine intertidal and subtidal zones, and
offshore sand shoals, are designated as Essential Fish Habitat and are discussed in Section 4.5
below.
4.4.1BeachandDune
Dunes are vegetated mounds of
unconsolidated sediments that lie
landward of the active beach.
Dune formation occurs when
winds carrying beach sediments
encounter resistance from
vegetation, thereby causing the
wind to deposit this material.
Typically, dunes are comprised
of finer sands, while those in the
berm and beach face are coarser
(Rogers and Nash, 2003). Dunes
are dynamic geologic features
that continually accrete and erode
Figure 11. Beach and dune community at Kill Devil Hills showing sea
from factors such as seasonal
oats and beach grass (photo taken October 2009).
fluctuations in wave height and
storm activity (Rogers and Nash, 2003). Dune vegetation is essential to maintaining dune
structure, and generally consists of hearty plants tolerant of extreme conditions such as sea oats,
beach elder and beach grasses. Dune vegetation typical along the uppermost dry beach of Kill
Devil Hills includes beach spurge (Euphorbia polygonifolia), sea rocket (Cakile edentula) and
pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonariensis). The foredune includes American beach grass (Ammophila
breviligulata), panic grass (Panicum amarum), sea oats (Uniola paniculata), broom straw
(Andropogon virginicus) and salt meadow hay (Spartina patens) (USACE, 2000). The beach and
dune community within the Permit Area is limited in extent due to development and a coastline
that is receding due to storm events and beach erosion (Figure 7) (Leatherman et al., 2000).
Beaches are formed from the deposition and accumulation of material by way of coastal currents
and wave transport. Beaches are constantly evolving and often experience periods of erosion
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
30

during winter by way of rough seas and strong winds. During the calmer spring and summer
months, the beach often experiences accretion. The intertidal zone or wet beach is the area that is
cyclically exposed due to tidal exchange. These habitats are comprised mainly of sandy bottoms
that support many benthic and infaunal organisms, and provide foraging areas for birds and
finfish. The dry beach begins at the berm and slopes gently upwards to the foot of the dune, and
provides habitat for roosting birds and invertebrates such as the ghost crab (Ocypode quadrata).
The exposed environment of North Carolina sandy beaches leads to low diversity, but high
abundance of organisms that can survive in the high-energy environment.
4.5EssentialFishHabitat
4.5.1FisheryManagement
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) of 1976,
amended on October 1996 and also referred to as the Sustainable Fisheries Act, was enacted by
the U.S. Congress to protect marine fish stocks and their habitat, prevent overfishing while
achieving optimal yield and minimize bycatch to the extent practicable. Congress defined
Essential Fish Habitat as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding or growth to maturity”. The MSFCMA requires that EFH be identified for all fish
species federally managed by the Fishery Management Councils (FMC) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Eight FMC were established under the MSFCMA to manage living marine resources within
federal waters and are required to describe and identify EFH designations in their respective
regions. Each of these councils is responsible for developing Fishery Management Plans (FMP)
to achieve specified management goals for fisheries. The FMP includes data, guidelines for
harvest, analyses and management measures for a fishery. Each FMP must describe the affected
fishery, analyze the condition of the fishery, and describe and identify relevant EFH.
In close coordination, both the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC) and the
Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC) manage marine fisheries in the federal
waters off the North Carolina coast. Federal water limits off the North Carolina coast extend
from 3 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles. In addition, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) manages fisheries in the state waters of all 15 Atlantic coast states from
Maine to Florida. The ASMFC manages fish stocks within the state waters of North Carolina
from the coastline to three nautical miles offshore.
The SAFMC is responsible for the conservation and management of fish stocks within the
federal 200-mile limit of the Atlantic off the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia
and east Florida to Key West. The seven states that comprise the MAFMC are New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina (North Carolina is also
on the South Atlantic Council). The MAFMC also works with the ASMFC to manage summer
flounder, scup, black sea bass, bluefish and spiny dogfish. The SAFMC broadly defines EFH
habitats for all of its managed fisheries in a generic management plan amendment that contains
life stage based EFH information for each of the federally managed species. The SAFMC
currently manages eight fisheries that include coastal migratory pelagics, coral and live bottom
habitat, dolphin and wahoo, golden crab, shrimp, snapper grouper, spiny lobster and Sargassum.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
31

Of these eight fisheries, only the snapper grouper complex contains species that are considered
overfished. Both the recreational and commercial snapper grouper fisheries are highly regulated
and progress continues to be made as more species are removed from the overfished list each
year. The other fisheries are expected to continue into the future at productive sustainable levels
(SAFMC, 2014). The areas designated as EFH by the SAFMC and MAFMC are listed in Table
6.
Table 6. Essential Fish Habitat identified in FMP Amendments of the South Atlantic and
Mid-Atlantic FMC’s (NMFS, 2010).
SAFMC MAFMC
Estuarine Areas Estuarine Areas
Estuarine Emergent Wetlands Seagrass
Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Mangroves Creeks
Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks Mud Bottom
Intertidal Flats Estuarine Water Column
Palustrine Emergent and Forested Wetlands
Aquatic Beds
Estuarine Water Column
Marine Areas Marine Areas
Live/Hard Bottoms
Coral and Coral Reefs
Artificial/Manmade Reefs
(None)
Sargassum
Water Column
The MAFMC is responsible for the conservation and management of fish stocks in the federal
waters off the coasts of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and
North Carolina. They have prepared multiple FMPs with amendments to identify EFH for each
life stage (eggs, larvae, juvenile and adults) of its managed fisheries (Table 7). The MAFMC
identifies several broad areas designated as EFH in estuarine and marine environments. The six
FMPs developed by the council are the golden tilefish; summer flounder, scup, black sea bass;
dogfish; surf clam and ocean quahog; Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish; and bluefish
(MAFMC, 2014).
NMFS has also prepared multiple FMPs with amendments to identify EFH within its authority.
Four fisheries (billfish, swordfish, tuna and sharks) are managed under the FMPs of NMFS and
are classified as Highly Migratory Species (HMS). NMFS geographically defines EFH for each
HMS along the Atlantic coast. The defined EFH areas are species-specific and include shallow
coastal waters, offshore waters inside the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), offshore waters
outside the EEZ and inshore waters along the Atlantic coast (NMFS, 2010).
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
32

The North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission (NCMFC) manages commercially and
recreationally significant species of fisheries found in state marine or estuarine environments.
The NCMFC designates Primary Nursery Areas (PNA) that are included as EFH by the SAFMC.
Table 7. EFH for managed species within coastal North Carolina. Not all species within a management unit
have EFH designated; such species have ‘none’ within the life stages column.
Management Plan
Management
Common nameScientific nameEFH life stages
Species group
Agency
rgopecten gibbus
SAFMC Calico Scallop Calico scallopA
A
achcentron canadum
SAFMC CobiaRy E L P J A
Corhaena hiurus
SAFMC Dolphinyppp L P J A
Coastal Migratory Pelagics
Scomberomorus cavalla
SAFMC King mackerel J A
Scomberomorus maculatus
SAFMC Spanish mackerel L J A
SAFMC Coral & Coral Reef Corals100s of speciesFlorida only
Chaceonenneri
SAFMC Golden Crab Golden crabfA
Sciaenops ocellatus
SAFMC Red Drum Red drumE L A
Faranteenaeus aztecus
SAFMC Brown shrimpfp E L A
Faranteenaeus duorarum
SAFMC Pink shrimpfp E L A
Siconia brevirostris
SAFMC Rock shrimpyA
Shrimp
Pleoticus robustus
SAFMC Royal red shrimpA
iloenaeus setierus
SAFMC White shrimpLpf E L A
utanus buccanella
SAFMC Blackfin snapperLjJ, A
Caulolatilus micros
SAFMC Blueline tilefishpE, A
oholatilus chamaeleontices
SAFMC Golden tilefishLpp A
utanusriseus
SAFMC Gray snapperLjgL, A
Serioladumerili
SAFMC Greater amberjackJ, A
Einehelus itaara
SAFMC JewfishppjFlorida only
utanus analis
SAFMC Mutton snapperLjFlorida only
Parusarus
SAFMC Red porgygpgE L J A
utanus camechanus
SAFMC Red snapperLjp L, P, J, A
Snapper Grouper
cteroerca henax
SAFMC ScampMypp A
utanus vivanus
SAFMC SilksnapperLjJ, A
Einehelus niveatus
SAFMC Snowygrouperpp E L A
Einehelus drummondhai
SAFMC Speckled hindppy A
hombolites aurorubens
SAFMC Vermillion snapperRp J, A
Einehelus niritus
SAFMC Warsaw grouperppgE A
Haemulonlumieri
SAFMC White gruntpE, L, A
Polrion americanus
SAFMC Wreckfishyp A
Einehelus lavolimbatus
SAFMC Yellowedgegrouperppf E L A
Panulirus argus
SAFMC Spiny Lobster Spiny Lobster L J A
Peprilus triacanthus
MAFMC Atlantic butterfish
None
Scomber scombrusNone
MAFMC Atlantic Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, mackerel
olioealei
MAFMC LonButterfishg finned squidLgpNone
Illex illecebrosus
MAFMC Short finned squidNone
rtica islandica
MAFMC quahogANone
Ocean
Atlantic Surfclam & Ocean
Sisula solidissima
MAFMC SurfclampNone
Quahog
Pomatomus saltatrix
MAFMC BluefishL J A
Bluefish
Sualus acanthias
MAFMC Spiny dogfishqJ A
SpinyDogfish
Centroristis striata
MAFMC Black sea basspE L J A
Summer Flounder, Scup,
Stenotomus chrsos
MAFMC ScupypE L J A
Black Sea Bass
Paralichthys dentatus
MAFMC Summer flounder L J A
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
33

(Table 7 Continued)
Management Plan
Management
Common nameScientific nameEFH life stages
Species group
Agency
akaira nigricans
NMFS Blue marlinE L J A
M
Tetrapturuspfluegeri
NMFS Longbill spearfish J A
Istiohoruslatterus
NMFS Sailfishppyp E L J A
Tetraturus albidus
NMFS White marlinpJ A
Suatina dumeriliNone
NMFS Atlantic angel sharkq
hizorionodon terraenovae
NMFS Atlantic sharpnose sharkRp J A
Cetorhinos maximusNone
NMFS Basking shark
Carcharhinus altimus
NMFS Big nose shark J
Odontasis noronhaiNone
NMFS Bigeye sand tiger sharkp
Hexanchus vitulusNone
NMFS Bigeye sixgill shark
loias suerciliosus
NMFS Bigeye thresher sharkApp E L P J S A
Carcharhinus acronotus
NMFS Blacknose shark J A
Carcharhinus limbatus
NMFS Blacktip shark J A
Prionacelauca
NMFS Blue sharkgJ S A
Shrna tiburo
NMFS BonnetheadpyJ A
Carcharhinus leucas
NMFS Bull sharkJ
Carcharhinus perezi
NMFS Carribean reef shark Research Area
hizorionodonorosusNone
NMFS Carribean sharpnose sharkRpp
Carcharhinus obscurus
NMFS Dusky shark A
Carcharhinus isodon
NMFS Finetooth sharkE L P J S A
CarcharhinusalaaensisNone
NMFS Galapagos sharkgpg
Shrna mokarran
NMFS Great hammerheadpyJ A
earion brevirostris
NMFS Lemon sharkNgp J A
Isurusaucus
NMFS Longfin mako sharkpE L P J S A
High Migratory Species
Carcharhinus brachurus
NMFS Narrowtooth sharkyNone
Carcharhinus sinatus
NMFS Night sharkg J A
Ginlmostoma cirratum
NMFS Nurse sharkgy J A
Carcharhinus lonimanus
NMFS Oceanic whitetip sharkg J S A
amna nasusNone
NMFS Porbeagle sharkL
Odontasis taurus
NMFS Sand tiger sharkpJ A
Carcharhinuslumbeus
NMFS Sandbar sharkp J A
Shrna lewini
NMFS Scalloped hammerheadpyJ A
Hetranchiaserlo
NMFS Sharpnose sevengill sharkppNone
Isurus oxrinchus
NMFSShortfin mako sharkyE L P J S A
Carcharhinusalciormis
NMFS Silky sharkff J
HexanchusriseusNone
NMFS Sixgill sharkg
CarcharhinusorosusNone
NMFS Smalltail sharkp
Shrna zaenaNone
NMFS Smooth hamerheadpyyg
Carcharhinus breviinna
NMFS Spinner sharkp J A
loias vulinus
NMFS Thresher shark, commonAppNone
Galeocerdo cuvieri
NMFS Tiger sharkJ S A
hincodon tusNone
NMFS Whale sharkRyp
Carcharodon carcharias
NMFS White shark J
ihiasladius
NMFS SwordfishXpgE L J S A
Thunnus alaluna
NMFS AlbacoregA
Thunnus obesus
NMFS Atlantic bigeye tunaJ A
Thunnus albacares
NMFS Atlantic yellowfin tunaE L J S A
atsuwonuselamis
NMFS Skipjack tunaKpE L J S A
Thunnus thnnus
NMFSWestern Atlantic bluefin tunayE L J S A
1.Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation
These Essential Fish Habitat species were compiled from
Mandate forFederal Agencies
. February 1999 (Revised 10/2001) (Appendices 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8). Although 49 species are listed
in Appendix 3 under National Marine Fisheries Service management, only 35 of these species have EFH listed in Appendix 8.
2ELPJSA
. Life stages include: = Eggs,= Larvae, = PostLarvae, = Juveniles, = SubAdults,= Adults
3SAFMC (
. Organizations responsible for Fishery Management Plans include: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council);
MAFMCNMFS
(Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; = National Marine Fisheries Service)
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
34

4.5.2HabitatAreasofParticularConcern
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are subsets of designated EFH and are defined as
rare, particularly susceptible to human-induced degradation, especially ecologically important or
located in an environmentally stressed area. The SAFMC and the MAFMC have designated
HAPC areas to focus conservation priorities on specific habitat areas that play a particularly
important role in the life cycles of federally managed fish species. HAPC may include high value
intertidal and estuarine habitats, offshore areas of high habitat value or vertical relief and habitats
used for migration, spawning and rearing of fish and shellfish (NMFS, 2004).
Areas identified as HAPC by the NMFS and the FMCs in the South Atlantic and North Carolina
are presented in Table 8 below (NMFS, 2010). There are no designated HAPC identified within
the Project Area.
Table 8. Geographically defined HAPC identified in the FMP Amendments affecting the South
Atlantic area (NMFS, 2010).
South Atlantic HAPC Project Area Habitat
Council-Designated Artificial Reef Special
Not Applicable
Management Zones
Hermatypic Coral Habitat and Reefs Not Applicable
Hard bottoms Not Present
Hoyt Hills Not Applicable
Sargassum Habitat Not Applicable
State-Designated Areas of Importance to Managed
Not Applicable
Species
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Not Applicable
North Carolina HAPC Project Area Habitat
Big Rock Not Applicable
Bogue Sound Not Applicable
Pamlico Sound at Hatteras/Ocracoke Inlets Not Applicable
Capes Fear, Lookout & Hatteras (sandy shoals) Not Applicable
New River Not Applicable
The Ten Fathom Ledge Not Applicable
The Point Not Applicable
4.5.3NurseryAreas
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) has designated three categories of
nursery areas, Primary, Secondary and Special Secondary Nursery Areas. Primary Nursery Areas
(PNAs) encompass approximately 80,000 acres throughout North Carolina. PNAs are typically
shallow with soft muddy bottoms and surrounded by marshes and wetlands. They are found in
the upper portions of bays and creeks, where the low salinity and abundance of food is ideal for
young fish and shellfish. To protect juveniles, many commercial fishing activities are prohibited
in these waters. Secondary Nursery Areas (SNAs) are located in the lower portion of bays and
creeks. As juvenile fish and shellfish develop, primarily blue crabs and shrimp, they move into
these waters. Trawling is prohibited in SNAs. Special SNAs are found adjacent to SNAs, but
closer to the open waters of sounds and the ocean. These waters are closed for a majority of the
year when juvenile species are abundant (Deaten et al., 2010). There are no NCDMF designated
PNAs in the proposed Project Area.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
35

4.5.4SignificantNaturalHeritageAreas
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) serves as an information clearinghouse
in support of conservation of the rarest and most outstanding elements of natural diversity in the
state. These elements of natural diversity include plants and animals that are so rare or natural
communities that are so significant that they merit special consideration in land-use decisions.
There are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts to significant natural heritage or managed
areas associated with the proposed Project Area.
4.5.5EssentialFishHabitat
There are no estuarine areas located within the Project Area. There are also no live/hard bottoms,
coral and coral reefs, artificial/manmade reefs or Sargassum essential fish habitat marine areas
located with the Project Area. In the absence of these habitats, discussions on these EFH
resources have been omitted since there are no potential impacts to these EFH categories
expected.
The marine water column will be temporarily affected by an increase in turbidity, and potentially
by a decrease in dissolved oxygen (DO), as a result of dredging in the offshore borrow areas and
by the placement of sand onto the beach. Transient indirect effects to the marine water column,
offshore shoals and managed species are expected due to benthic resources being temporarily
effected by the removal of sediment within the offshore borrow areas and through burial with
sand placement along the oceanfront shoreline. Brief descriptions of the marine water column,
offshore shoals and managed species present within the Project Area are continued below,
followed by discussion of the potential effects to these resources.
4.5.6MarineWaterColumn
The SAFMC and MAFMC designate the marine water column as an EFH. The marine water
column is divided into oceanographic zones that are defined by physical parameters of the water
column such as temperature, salinity, density and others. Three oceanographic zones are defined
for the North Carolina area including outer shelf (131 to 230 ft.), mid-shelf (66 to 131 ft.) and
inner shelf (0 to 66 ft.). These zones are influenced by the Gulf Stream, winds, tides and
freshwater runoff (SAFMC, 1998).
Marine water column environments in proximity to the Project Area include the inner shelf
waters associated with the proposed borrow areas and the surf zone waters associated with the
placement of sand on the oceanfront shorelines of Kill Devil Hills. Managed fish species that
utilize marine water column EFH in North Carolina waters are managed by the ASMFC,
NCDMF, NMFS, SAFMC and MAFMC and are discussed in Section 4.5.1 above.
4.5.7OffshoreShoals
Although not identified as Essential Fish Habitat in the FMP Amendments of the South Atlantic
and Mid-Atlantic FMC’s (Table 8; NMFS, 2010), offshore shoal environments are utilized by
many fish species and NMFS has identified shoal complexes as EFH for Coastal Migratory
Pelagics and Highly Migratory Species (SAFMC, 1998; NMFS, 2009).
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
36

A shoal is a natural, underwater ridge, bank or bar consisting of sedimentary deposits, typically
sand or gravel dominated, with bathymetric relief of three feet or greater and providing
potentially important habitat. The term shoal complex refers to two or more shoals and adjacent
morphologies, such as troughs, that are interconnected by past and or present sedimentary and
hydrographic processes (Normandeau Associates Inc., 2014). In a 2014 study, Thieler et al.
identified that large-scale bedforms are present over broad areas of the inner shelf from 500 m to
approximately 11 km off the coast of the northern Outer Banks, including both the tops of the
shoals and the intervening swales (Thieler et al., 2014). Sorted bedforms are subtle, large-scale
regions of coarse sand with gravel and shell hash that trend obliquely to the coast. They tend to
be fairly low relief, generally with relief at or below 1 m (Normandeau Associates Inc., 2014).
The seafloor in the region exhibits a series of shore-oblique ridges that seismic data indicate are
composed largely of Holocene sand (Thieler et al., 2014). Major shoal features in the area are
located both north and south of the Project Area (Figure 12). More detailed bathymetry of the
borrow areas and shoal features are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
Figure 12. Regional Bathymetry with Potential Borrow Areas and
Major Shoal Features.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
37

4.5.8ManagedSpecies
Managed species that have the marine water column or shoals listed as an EFH and that may be
present in the Project Area include coastal migratory pelagics, highly migratory species; snapper
grouper complex; shrimp; summer flounder, scup and black seabass; red drum; bluefish and
spiny dogfish. The following narratives briefly describe each of these groups or species.
4.5.8.1CoastalMigratoryPelagics
Prior to the 1980's, king and Spanish mackerel catches were essentially unregulated. Introduction
of airplane reconnaissance and large power-assisted gill net vessels in the commercial fishery
took advantage of the schooling nature of the fish and greatly increased catches. Harvests by
both recreational and commercial fishermen in the 1970's and early 1980's exceeded
reproductive capacity and led to overfishing. Federal regulations were implemented in 1983 to
control harvest and rebuild dwindling stocks of king and Spanish mackerel. Different migratory
groups were later managed separately, and quotas, bag limits and trip limits established to
rebuild the mackerel fisheries. Gear regulations included the elimination of drift gill nets in 1990.
Since the implementation of management measures, stocks have been increasing (SAFMC,
2014).
The Coastal Migratory Pelagic (Mackerel) FMP for the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic
regions is a joint management plan between the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
and SAFMC. Beginning in January 2012, in addition to managing separate migratory groups of
king mackerel and Spanish mackerel, the two fishery management councils have added separate
migratory groups of cobia to the FMP.
Essential fish habitat for coastal migratory pelagic species includes sandy shoals of capes and
offshore bars, high profile rocky bottom, barrier island ocean-side waters and waters from the
surf to the shelf break zone, including Sargassum.In addition, all coastal inlets and all state-
designated nursery habitats are of particular importance to coastal migratory pelagics.
3£Ø≠¢•≤Ø≠Ø≤µ≥≠°£µ¨°¥•≥
Spanish mackerel make north and south migrations depending on water temperature, with 68° F
being a preferred minimum. Spanish mackerel can be found from April to November in North
Carolina’s waters, then they migrate south to the Florida coast in the late fall. They may be found
as far inland as the sounds and coastal river mouths in the summer months. Spanish mackerel
spawn from May to September (SAFMC, 1998).
3£Ø≠¢•≤Ø≠Ø≤µ≥£°∂°¨¨°
Similar to Spanish mackerel, water temperature and prey availability trigger inshore and offshore
migrations of king mackerel. In the winter and early spring, king mackerel congregate just inside
the Gulf Stream along the edge of the continental shelf. During the summer and fall, they move
inshore along the beaches and near the mouths of inlets and coastal rivers. King mackerel prefer
water temperatures between 68° F and 78° F (SAFMC, 1998).
2°£®?£•Æ¥≤ØÆ£°Æ°§µ≠
oo
Cobia have a world-wide distribution preferring warm water temperatures from 68 to 86 F.
Cobia are pelagic fish, and typically congregate off North Carolina to spawn in May and June.
However, spawning has been observed in shallow bays and estuaries with the young heading
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
38

offshore after hatching (FLMNH, 2010). Cobia typically migrate south in the fall to over-winter
in warmer waters. EFH for cobia includes, but is not limited to high salinity bays, estuaries,
seagrass habitat, sandy shoals and rocky bottom (SAFMC, 1998).
4.5.8.2HighlyMigratorySpecies
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species are managed under the dual authority of the MSFCMA and
the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Under the MSFCMA, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) must manage fisheries to maintain optimum yield by rebuilding
overfished fisheries and preventing overfishing. Under ATCA, NMFS is authorized to
promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate, to implement the
recommendations from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT). Before this action, tunas, swordfish and sharks were managed under the 1999 FMP for
Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks (and its 2003 amendment) and billfish were managed
under the 1988 Atlantic Billfish FMP (and its 1999 amendment). The 2006 final HMS FMP
combined the management of all Atlantic HMS into one FMP (NMFS, 2006).
In Amendment 1 to the consolidated HMS FMP released in 2009, NMFS updated identification
and descriptions for EFH and revised existing EFH boundaries for Atlantic HMS (NMFS, 2009).
Table 9 identifies the HMS and corresponding life stage for which the marine waters in vicinity
of the project are designated as EFH.
Table 9. HMS and their life stage that have marine waters in vicinity of the Project designated as EFH.
1
TunaLife StageSharksLife Stage
Bluefin (Thunnus thynnus) J Sandbar (Carcharhinus plumbeus) YOY, J, A
Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) J, A Silky (Carcharhinus falciformis) YOY, J, A
Yellowfin (Thunnus albacres) J Spinner (Carcharhinus brevipinna) J, A
BillfishLife Stage Tiger (Galeocerdo cuvieri) YOY, J, A
Sailfish
J Sand Tiger (Carcharias taurus) YOY, J, A
(Istiophorus platypterus)
SharksLife Stage
Angel (Squatina dumerili) J, A
Scalloped Hammerhead (Sphyrna Sharpnose (Rhizoprionodon
J, A A
lewini)terraenovae)
Dusky (Carcharhinu obscurus) YOY, J, A Thresher (Alopias vulpinus) YOY, J, A
1
Young of the Year (YOY), Juvenile (J), Adult (A)
4.5.8.3SnapperGrouperComplex
Ten families of fishes containing 73 species are managed by the SAFMC under the snapper
grouper FMP. Association with coral or hard bottom structure during at least part of their life
cycle and their contribution to an interrelated reef fishery ecosystem is the primary criteria for
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
39

inclusion within the snapper grouper plan. There is considerable variation in specific life history
patterns and habitat use among species included in the snapper grouper complex (SAMFC,
1998).
Essential fish habitat for snapper grouper species includes coral reefs, live/hard bottom,
submerged aquatic vegetation, artificial reefs and medium to high profile outcroppings on and
around the shelf break zone from shore to at least 600 feet where the annual water temperature
range is sufficiently warm to maintain adult populations. EFH includes the spawning area in the
water column above the adult habitat and the additional pelagic environment, including
Sargassum, required for larval survival and growth up to and including settlement. In addition,
the Gulf Stream is an essential fish habitat because it provides a mechanism to disperse snapper
grouper larvae. Essential fish habitat for specific life stages of estuarine dependent and nearshore
snapper grouper species includes areas inshore of the 100-foot contour such as attached
macroalgae; submerged rooted vascular plants; estuarine emergent vegetated wetlands; tidal
creeks; estuarine scrub/shrub; oyster reefs and shell banks; unconsolidated bottom; artificial
reefs; and coral reefs and live/hard bottom.
Given the lack of EFH present near the Project Area and space constraints in this document,
thorough characterizations of this diverse multispecies complex is omitted but may be referenced
in the SAFMC FMP (SAFMC, 1998).
4.5.8.4Shrimp
0•Æ°•µ≥°∫¥•£µ≥0•Æ°•µ≥§µØ≤°≤µ≠
0•Æ°•µ≥≥•¥©¶•≤µ≥
Penaeid shrimp are reported to spawn offshore, moving into estuaries during the post-larval stage
during the early spring. As the shrimp grow larger, they migrate to higher salinity environments.
In late summer and fall, they return to the ocean to spawn (NCDMF, 2006).
For penaeid shrimp, EFH includes inshore estuarine nursery areas, offshore marine habitats used
for spawning and growth to maturity, and all interconnecting water bodies as described in the
Habitat Plan. Inshore nursery areas include tidal freshwater (palustrine); estuarine and marine
emergent wetlands; tidal palustrine forested areas; mangroves; tidal freshwater, estuarine and
marine submerged aquatic vegetation and subtidal and intertidal non-vegetated flats. This applies
from North Carolina through the Florida Keys.
4.5.8.5SummerFlounder,ScupandBlackSeaBass
Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), scup (Stenotomus chrysops) and black sea bass
(Centropristus striata) are managed by the MAFMC. The three species are considered part of an
offshore-wintering guild of fish, a migratory group of warm temperate species that are intolerant
of colder, inshore winter conditions (MAFMC, 2014).
0°≤°¨©£®¥®?≥§•Æ¥°¥µ≥
Adult summer flounder emigrate from North Carolina estuaries beginning in November as water
temperatures decrease and spawning takes place in continental shelf waters (MAFMC, 2014).
Larvae immigrate to the higher salinity areas of estuaries becoming common January through
April. Juveniles are present year-round at salinities between 5 ppt to > 25 ppt (MAFMC, 2014).
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
40

Adult summer flounder are common in estuaries in November and December, but typically not
present January through March as they will have migrated to warmer offshore waters to over-
winter. Juveniles are abundant year-round in estuarine waters from 5 ppt to >25 ppt salinity.
From January to April larval summer flounder are rare at lower salinities (5 ppt to 25 ppt),
becoming common at salinities > 25 ppt (MAFMC, 2014). This stage (larval) of the life cycle is
reported as most abundant in nearshore waters (12 – 50 miles offshore) at depths between 30 and
230 feet from November to May in the southern part of the Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAFMC, 2014).
EFH for summer flounder has been identified as shelf waters and estuaries from Albemarle
Sound, North Carolina through to St. Andrew/Simon Sounds, Georgia for the larval, juvenile and
adults stages (MAFMC, 2014).
3¥•ÆØ¥Ø≠µ≥£®≤?≥Ø∞≥
Scup are a schooling continental shelf species of the Northwest Atlantic that undertake extensive
migrations between coastal waters and offshore waters. Spawning occurs from May through
August, peaking in June. Scup spawn once annually over weedy or sand-covered areas. Juvenile
and adult scup are demersal, using inshore waters in the spring and moving offshore in the
winter. About 50% of age-2 scup are sexually mature (at about 17 cm total length, or 7 inches),
while nearly all scup of age 3 and older are mature. Adult scup are benthic feeders and forage on
a variety of prey, including small crustaceans (including zooplankton), polychaetes, mollusks,
small squid, vegetable detritus, insect larvae, hydroids, sand dollars, and small fish. The
Northeast Fisheries Science Center food habits database lists several shark species, skates, silver
hake, bluefish, summer flounder, black sea bass, weakfish, lizardfish, king mackerel and
goosefish as predators of scup (MAFMC, 2014). Essential Fish Habitat for scup includes
demersal waters, sands, mud, mussel beds and seagrass beds, from the Gulf of Maine through
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.
#•Æ¥≤Ø∞≤©≥¥µ≥≥¥≤©°¥°
The northern population of black sea bass spawns in the Middle Atlantic Bight over the
continental shelf during the spring through fall, primarily between Virginia and Cape Cod,
Massachusetts. Spawning begins in the spring off North Carolina and Virginia, and progresses
north into southern New England waters in the summer and fall. Collections of ripe fish and egg
distributions indicate that the species spawns primarily on the inner continental shelf between
Chesapeake Bay and Montauk Pt., Long Island. Adult black sea bass are also very structure
oriented, especially during their summer coastal residency. Unlike juveniles, they tend to enter
only larger estuaries and are most abundant along the coast. A variety of coastal structures are
known to be attractive to black sea bass, including shipwrecks, rocky and artificial reefs, mussel
beds and any other object or source of shelter on the bottom. Essential Fish Habitat for black sea
bass consists of pelagic waters, structured habitat, rough bottom shellfish, and sand and shell,
from the Gulf of Maine through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (MAFMC, 2014).
4.5.8.6RedDrum
Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) are managed solely by the ASFMC through Amendment 2 to the
Interstate FMP (ASFMC, 2014). Red drum populations along the Atlantic coast are managed
through the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act).
Unlike the MSFCMA that addresses fishery management by federal agencies, the Atlantic
Coastal Act does not require the ASFMC to identify habitats that warrant special protection
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
41

because of their value to fishery species. Nonetheless, the ASFMC identifies habitats used by the
various life stages of red drum for management and protection purposes (ASFMC, 2013).
Red drum occur in a variety of habitats distributed from Massachusetts to Key West, Florida on
the Atlantic coast. Spawning occurs at night in the fall (August through October) along ocean
beaches and near inlets and passes and in high salinity estuaries with optimal temperatures being
oo
between 72 to 86 F (SAFMC, 1998; ASMFC, 2013). In North Carolina, spawning adults were
reported to be common in salinities above 25 ppt (ASMFC, 2013). Juveniles are reported to
prefer shallow shorelines of bays and rivers and shallow grass flats in the sounds (SAFMC,
1998).
Adult red drum migrate seasonally along the Atlantic coast. Reports from fishermen and
menhaden spotter pilots indicate that red drum typically arrive at Cape Hatteras, North Carolina
between March and April, some entering Pamlico Sound and others proceeding up the coast.
They are expected about a week later at Oregon Inlet and three weeks to a month later in
Virginia. Red drum leave Virginia in most years by October and North Carolina by November
(SAMFC, 1998).
The SAFMC recognizes several habitats as EFH for red drum from Virginia to Florida. In North
Carolina, these natural communities include tidal freshwater, estuarine emergent vegetated
wetlands, submerged rooted vascular plants, oyster reefs and shell banks, unconsolidated bottom,
ocean high salinity surf zones, and artificial reefs. Of the designated EFH, HAPC have been
recognized for red drum by the SAFMC. Areas that meet the criteria for HAPC in North
Carolina include all coastal inlets, all state-designated nursery habitats of particular importance
to red drum, documented sites of spawning aggregations, other spawning areas identified in the
future, and areas supporting submerged aquatic vegetation (NCDMF, 2008b).
4.5.8.7Bluefish
Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) are managed by the NMFS as a single stock under a joint FMP
collaboratively developed by the MAFMC and the ASMFC and implemented in 1990. Bluefish
are considered warm water migrants, preferring waters above 57° to 61° F (Shepherd and Packer,
2006). Generally, juvenile bluefish occur in North Atlantic estuaries from June through October,
Mid-Atlantic estuaries from May through October, and South Atlantic estuaries March through
December, within the "mixing" and "seawater" zones. Adult bluefish are found in North Atlantic
estuaries from June through October, Mid-Atlantic estuaries from April through October, and in
South Atlantic estuaries from May through January in the "mixing" and "seawater" zones.
Bluefish adults are highly migratory and distribution varies seasonally and according to the size
of the individuals comprising the schools. Juveniles utilize estuaries as nursery areas and then
emigrate to warmer offshore waters when temperatures approach 59° F (Shepherd and Packer,
2006). Bluefish can tolerate temperatures of 53.2° to 86.7° F, but exhibit signs of stress at both
extremes. They can survive temporarily in waters of 45.5° F but juveniles cannot survive below
50° F (Lund and Maltezos, 1970).
Bluefish EFH has been designated for marine areas north of Cape Hatteras based on life stage.
Based on the maps provided in Amendment 1 to the Bluefish FMP (MAFMC, 2014), EFH for all
life stages of bluefish exists within or in proximity to the Project Area, with an emphasis on
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
42

young of the year (YOY) and adult bluefish surveys showing the most dense coverage near the
Project Area.
4.5.8.8SpinyDogfish
In North Carolina, the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) is currently included in the
Interjurisdictional FMP, which defers to ASMFC/MAFMC/NEFMC FMP compliance
requirements. It is managed jointly under the MAFMC and the North East Fisheries Management
Council (NEFMC) FMPs (NCDMF, 2008a).
The spiny dogfish is a long-lived species with an estimated life expectancy of 25 to 100 years
and is reported to be one of most abundant sharks in the world. Spiny dogfish are found in
oceans and coastal zones, are rarely found in the upper reaches of estuaries and do not occur in
fresh water. Generally, spiny dogfish are found at depths of 33 to 1475 ft. in water temperatures
oo
ranging between 37 and 82F. The preferred temperature range is 45° to 55° F. Spiny dogfish
migrate seasonally, moving north in the spring and summer and south in fall and winter
(MAFMC, 2014). They are most common in shelf waters in North Carolina from November
through April, at which time they begin their northward migration toward Newfoundland and
Labrador. Pregnant females and pups are present from February through June in North Carolina
waters, with the preferred pupping area located around the Cape Hatteras shoals (MAFMC,
2014).
North of Cape Hatteras, EFH is the waters of the continental shelf from the Gulf of Maine
through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina in areas that encompass the highest 90% of all ranked
ten-minute squares for the area where adult dogfish were collected in the NEFSC trawl surveys.
Based on figures within the Spiny Dogfish FMP (MAFMC, 2014), this includes marine water
located within the Project Area.
4.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies
The species under consideration within this biological assessment were identified from updated
lists of threatened and endangered (T&E) species provided by the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (UFWS) (NMFS, 2014e; USFWS,
2014). These lists were combined to develop the following composite list of T&E species that
could be present in the project area based upon their geographic range. However, the actual
occurrence of a species in the project area would depend upon the availability of suitable habitat,
the seasonality of occurrence, migratory habits and other factors.
Table 10 provides a list of these T&E species that may be found in the various habitats within the
Project Area. The Project Area is defined by the stretch of shoreline within Kill Devil Hills
receiving beach nourishment, the borrow areas under consideration and the pipeline corridors to
be used in association with cutterhead pipeline operations and hopper dredge pump out
operations. Any potential impacts on federally listed T&E species would be limited to those
species that occur in habitats encompassed by the Project Area. Therefore, the proposed work
will not affect any listed species that generally reside in freshwater, forested habitats or savannas.

&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
43

Table 10. Federally threatened, endangered or proposed listed species that may occur in the Project Area.
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Mammals
West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered
North Atlantic Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis Endangered
Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis Endangered
Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus Endangered
Finback Whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered
Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered
Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered
Reptiles
Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered
Hawksbill Sea Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered
Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered
1
Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta Threatened-NWA DPS
Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Endangered
Fish
Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered
3
Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus Endangered–Carolina DPS
Vascular Plants
Seabeach Amaranth Amaranthus pumilus Threatened
Birds
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened
Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii dougallii Endangered
Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa Proposed Threatened
Critical Habitat
Piping plover Unit NC-11Designated
Loggerhead Unit Designated
Loggerhead Unit Designated
¹There are nine distinct population segments of the loggerhead sea turtle listed as either threatened or endangered.
The Northwest Atlantic Ocean (NWA) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) was listed as Threatened (76 FR 58868).
2
Green sea turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding populations of green turtles in Florida and on the
Pacific Coast of Mexico, which are listed as endangered.
³NMFS listed two Atlantic sturgeon DPSs that spawn in the southeast (the Carolina and the South Atlantic) (77 FR
5919). There are an additional three Atlantic sturgeon DPSs in the northeast that spawn in the northeast (the Gulf of
Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake) (77 FR 5880). Depending on the project area, a combination of DPSs
may be present, particularly in marine waters. Please see Federal Register Notices for additional information.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
44

4.6.1SpeciesBiology
4.6.1.1WestIndianManatee
The West Indian manatee is listed as a federally protected species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). An adult manatee
is, on average, 10 ft (3 m) long, weighs approximately 2,200 lbs. and is typically referred to as
the "sea cow." The coloring of the manatee is grayish brown, which contributes to the difficulty
in detecting manatees in silt-laden waters. This mammal can be found in shallow waters (5-20 ft
\[1.5-6.1 m\]) of varying salinity levels including coastal bays, lagoons, estuaries and inland river
systems. Manatees primarily feed on aquatic vegetation, but can be found feeding on fish,
consuming between four and nine percent of their body weight in a single day (Schwartz, 1995;
USFWS, 2014f). Sheltered areas such as bays, sounds, coves and canals are important areas for
resting, feeding and reproductive activities (Humphrey, 1992).
The West Indian manatee occupies the coastal, estuarine and some riverine habitats along the
western Atlantic Ocean from Virginia to the Florida Keys, in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean
Islands, Mexico, Central America and northern South America (Garcia-Rodriguez et al., 1998;
USFWS, 2014g). The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) includes two subspecies, the
Florida manatee (T. m. latirostris) and the Antillean manatee (T. m. manatus). Within U.S.
waters, the Florida manatee can be found throughout the southeastern U.S., including North
Carolina, while the Antillean manatee is found in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (Lefebvre et
al.,2001). As the Antillean manatee does not occur within the southeastern U.S., this biological
assessment will only evaluate the Florida manatee population.
No statistically robust estimate of population size is currently available for manatees (USFWS,
2014g). The current, best available information includes FWC’s 2011 counts, and suggests a
minimum population size of 4,834 individuals in the Florida stock (Laist et al., 2013).
Occurrence throughout the southeastern U.S. changes seasonally, as the manatees seek out
warmer water temperatures. During the winter months (October through April), the entire U.S.
population typically moves to the waters surrounding Florida (Humphrey, 1992).
The greatest threat and cause of mortality for manatees is boat collisions. Other dangers to the
species include entanglement in fishing lines, entrapment and entanglement in locks, dams and
culverts, loss of warm-water refuge areas, and exposure to cold. Long-term and cumulative
impacts are associated with a loss of aquatic vegetated habitat and blocking of estuarine and
riverine systems (Runge et al., 2007).
Sightings and stranding data suggest the Florida manatee regularly occurs within inland and
coastal waters of North Carolina, and they have been sighted most frequently from June through
October when water temperatures are warmest (above 71.6ºF \[22ºC\]) (USFWS, 2003a; USFWS,
2014f). Manatees may also overwinter in North Carolina where the discharge from power plants
supports the warm water temperatures (USFWS, 2008). The USFWS has reported manatee
sightings in the last 20 years in the counties of Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret,
Chowan, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender,
Perquimans, Pitt, Tyrrell and Washington. Cummings et al. (2014) documented 99 manatee
sightings in North Carolina from 1991 to 2012, with 30 manatee sightings occurring in 2012.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
45

Manatees arrived in North Carolina in April, and sightings were most common from June to
October, when water temperatures were above 20°C (68°F). Sightings declined with water
temperature in November, and manatees appeared to absent from the region from December
through February (Cummings et al., 2014). Within northeastern North Carolina, sightings have
increased since 2011, which may be due to greater awareness and improved survey efforts
(Cummings et al., 2014). The greatest number of manatee sightings occurred within the
Intracoastal Waterway, sounds and bays, and rivers and creeks. Manatees were least commonly
sighted in the open ocean and around marinas. The number of manatees potentially occurring in
the Project Area is not known, but is presumed to be low with the greatest likelihood of
occurrence during the warmer months, in particular June through October.
4.6.1.2Whales
All whales are protected under the MMPA and are under NMFS jurisdiction. There are six
species of whales also listed as endangered under the ESA that are known to occur in the
Western North Atlantic. These species include the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin
whale (B. physalus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae, North Atlantic right whale
)
(Eubalaena glacialis, sei whale (B. borealis) and sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). The
)
blue, sei and sperm whales are considered oceanic whales and rarely venture into the shelf waters
offshore North Carolina (Kenny and Winn, 1987; NMFS, 1998a). Therefore, these species are
considered unlikely to occur within the Project Area and will not be evaluated further in this
biological assessment.
The major threats to the whale species discussed below are largely the same and include
entanglement in fishing gear and ship collisions. The commercial hunting of whales is illegal in
U.S. waters, and therefore this threat has been vastly minimized. However, ship collisions remain
a significant threat to these species. For the period 1993-1997, the total estimated human-caused
mortality and serious injury to whales from fishery interactions and vessel collisions is estimated
at 4.4 per year (NMFS, 2003). According to the large whale ship strike database, of the 292
records of confirmed or possible ship strikes to large whales, 44 records (15%) were of
humpback whales, the second most often reported species next to fin whales (75 records or 26%)
(Jensen and Silber, 2004). Of the five (5) documented ship strikes resulting in serious injury or
mortality for North Atlantic humpback whales from January 1997-December 2001, three (3)
were located in North Carolina and South Carolina waters. Collisions with vessels is consistently
identified as one of the most severe threats affecting recovery of the North Atlantic right whale
(Krauset al. 2005; Waring et al. 2014). Though the total level of human-caused mortality and
serious injury is unknown, current data indicate that it is significant,The annual rate of human-
caused mortality and serious injury due to ship strikes for the period from 2007 to 2011 was 0.8
reportedly whales per year, which exceeds the rate of potential biological removal (Waring et al.,
2014)). Historical and continued commercial harvesting pose an additional threat to fin,
humpback and North Atlantic right whales, as does overfishing of prey species, habitat
degradation, climate and ecosystem change and disturbance from marine noise and whale
watching activities.
Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) were listed as endangered throughout their range on
December 2, 1970 under the ESA and are considered “depleted” under the MMPA. There are
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
46

two subspecies of fin whales, one in the North Atlantic and one in the southern ocean. The
present assessment will focus only on the North Atlantic subspecies B.p. physalus. Fin whales
are the second largest whale species, reaching sizes of 75-85 ft. They have a sleek, streamlined
body with a distinctive falcate dorsal fin positioned two-thirds of the way back on the body.
Coloration is counter shaded, with the upper part of the body black or brownish grey, and a white
underbelly.
The fin whale is extensively distributed throughout the North Atlantic, from the Gulf of Mexico
and the Mediterranean north to the arctic pack ice. Although not well defined, migration patterns
are thought to follow a “southward flow” in the fall from Newfoundland to the calving grounds
in the West Indies (Clark, 1995). Fin whales fast in the winter during migrations and feed in the
summer and fall on krill and small schooling fish. These whales can be found in social groups of
a small number of fin whales or feeding in large groups that include other whales and dolphins
(NMFS, 2014b). Feeding areas are generally thought to occur offshore and north of New
England but fin whales have been seen feeding as far south as the coast of Virginia (Hain et al.,
1992). Off the eastern United States, sightings are common along the 200-m isobaths, but
sightings have occurred within both shallower and deeper waters, including submarine canyons
along the shelf break (Kenney and Winn, 1987; Hain et al., 1992). Hain et al. (1992) analyzed
fin whale distribution from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to approximately Nova Scotia,
Canada, within continental shelf waters from the shoreline to 5 nm seaward of the 1,000 fathom
isobath. Results indicated frequent and wide-ranging distribution over shelf waters, with a
predominance of sightings (65%) in the 21-100 m range. While sightings were reported in depths
less than 21 m, the nearshore areas of North Carolina were among the few areas identified as
“rarely or never occupied by fin whales”. However, recent sightings data in OBIS-SEAMAP
show several fin whale occurrences within North Carolina shelf waters (Halpin et al., 2009), a
number of which were in the vicinity of Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills, less than 5 miles from
shore at approximately 20 m depth (McLellan, 2001; UNCW, 2006). These nearshore sightings
occurred in February..
Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae were listed as endangered throughout their range
)
on December 2, 1970 under the ESA and are considered “depleted” under the MMPA.
Humpbacks are circumglobal, and are often found in protected waters over shallow banks and
shelf waters for breeding and feeding. The humpback is a medium-sized baleen whale, reaching
as much as 51 feet and 34 metric tons at maturity. The body is short and rotund, and is
accentuated by exceptionally long flippers. As a baleen whale, major prey species for humpbacks
include small schooling fishes (herring, sand lance, capelin, mackerel, small pollock and
haddock) and large zooplankton, mainly krill (up to 1.5 tons per day) (NMFS, 2014c).
Distinguishing behaviors including breaching displays, slapping the water surface with flukes or
flippers, bubble feeding. Humpacks are also known for their varied and rich vocabulary of
sounds, or “songs”. Both males and females reach sexual maturity around 9 years of age, and the
females generally give birth approximately every two year (Johnson and Wolman, 1984). During
spring, summer and fall, feeding grounds for the Gulf of Maine population of humpback whales
(Megaptera novaeangliae) extend from the eastern coast of the U.S. to the Gulf of St. Lawrence,
Newfoundland/Labrador and western Greenland. During the winter, this population migrates
from the North Atlantic down to the West Indies to mate and calf (NMFS, 2014c), passing the
North Carolina coastline while en-route. It is thought that most adult and newborn humpbacks
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
47

migrate well offshore in deep waters (NMFS, 1991), and are on breeding grounds from January
to April (Katona and Beard, 1990; Whitehead, 1992). However not all whales migrate to the
West Indies during winter. Sighting and stranding reports suggest that sexually immature whales
migrate to Mid-Atlantic States to feed during the winter, and they may utilize the nearshore
waters as feeding grounds (Swingle et al., 1993; Wiley et al. 1995). Swingle et al. (1993)
documented juvenile humpback whales feeding within 4 km of shore near Chesapeake Bay
during the period of January through March 1991, and feeding behavior was observed in shallow
water (2.5–6 m). Analysis of stranding data from 1985 – 1992 from New Jersey to southern
Florida also suggests presence of juvenile whales during much of the year (Wiley et al., 1995).
Strandings occurred with greatest frequency in April, and the highest number of strandings
occurred within the area from the Chesapeake Bay to Cape Hatteras. Strandings occurred
throughout the fall (October – December), winter (January – March) and spring (April – June)
seasons, but few occurred during the summer (July – September). For all years, no strandings
occurred within July and August (Wiley et al., 1995).
More recently, sightings and stranding data queried from OBIS-SEAMAP indicate a number of
humpbacks have been recorded within the area from Corolla to Nags Head, North Carolina
(Halpin et al., 2009). Specifically, during the University of North Carolina Wilmington Right
Whale surveys flown November 2005 and February 2006 a total of ten sightings were noted in
this area . These surveys were flown in parallel lines from the South Carolina/North Carolina
border to the south end of Assateague Island, Virginia from October 2005 and April 2006. One
of these humpback sightings occurred directly off Kitty Hawk, and a group of three humpbacks
were sighted directly off Kill Devil Hills in February 2006 (UNCW, 2006). Additionally, one
stranding occurred on December 21, 2007 (Virginia Aquarium Stranding Response Program,
2008).
North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis were listed as endangered throughout their
)
range on December 2, 1970 under the ESA and are considered “depleted” under the MMPA.
These large baleen whales have a stocky body, and can reach up to 70 tons in weight and 50 feet
in length at maturity. North Atlantic right have black coloration, no dorsal fin, and a large head
that is often covered with callosities. Two large plates of baleen hang from the upper jaw, and
are used to strain zooplankton from the water. North Atlantic right whales may live up to 50
years in age, and females generally birth their first calf at 10 years of age (NMFS, 2013e). The
North Atlantic right whale population ranges primarily from calving and nursing grounds in
coastal waters off the southeastern United States to summer feeding and mating grounds that
include New England waters, the Bay of Fundy, Scotian Shelf and Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Wintering grounds include waters off the southeastern United States where females give birth
from December to March (NMFS, 2013e), as well as Cape Cod Bay (Brown and Marx, 1998).
However, not all reproductively active females return to calving grounds each year (Kraus et al.,
1986), and the whereabouts of much of the population during winter remains unknown (NMFS,
2005). In the spring and summer, right whales migrate to the higher-latitude New England waters
(Hamilton and Mayo, 1990) and Canadian waters during summer and fall (Winn et al., 1986).
Although the mid-Atlantic waters south of Cape Cod and north of the Georgia/Florida wintering
grounds are not considered “high use” areas, they do serve as migration corridors (NMFS,
2013e). Additionally, recent surveys suggest mother/calf pairs may use the area from Cape Fear,
North Carolina to South Carolina as wintering/calving areas as well (NMFS, 2005). According to
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
48

the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, there have been 19 right whale sightings off the coast of
North Carolina from January 1, 2010 to May 2014. It should be noted that each of these sightings
might not indicate a separate individual or group; it may be that the same whale had been spotted
multiple times. Reported sightings occurred during the months of February, March, April and
December (NEFSC, 2014). Additionally, an adult and calf were sighted from the relocation
trawler during the Bogue Banks Phase II Nourishment project on March 30, 2004. The same pair
was also seen the same day from the dredge operating during the Morehead City Project
(USACE, 2013b).
4.6.1.3SeaTurtles
There are five species of sea turtles that can be found nesting on the beaches of North Carolina,
swimming in offshore waters, or both. These species include the leatherback sea turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp’s ridley sea turtle
(Lepidochelys kempii), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), and the loggerhead sea turtle (Carretta
carretta).
Data provided by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) show the
leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, green and loggerhead sea turtles have been documented nesting
along the Northern Outer Banks (Figure 13– Figure 17).
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
49

Figure 13. Number and species of sea turtle nests recorded from Oregon Inlet to the North
Carolina/Virginia border in 2009. Data provided by the NCWRC (Matthew Godfrey,
pers. comm.,
May 22, 2014).
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
50

Figure 14. Number and species of sea turtle nests recorded from Oregon Inlet to the North
Carolina/Virginia border in 2010. Data provided by the NCWRC (Matthew Godfrey, pers. comm.,
May 22, 2014).
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
51

Figure 15. Number and species of sea turtle nests recorded from Oregon Inlet to the North
Carolina/Virginia border in 2011. Data provided by the NCWRC (Matthew Godfrey, pers. comm.,
May 22, 2014).
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
52

Figure 16. Number and species of sea turtle nests recorded from Oregon Inlet to the North
Carolina/Virginia border in 2012. Data provided by the NCWRC (Matthew Godfrey, pers. comm.,
May 22, 2014).
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
53

Figure 17. Number and species of sea turtle nests recorded from Oregon Inlet to the North
Carolina/Virginia border in 2013. Data provided by the NCWRC (Matthew Godfrey, pers. comm.,
May 22, 2014).
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
54

In North Carolina, sea turtle nesting season starts May 1 and ends August 31, although turtles
have been documented nesting outside of these dates in the past. Sea turtle nesting data, provided
by the NCWRC (Matthew Godfrey, pers. comm., 2014), were analyzed to quantify monthly
nesting activity throughout North Carolina. Data were provided for eight locations including
Ocean Isle, Oak Island, Wrightsville Beach, Topsail Island, Emerald Isle, Atlantic Beach, Cape
Hatteras and Oregon Inlet to the NC/VA border from 2009 to 2013. The dates of nesting and
hatchling emergences for all sea turtle species combined were examined to determine the most
active periods of nesting activity. Figure 18 presents daily nesting and hatchling emergence
activity observed throughout the five years of analysis (2009-2013). Over the five years, 2023
nests were laid. The earliest nesting occurred on May 11 and the earliest hatchling emergence
occurred on July 11. The latest nesting occurred on October 7 and the latest hatchling emergence
occurred on November 15.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
NestingHatchling Emergences
Figure 18. Daily nesting (blue line) and hatchling emergence (red line) observed for all sea turtle species
throughout North Carolina between 2009 and 2013.
Nest Counts
To determine when, on average, the most nesting activity occurred throughout the season in
North Carolina, statewide nesting counts over the five-year period were grouped into eleven,
two-week increments. A two-week increment was used in order to maintain large enough sample
sizes necessary for statistical analyses (not feasible at the daily scale), yet allowed for a finer
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
55

level of comparison than monthly increments. When summed over the five year period, nest
counts were generally highest during June and July, while the fewest number of nest counts
occurred toward the end of the season (September through October) (Figure 19, Table 11). The
number of nests counted during the month of May essentially made up 7% of total nesting, while
the period between August 10 and October 7 constituted 5% of total nesting. It can therefore be
said that the majority (82%) of nesting occurred between June 1 and August 9 (Table 11).
Total Number of Nests per Two-Week Increment (2009-2013)
500
438
450
410
376
400
331
350
300
230
250
200
150
113
81
100
1919
50
4
2
0
Figure 19. Total number of nests counted within two-week increments over the course of 2009 through 2013
throughout North Carolina.
Table 11. Total number of nests observed within each two-week increment used in the analyses. Nesting
counts were combined over the five years of analysis (2009 to 2013).
Mean Nest Total Number of
n (number of
Week Block % of Total Nesting
Counts/Day (±SD) Nests
days)
May 4-May 17 70 0.27 (0.70) 19 1%
May 18-May 31 70 1.61 (1.86) 113 6%
June 1-June 14 70 4.73 (2.76) 331 16%
June 15-June 28 70 5.86 (2.81) 410 20%
June 29-July 12 70 6.26 (2.67) 438 22%
July 13-July 26 70 5.37 (3.01) 376 19%
July 27-Aug 9 70 3.29 (2.45) 230 11%
Aug 10-Aug 23 70 1.16 (1.30) 81 4%
Aug 24-Sept 6 70 0.27 (0.56) 19 1%
Sept 7-Sept 20 70 0.06 (0.23) 4 0.2%
Sept 21-Oct 7 85 0.02 (0.15) 2 0.1%
Total Nests 2023 100%
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
56

To determine where significant increases or decreases in nest counts occurred throughout the
season, counts during the two-week increments were compared using non-parametric statistical
analyses. Because the nesting data were non-normal, a Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was run to
compare the effect of time on nest counts when counts were grouped into two-week increments.
The Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA does not require the data to be normally distributed and is
essentially an analysis of variance performed on ranked data. Results of the Kruskal-Wallis
ANOVA indicated there was a significant effect of time on nest counts at the p<0.05 level for the
eleven two-week groupings \[H=573.0429,p=0.000\]. Post-hoc comparisons of mean ranks
(10, 785)
between all groups revealed a number of significant differences between two-week blocks. The
p-values associated with each of these comparisons are displayed in Table 12. It is important to
note that the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA is a non-parametric test based on ranks of the data, not the
arithmetic means. The post-hoc test is therefore also a comparison of the mean ranks of all pairs
of groups, and the mean rank (R) for each group is displayed in the table. Taken together, these
results suggest nesting does vary with time throughout the nesting season. Nesting counts during
May 4 through May 17 were significantly lower than the subsequent seven two-week blocks
between May 18 and August 23. There was a period of eight weeks, from June 1 to July 26, in
which nesting counts were significantly higher than any other two-week blocks. The four, two-
week increments within this period were not statistically different from one another in terms of
nesting counts (Table 12). The first significant decrease in nesting counts occurred between the
two-week blocks of July 27 to August 9 and August 10 to August 23. It is also interesting to note
that first two-week period in the nesting season is statistically similar to the last six weeks (Table
12), suggesting that nesting activity quickly increases in the beginning of the season, but
continues in low numbers for a longer period toward the end of the season. It can be concluded
that, based on data compiled from 2009 to 2013, the least amount of nesting occurred from May
4 to May 17 at the beginning of the season, and from August 24 to October 7 at the end of the
season.
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
57

Table 12. Post-hoc multiple comparisons values (2-tailed) of mean ranks of nesting counts. Mean rank of each two-week group are also provided (R). Red values
p-
May18-June1-June15-June29-July13-July27-Aug10-Aug24-Sept7-Sept21-
May31 June14 June28 July12 July26 Aug9 Aug23 Sept6Sept20Oct7
356.69 574.34 624.81 645.49 597.88 496.36 330.25 208.38 171.3 164.36
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01 1.00 0.04 0.01 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.08 0.00 0.00
0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC
Environmental Assessment
58

HatchlingEmergences
Similar to the nest count data, nest emergence counts over the five-year period were grouped into
two-week increments, spanning July 11 to November 15. Because emergences were only
recorded on five separate days during the final two-week increment (October 31 to November
15), the sample size (n) would have been 5 for this group. This n would have been substantially
smaller than the n’sof the remaining two-week groupings; therefore, these data were rolled into
the previous grouping for the sake of statistical comparisons. As a result, there are eight
groupings of hatchling data: seven two-week groupings and one spanning one month (Figure 20).
When emergences are summed for each two-week grouping over the five-year period, it becomes
apparent that the greatest number occurred during mid-August, and the least have occurred from
July 11 to July 24 and October 16 to November 15 (Figure 20, Figure 20). Emergences occurring
during July 11 to July 24 (3%), and October 2 to November 15 (7%) accounted for
approximately 10% of total emergences. It follows that the majority of emergences occurred
from July 25 to September 4 (65%), with the peak number occurring during August 8 to August
21.
Total Number of Emergences per Two-week Increment (2009 -
2013)
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Figure 20. Total number of emergences counted within two-week increments over the course of 2009 to
2013.
To determine when significant increases or decreases in nest emergences occurred, counts during
two-week increments were compared using a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA. Results
of the Kruskal-Wallis indicated time has an effect on number of nest emergences at the p<0.05
level when data are grouped into two-week increments \[H = 140.3825, p=0.00\]. Post-hoc
(8,414)
comparisons of mean ranks between all groups show a number of significant differences between
the two-week increments. The p-values associated with each comparison are displayed in Table
14. The first significant increase occurred between the two-week increments of July 11 to July 24
and July 25 to August 7. There was essentially no significant difference in emergences between
the July 25 to August 7, August 8 to August 21 and August 22 to September 4 two-week periods.
59
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Table 13. Summary of hatchling emergence activity per two-week block observed throughout the five year period (2009 to
2013). The term refers to the number of days for which emergences were observed.
n
n
Mean Eemrgences/ Day Sum of all
(number of days on
Week Block % of Total Emergences
(±SD) Emergences
which emergences
occurred)
July11-July24 29 1.7 (1.3) 50 3%
July25-Aug7 61 4.3 (2.7) 265 17%
Aug8-21 69 5.8 (3.14) 403 25%
Aug22-Sep4 67 5.4 (3.49) 364 23%
Sep5-Sep18 69 3.8 (2.38 260 16%
Sep18-Oct1 56 2.7 (1.96) 150 9%
Oct2-Oct15 33 1.8 (1.37) 61 4%
Oct16-Nov15 30 1.3 (0.66) 40 3%
Total 1593 100%
Table 14. Post-hoc multiple comparisons values (2-tailed) of mean ranks. Mean ranks (R) of each two-week group are also provided. Red values
p-
indicate a significant difference.
July11-July24 July25-Aug7 Aug8-21 Aug22-Sep4 Sep5-Sep18 Sep18-Oct1Oct2-Oct15 Oct16-Nov15
104.12 240.66 288.6 266.64 217.93 165.54 112.79 79.917
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 1.00 1.00
0.00
0.63 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.63 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 1.00 1.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 1.00 0.01 0.49 0.42 0.00 0.00
0.70 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.00 0.04
1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 1.00
60
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

A regional analysis was also completed to determine if the Outer Banks differed from
the rest of North Carolina in terms of nesting activity (nest counts and emergences). To
do so, all data were grouped into three regions: South (Long Bay), Central (Onslow
Bay), and North (Outer Banks). As the length of surveyed beach differed between
regions (South Region = 20 miles, Central Region = 43.5 miles, North Region = 109
miles) a comparison of an average nesting density (nests/mile surveyed) and per season
(May through October) was made to determine if there were differences between
regions. Hartley’s F test was conducted to compare the nesting density per region and
no statistically significant differences were found between variances (F = 7.2 < F
maxcrit
= 10.8). As this data was homoscedastic, a one way ANOVA for treatments was
conducted and there were no statistically significant differences between mean nesting
density per region (ANOVA \[F = 0.795, p = 0.470\]) (Figure 21). Likewise, a
(2,15)
comparison of an average hatchling emergence density (emergences/mile surveyed) per
season (July-November) was made to determine if there were differences between
regions. A Hartley’s F test determined there were no significant differences between
variances of emergence density between regions (F=11.2 < F=15.5. A one-way
maxcrit
ANOVA for treatments also showed no significant differences between mean
emergence density per region (ANOVA \[F = 1.19, p= 0.36\]).
(2,12)
7.00
6.00
Mean Nesting Density (activity/mile)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Long Bay (South)Onslow Bay (Central)Outer Banks (North)
Nesting DensityEmergence Density
Figure 21. Mean nesting density (± standard error) and mean emergence density (± standard
error) per region throughout the five years of analysis (2009-2013).
61
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Nest Counts
Monthly activity was analyzed to show which months were most active for sea turtle
nesting within each region. In each region, the majority of nesting occurred in June and
July (Figure 22).
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
Nesting %
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
JanFeb MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Long BayOnslow BayOuter Banks
Figure 22. Monthly nesting observed within each region throughout the five years of analysis
(2009-2013).
A comparison of monthly nesting within the Northern Region was made to determine if
there were monthly differences in nest counts. Within the Outer Banks, Hartley’s F test
was conducted to compare the nests per month and statistically significant differences
were found between variances (F = 4968.5 < F = 29.5). As this data was
maxcrit
heteroscedastic, the Games-Howell test was conducted to determine if there were
significant differences in nest counts between months. Significant differences in
monthly nesting were found between May and June, May and July, June and August,
June and September, July and September, June and October, and July and October
(Table 15).
62
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Table 15. Multiple comparisons of nesting per month within the Outer Banks using the Games-
Howell test.
lower uppermean Games-Howell Critical value of q
Month 1 Month 2 df
95% CI 95% CI difference q statistic (at p=0.05)
-62.60
May Jun -103.97 -21.23 8.64 5.77 5.71
May Jul -141.84 -13.36 -77.60 7.42 4.79 6.14
Jun Jul -79.15 49.15 -15.00 1.26 6.90 5.38
May Aug -43.57 8.77 -17.40 3.47 7.67 5.23
Jun Aug 3.60 86.80 45.20 5.95 6.53 5.48
Jul Aug -3.38 123.78 60.20 5.63 5.19 5.94
May Sep -14.69 27.09 6.20 1.95 4.19 6.55
Jun Sep 25.16 112.44 68.80 10.52 4.04 6.67
Jul Sep 16.96 150.64 83.80 8.40 4.02 6.70
Aug Sep -2.29 49.49 23.60 6.02 4.12 6.60
May Oct -13.73 28.53 7.40 2.35 4.02 6.70
Jun Oct 26.23 113.77 70.00 10.73 4.00 6.71
85.00
Jul Oct 18.14 151.86 8.53 4.00 6.71
Aug Oct -1.28 50.88 24.80 6.37 4.01 6.70
Sep Oct -1.90 4.30 1.20 2.40 4.69 6.20
Hatchling Emergence
A regional analysis was competed between the South (Long Bay), Central (Onslow
Bay), and North (Outer Banks) regions, to determine if there was a spatial preference to
hatchling emergence. Monthly activity was analyzed to show which months were most
active for sea turtle hatchling emergence. In each region, the majority of emergences
occurred in August and September (Figure 23).
Within the Outer Banks, a Hartley’s F test was conducted to compare the emergences
per month and statistically significant differences were found between variances (F
max
= 3784.333 < F = 25.2). As this data was heteroscedastic, the Games-Howell test
crit
was conducted to determine if there were significant differences in emergences between
months. Significant differences in monthly emergences were only found between
August and November (Table 16).
63
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

60.0%
55.0%
50.0%
45.0%
Hatchling Emergence %
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
JanFeb MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Long BayOnslow BayOuter Banks
Figure 23. Monthly hatchling emergences observed at each region throughout the five years of
analysis (2009-2013).
Table 16. Multiple comprisons of hatchling emergences per month within the Outer Banks using
the Games-Howell test.
Critical value
Month Month lower upper meanGames-Howell q
dfof q (at
1295% CI 95% CI difference statistic
p=0.05)
Jul Aug -126.96 3.36 -61.80 5.77 4.28 6.08
Jul Sep -100.19 31.79 -34.20 3.16 4.27 6.09
Aug Sep -45.61 100.81 27.60 1.84 8.00 4.89
Jul Oct -16.24 8.24 -4.00 1.62 7.48 4.97
Aug Oct -7.74 123.34 57.80 5.43 4.16 6.16
Sep Oct -36.19 96.59 30.20 2.81 4.16 6.17
Jul Nov -7.26 17.26 5.00 2.54 4.06 6.24
Aug Nov 0.59 133.01 66.80 6.34 4.00 6.29
Sep Nov -27.80 106.20 39.20 3.68 4.00 6.29
Oct Nov -0.33 18.33 9.00 5.99 4.11 6.21
Numerous studies have shown that the Mid-Atlantic and South-Atlantic Bight,
particularly the waters from North Carolina to New Jersey, provide important seasonal
and migratory habitat for sea turtles, especially juvenile and adult loggerheads from the
64
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Northern U.S population. The Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB) includes oceanic waters from
Cape Cod, Massachusetts to Cape Hatteras, NC; and the South Atlantic Bight (SAB)
includes oceanic waters from Cape Hatteras, NC to Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Loggerhead sightings data compiled for the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for
Protected Species show the presence of this species inside the 200-m isobaths is well-
documented during the spring (NOAA, 2012) (Figure 24). The occurrence and
distribution of sea turtles along the Atlantic coast is tied to sea surface temperature
(SST) (Coles and Musick, 2000; Braun-McNeill et al., 2008). In addition, Mansfield et
al. (2009) shows that site fidelity of juvenile loggerheads can be due to environmental
changes such as water temperature as well as prey availability. Throughout the region,
water temperatures increase rapidly in March and April and decrease rapidly in October
and November; these temperature changes are quicker in nearshore waters. An analysis
of historical tracking and sightings data conducted by the Turtle Expert Working Group
(TEWG) indicates that the shelf waters (out to the 200-meter isobaths) off North
Carolina are seasonally “high-use areas” for certain life stages of loggerhead sea turtles
(TEWG, 2009). During the winter months (January through March), very few
loggerheads occurr coastally north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. During the spring
(April through June), summer (July through September) and fall (October through
December), the nearshore waters from the North Carolina/South Carolina border up to
the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia serve as high-use areas for juvenile and adult nesting
females. Similarly, male loggerheads frequent the nearshore waters of the mid-Atlantic
Bight from the spring through the fall (essentially April through December), with a
high-use area in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras. Braun-McNeill et al.(2008) show that
loggerhead turtle presence off Cape Hatteras (based on sightings, strandings, and
incidental capture records) occurred when 25% or more of the area exceeded SST of
11°C (51.8°F). Satellite tagging studies of juvenile loggerheads performed by
Mansfieldet al. (2009) also demonstrate that the waters of Virginia and North Carolina
serve as important seasonal habitat for juvenile sea turtles from May through
November, and the Cape Hatteras area creates a “migratory bottleneck” that warrants
“special management consideration”.
In a study spanning ten years (1998-2008) 68 female loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta
caretta) were tagged following nesting on the beaches of North Carolina (NC), South
Carolina (SC), and Georgia (GA) (Griffin et al., 2013). Using satellite tags, their
movements were observed to document where the turtles spend their time at sea.
Tagging data from the “Northern Recovery Unit (NRU) turtles” (those turtles nesting in
this area of the United States) indicate that they migrate to areas offshore Cape
Hatteras, NC to northern New Jersey (NJ) to forage and recover from the stresses of
reproduction and nesting (Griffin et al., 2013). The majority of the NRU tagged turtles
(42 of 68) used migration routes over the continental shelf off Cape Hatteras, NC
moving south to the SAB in the winter (mid-September-November) and north to the
MAB in the summer (April-June) (Griffin et al., 2013) (Figure 25). The width of the
migratory corridor used by the turtles was constricted off Cape Hatteras, NC and used
over 7 months of the year (Griffin et al., 2013). This indicates that it is an important
high-use area for female loggerheads and this should be considered when conducting
activities there.
65
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Figure 24. Loggerhead turtle sightings during the Southeast AMAPPS spring
2012 aerial survey. Image from NOAA, 2012.
66
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Figure 25. Migration routes (post-nesting and inter-foraging segments) of
satellite-tracked loggerhead turtles (15) represented by individual
N = black
in the Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (NC) region. The
lineshorizontal
separates the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Bights. Figure
dotted line
from Griffin 2013.
et al.,
Although loggerheads are the most common turtle occurring offshore of North
Carolina, the state’s marine waters also provide important habitat for green and Kemp’s
ridley sea turtles. A review of sightings reports obtained from commercial and
recreational fishermen and the public indicate that sea turtles are present offshore North
Carolina year-round. There were two seasonal peaks: one in spring (April to June) off
the entire North Carolina coast, and one in late fall (October through December) off the
northern North Carolina coast (Epperly et al., 1995). Sightings were generally greatest
in offshore water (>5.6 km from shore), except during the period from May to June,
67
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

when nearshore (<5.6 km) sightings were equal to offshore sightings. Leatherbacks
were also documented nearshore in “large numbers” in early May, presumably with the
appearance of prey. The sightings data also indicated the leatherbacks subsequently
moved northward along the beach, and leatherback presence declined by late June
(Epperlyet al., 1995).
Sea turtle stranding data from 2013 in North Carolina show that of 897 total recorded
strandings, 553 (62%) occurred in the months of January through March and November
through December. Of these 553, 13% (71) were loggerheads, 65% (362) were green
turtles, and 21% (115) were Kemp’s ridley turtles. The remaining 1% (5) were
unidentified. The higher number of strandings for green and Kemp’s ridley turtles may
be due to their lower tolerance for cooler water temperatures; however, the strandings
also indicated that these species are in fact present throughout the year in waters off of
North Carolina (seaturtle.org, 2013)
Table 17. Total number of sea turtle strandings recorded in per month in North Carolina in 2013.
Totals are reported for each species. Abbreviations in the table are interpreted as the following:
CC, ; CM, ; LK, ; DC, ;
Caretta carettaChelonia mydasLepidochelys kempiiDermochelys coriacea
EI,; HY, hybrid; UN, unidentified. (Table modified from seaturtle.org,
Eretmochelys imbricata
2013)
Species by Month
Month CC CM LKDC EIHYUN Total
25 108 35 0 0 0 2 170
January
6 9 12 0 0 0 2 29
February
6 6 3 0 0 0 0 15
March
8 8 5 0 0 0 1 22
April
24 15 17 1 0 1 3 61
May
34 9 14 2 0 0 1 60
June
25 17 12 1 0 0 3 58
July
26 0 7 0 0 0 5 38
August
22 16 14 0 0 0 1 53
September
17 21 10 0 0 0 4 52
October
22 176 44 0 0 0 1 243
November
12 63 21 0 0 0 0 96
December
227 448 194 4 0 1 23 897
Total
While in foraging areas and migratory corridors, sea turtles can come into contact with
fisheries, dredging activities, as well as other offshore activities. Therefore, bycatch
records can be useful tools for determining sea turtle presence in nearshore and oceanic
waters. The 2011 NMFS Bycatch Report includes estimates of bycatch over the years
2001-2006. Per this report, bycatch is defined as discarded catch of any living marine
resource and as unobserved mortality due to a direct encounter with fishing gear
(NMFS, 2011). Loggerheads are the most common species of sea turtle to be taken as
bycatch in fisheries operations (Griffin et al., 2013). The highest values of sea turtles
caught as bycatch occur in the Southeast Region by the reef fish, Atlantic pelagic
longline, and southeastern Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fisheries (NMFS,
2011). The most common species taken as bycatch are loggerheads, followed by
68
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Kemp’s ridley, and leatherbacks (NMFS, 2011). Sea turtle bycatch estimates for the
North Carolina southern flounder pound net fishery were 536 loggerheads, 107 green
turtles, and 13.6 Kemp’s ridley turtles; and estimates for the North Carolina inshore
gillnet fishery were 37 green turtles, 19 leatherbacks, and 4 loggerhead turtles (NMFS,
2011). The fisheries with the highest level of sea turtle bycatch (based on 2001 data
only) were the Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern Atlantic shrimp trawl fisheries with
the majority of turtles caught being Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtles (NMFS,
2011).
The leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) was listed as an endangered species
on June 02, 1970 (under a law that preceded the Endangered Species Act of 1973), and
subsequently listed as endangered throughout its range in the United States under the
ESA (35 FR 8491). Critical Habitat is designated for this species in Sandy Point, St.
Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands and surrounding waters (44 FR 17710).
The leatherback is one of the largest sea turtles with an average sized adult weighing
450 kilograms (1,000 lbs) (Pritchard, 1997). It is barrel-shaped in appearance with a
rigid leather-like carapace. The front flippers are paddle-like without claws and
proportionally longer than those of any other sea turtle (USFWS, 2014c). The average
leatherback nest depth is approximately 90 cm (35.4 inches) or less (Stefanie Oullette,
pers. comm., 2006). Considered to be the most pelagic of sea turtle species, leatherback
hatchlings migrate offshore and remain pelagic through their adult lives. Leatherbacks
feed throughout the water column from depths of 50 m (164 ft.) recorded in Australia,
to surface waters and nearshore shallow environments of 4 m (13 ft). These turtles
primarily prey upon jellyfish, squid, shrimp and other types of fish (Bjorndal, 1997).
While the leatherback has a worldwide distribution in temperate and tropical waters of
the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, it is not found in large numbers anywhere
(USFWS, 2013c; USFWS, 2014c). Nesting populations of leatherback sea turtles were
first discovered in the 1950's; however, most were not recorded until the 1960's and
1970's (Lutz and Musick, 1997). In 1995, an estimated 34,500 females nested
worldwide, and global nesting populations are currently estimated between 34,000 and
94,000 adult leatherbacks (USFWS, 2013c). Major nesting grounds discovered in
Mexico once contributed over 65% to the total known populations worldwide
(Pritchard, 1997). However, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Mexico leatherback nesting population has declined dramatically to less than one
percent of its estimated size in 1980. The largest nesting populations are now found in
Indonesia, West Papua, Columbia and French Guiana (USFWS, 2013c).
The U.S. range of the leatherback extends from Nova Scotia south to Puerto Rico and
the U.S. Virgin Islands. Small nesting populations occur in Florida, St. Croix and
Puerto Rico (USFWS, 2013c). Although nesting in the State of North Carolina is rare,
Rabonet al. (2003) confirmed seven leatherback turtle nests between Cape Lookout
and Cape Hatteras. The nesting frequency included two nests in 1998, four nests in
2000 and one nest in 2002. Leatherback sea turtles nest an average of five to seven
times within a nesting season with an observed maximum of eleven nests. The average
69
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

inter-nesting interval is about nine to ten days (USFWS, 2012). Therefore, Rabon et al.
(2003) hypothesized that these nesting activities could be attributed to a single female.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reported one
leatherback false crawl in North Carolina in 2007 (S. Everhart, pers. comm., 2007).
More recently, data provided by the NCWRC shows three leatherback nests were
documented between 2009 and 2013, one in the northern Outer banks (Figure 13) and
two in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Table 18) (Matthew Godfrey, pers. comm.,
2014). Of these nests, one occurred in Kill Devil Hills on June 18, 2009.
Table 18. Leatherback sea turtle nests recorded in North Carolina between 2009 and 2013.
Data provided by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Matthew Godfrey,
pers.
2014).
comm.,
Location Date
Northern Outer Banks (Kill Devil Hills) 06/18/2009
Cape Hatteras National Seashore 06/28/2009
Cape Hatteras National Seashore 07/09/2012
While infrequently found in inshore waters, Epperly et al. (1995) reported that on
average, 15 leatherback sea turtles per year were sighted in inshore waters (within three
miles of shore) of North Carolina between 1989 and 1992. According to Epperly et al.
(1995), these inshore sightings coincided with the appearance of prey, and leatherback
sightings diminished by late June. Sightings data from the AMAPPS surveys have also
documented infrequent occurrence of leatherbacks in the shelf waters off North
Carolina (Figure 26) (NOAA, 2012).
70
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Figure 26. Sightings of leatherback sea turtles during the spring 2012 AMAPPS surveys.
Image from NOAA, 2012.
The hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) was listed as endangered in 1970. A
Critical Habitat designation has also been identified for the waters surrounding Mona
and Monito Islands of Puerto Rico (63 FR 46693). These islands provide primary
foraging habitat for several life stages for this species (NMFS, 2013b; USFWS, 2013a).
Hawksbill turtles are usually found in tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic,
Pacific and Indian Oceans from 30°N to 30°S latitude (NMFS, 2013b). These turtles
71
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

are widely distributed in the Caribbean and the western Atlantic Ocean. Hawksbill
turtles prefer the clear shallow waters of coral reefs, creeks, estuaries and lagoons in
tropical areas. Their diet primarily consists of sponges but also includes algae, fish,
mollusks and other benthic species found in the nearshore zone. Adults may reach up to
3 feet in length and weigh on average about 300 pounds (USFWS, 2013a). The
hawksbill has experienced major population declines, due primarily to human
exploitation for the shell trade. Panama, once a major nesting location, now supports
only a remnant nesting population. Mexico and Cuba now host the largest nesting sites
within the Caribbean. Nesting numbers totaled 534 to 891 females during the period
between 2001 and 2006 in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. An estimated 400 to 833
females nested in Cuba in 2002 (USFWS, 2013a).
Hawksbills nest in low numbers on scattered beaches. Females lay on average 3-5 nests
per season that contain 130 eggs per nest (NMFS, 2013b; USFWS, 2013a). Nesting
season varies with locality, but most nesting occurs sometime between April and
November (USFWS, 2013a). There have been no reported nesting activities of
hawksbill sea turtles on the beaches within the Project Area (Matthew Godfrey, pers.
comm., 2010).
Hawksbill neonate behavior is similar to other sea turtles; they remain pelagic for
several years before returning to coral reef habitats. Juveniles move from pelagic to
coastal habitats at a much smaller size than other turtles (5 to 21 cm \[1.9 to 8.2 in\]
straight carapace length) (Musick and Limpus, 1997). Juveniles are not often seen in
waters deeper than 65 feet (Witzell, 1983); however, they are frequently associated
with floating Sargassum in the open ocean (Musick and Limpus, 1997).
Within the U.S., hawksbill turtles are most common in the waters surrounding Puerto
Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and Florida (NMFS, 2013b). Hawksbills are recorded in the
continental U.S. from all the Gulf States and from the eastern seaboard as far north as
Massachusetts, but sightings north of Florida are rare (NMFS, 2013b). The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, North Carolina Office reports that the presence of hawksbill sea
turtles along the North Carolina coast is rare (USFWS, 2014b) and no nests of this
species have been documented by the NCWRC between 2009 – 2012 (Matthew
Godfrey,pers. comm., 2014). Therefore, it is considered unlikely this species will occur
within the Project Area.
The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) was listed as federally endangered
under the ESA on December 2, 1970 (35 FR 18319). The range of Kemp’s ridley
includes the Gulf coast of Mexico, the Atlantic coast of North America as far north as
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and the Gulf coast of the U.S., especially Padre Island,
Texas. A few records exist for the Azores, Morocco and the Mediterranean Sea
(USFWS, 2006; NMFS, 2013c). Kemp’s ridleys are the smallest of the eight species of
turtles, averaging 35-45 kilograms (78-100 lbs) with an average length between 60 and
70 cm (24 and 28 inches) (Marquez 1994; NMFS 2013c). Juvenile Kemp’s ridley
turtles feed primarily on crabs, clams, mussels and shrimp and are most commonly
found in productive coastal and estuarine areas. Recruitment from pelagic habitats
72
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

occurs at a carapace size between 20 and 25 cm (7.9 and 9.8 inches) (Lutcavage and
Musick, 1985).
Female Kemp’s ridley turtles exhibit large-scale synchronized nesting, a phenomenon
called “arribadas”. During an arribada, females come to shore in large numbers to nest,
usually during the daylight hours (NMFS, USFWS and SEMARNAT, 2011; NMFS,
2013c). Females generally nest from May to July, and lay two to three clutches in a
season. Hatchling emergence occurs generally at night after 45-58 days of incubation.
Nesting aggregations discovered at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico in 1947 were
estimated at over 40,000 females. Within decades, however, the population was
estimated to be around 300 nesting females. The species appears to be in the early
stages of recovery and the number of nests counted annually at all monitored beaches
suggest a female nesting population of 5,500 (NMFS, USFWS and SEMARNAT,
2011). Conservation measures initiated in the late 1970's are thought to be contributing
to the Kemp's ridley population recovery; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported
20,570 nests in Mexico and 199 nests in the U.S. in 2011. However, the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature still lists the Kemp's ridley as Critically
Endangered (NMFS, USFWS and SEMARNAT, 2011). .
Unlike most sea turtle species that are widely distributed, the Kemp's ridley is mostly
restricted to the Gulf of Mexico (Miller, 1997). The largest nesting populations occur
on the coastal beaches of the Mexican states of Tamaulipas and Veracruz (NMFS,
USFWS and SEMARNAT, 2011). Smaller nesting events occur near Padre Island
National Seashore, Texas. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, rare nesting
events have also been recorded in Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina
(USFWS, 2013b). Data from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) show four Kemp’s ridley sea turtle nests have been documented in North
Carolina between 2009 and 2013, all of which occurred in the Outer Banks Table 19).
Two of these nests were deposited along Cape Hatteras National Seashore in June and
August (Table 19). The other two nestings occurred in Corolla (Figure 14) and Duck
(Figure 16), both during June (Table 19).
Table 19. Kemp’s ridley sea turtle nests documented in North Carolina from 2009 to 2013. Data
provided by the NCWRC (Matthew Godfrey, , 2014).
pers. comm.
Location Date
Northern Outer Banks (Corolla) 07/09/2010
Cape Hatteras National Seashore 06/16/2011
Northern Outer Banks (Duck) 06/14/2012
Cape Hatteras National Seashore 08/14/2013
Hatchlings are dispersed within the Gulf and Atlantic by oceanic surface currents. They
have also been sighted in shallow coastal waters along the east coast of the United
States. Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are commonly observed migrating within North
73
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Carolina inshore waters during the spring and fall and occasionally found stranded on
the beaches of North Carolina (Mihnovets, 2003). These strandings may be attributed to
juveniles being caught in the southern Gulf of Mexico Loop Current that eventually
moves these turtles east and north along the western Atlantic coast (Musick and
Limpus, 1997).
Breeding populations of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Florida and the Pacific
coast of Mexico have been federally listed as endangered, while all other populations
have been listed as threatened under the ESA since July 28, 1978. Additionally, Critical
Habitat was designated for the coastal waters surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico
(NMFS, 2013a; USDC, 1998). Green sea turtles are mid- to large-sized sea turtles that
reach an average weight of 136.2 kg (303 lbs) (Pritchard, 1997). In the North Atlantic,
green sea turtles leave their pelagic habitats and enter coastal feeding grounds when
they have reached a carapace length of 30 to 40 cm (11.8 to 15.8 inches) (Lutcavage
and Musick, 1985). Their shell is heart-shaped, of variable color and becomes smooth
during the adult phase. Feeding habitats for adults are specific to seagrasses and marine
algae, while hatchlings may be found feeding on various plants and animals. Green sea
turtles are generally found near seagrass habitats in shallow aquatic environments, such
as nearshore reefs, bays and inlets (NMFS, 2013a). Coral reefs and rocky patches may
also be utilized for shelter and feeding when seagrass is not available (Hirth, 1997).
The green sea turtle is globally distributed and generally ranges throughout warm
tropical and temperate waters of more than 140 countries. Their nesting and feeding
grounds are predominantly located along coastal areas between 30° N and 30° S. The
green sea turtle nesting season of southern U.S. populations generally occurs between
June and September, but varies depending upon its locality. Nest depth ranges between
60 and 90 cm (23.6 and 35.4 inches) (Stefanie Oullette, pers. comm., 2006). The clutch
size of a female turtle varies from 75 to 200 eggs with an incubation time from 45 to 75
days (USFWS, 2014e). Hatchling incubation time and sex determination are both
temperature dependent (Hays et al., 2001). Green sea turtle hatchlings emerge at night
and migrate offshore spending several years feeding and growing in oceanic current
systems (USFWS, 2012a).
Along the U.S. beaches of the Atlantic, green turtles primarily nest in Florida. Less
significant nesting populations have been identified in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto
Rico, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina (USFWS, 2012). The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (2014) reports that the green sea turtle has been observed in Beaufort,
Brunswick, Carteret, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico and
Pender Counties. While green sea turtles have been sighted, primarily from spring
through fall, along the entire North Carolina coastline, nesting activities have only been
observed in Onslow, Brunswick, Hyde, Dare and Currituck Counties (Matthew
Godfrey,pers. comm., 2014).
Nesting survey data provided by the NCWRC indicates 48 green sea turtle nests have
been recorded within North Carolina from 2009 to 2013. The earliest nest was laid on
June 7, 2011, along the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and the latest nest was laid
74
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

October 3, 2013 on Topsail Island. Of the 48 nests documented, only one nest was laid
north of Oregon Inlet; this nest was deposited in Duck on July 17, 2013 (Figure 17).
The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)was listed under the ESA as threatened
throughout its range on July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800). On September 22, 2011, the
listing was revised from a single threatened population to nine Distinct Population
Segments (DPS) with four listed as threatened and the remaining five listed as
endangered. Within the Northwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment (DPS), five
nesting recovery units in have been identified through genetic DNA analysis and
include: 1) the Northern recovery unit from southern Virginia to the Georgia-Florida
border; 2) Peninsular Florida recovery unit from the Florida-Georgia border, following
the eastern coastline south and around to Pinellas County on Florida's west coast; 3) the
Dry Tortugas, Florida recovery unit including loggerheads nesting on the islands west
of Key West, Florida; 4) the Northern Gulf of Mexico recovery unit, from Franklin
County along Florida's northwest coast through Texas; and 5) the Greater Caribbean
recovery unit, which includes loggerheads originating from all other nesting
assemblages within the Caribbean (Mexico through French Guinana, The Bahamas,
Lesser Antilles, and Greater Antilles (USFWS, 2012b).
Loggerheads are large reddish-brown turtles weighing between 91-159 kilograms (200-
350 lbs) (Pritchard, 1997). The average carapace length of an adult southeastern U.S.
loggerhead is about 92 cm (3 ft) with an associated body mass weighing 133 kg (293
lbs). Adult loggerheads nest at night along sandy beaches and may nest from one to
seven times within a nesting season (NMFS, 2013d; USFWS, 2012). The average nest
depth for loggerhead sea turtles is 61 cm (24 inches) (Stefanie Oullette, pers. comm.,
2006). Loggerhead sea turtles are the only marine sea turtles that have been reported to
nest predominantly outside of the tropics (Bolten and Witherington, 2003).
Hatchling loggerheads migrate offshore into the Gulf Stream where they move at a
northeastward trajectory into the northwestern Atlantic. These neonate turtles have been
shown to venture out of the Gulf Stream and into meso-scale eddies, continue into the
North Atlantic Gyre or into the Sargasso Sea where they can be found in drifting
masses of Sargassum macroalgae until they have grown into much larger juveniles
(Fletmeyer, 1978; Mansfield et al., 2014). Loggerhead sea turtles will remain within the
open ocean for several years before leaving their pelagic habitats to return to their
coastal foraging and nesting habitats (Klinger and Musick, 1995; Bolten et al., 1993).
Recruitment into coastal habitats occurs when their carapace length is between 25 and
70 cm (9.8 and 27.5 in) (Lutcavage and Musick, 1985; Bolten et al., 1993).
The loggerhead is widely distributed, inhabiting different oceanic zones throughout the
temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans (USFWS,
2012d). According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012), loggerhead sea turtles
predominantly nest along the western coasts of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Major
nesting aggregations include Masirah Island (Oman), Australia and south Florida.
75
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Eighty percent of all loggerhead nesting that occurs in the southeastern U.S. takes place
in Florida. The Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge (ACNWR), a 20-mile stretch of
coastline found along the east coast of Florida, is considered the most important nesting
area for loggerhead turtles in the western hemisphere. Over 625 nests per kilometer
have been recorded by researchers within the ACNWR (NMFS, 2013d). Loggerhead
sea turtle nesting occurs to a lesser extent on suitable beaches on islands off the Gulf
states, Georgia, South Carolina, and along the entire North Carolina coastline, including
Dare County where the Project Area is located (NCDENR, 2001; USFWS, 2014a). The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that although declines in nesting since the
1970's have been documented, no long-term trend data is available for the Northern
subpopulation (USFWS, 2012b). Bolten and Witherington (2003) reported that studies
on the northern subpopulation from 1989 to 1998 illustrated a stable or declining
population trend. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission analyzed
trends in loggerhead nesting in Florida and found no demonstrable trend for the period
between 1998 to 2013, indicating a reversal in the decline detected prior to 1998.
Between 1989 and 2013, there was an almost 30% positive change in nest counts
(FWC, 2014).
Nesting survey data provided by the NCWRC indicate 1,634 loggerhead sea turtle nests
were recorded within North Carolina from 2009 to 2013. The earliest nest recorded was
May 11, 2012, and the latest record of the season occurred on October 7, 2009. Of the
total nests recorded in North Carolina, 67 (4.1%) occurred along the northern Outer
Banks, north of Oregon Inlet. Nests in this region were recorded from May through
September, with the majority being recorded during June and July (Figure 27).
Loggerhead Sea Turtle Nests in the Northern Outer Banks from 2009-
2013
40
35
35
Number of Nests
30
25
22
20
15
8
10
5
11
0
MayJuneJulyAugustSeptember
Figure 27. Number of loggerhead sea turtle nests recorded along the northern portion of the Outer
Banks, north of Oregon Inlet, from 2009 to 2014. Data provided by the NCWRC (Matthew
Godfrey, 2014).
pers. comm.,
Critical habitat is designated under the ESA for the loggerhead turtle Northwest
76
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Atlantic DPS along the U.S. Atlantic coast, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in open water
habitats. On July 10, 2014 the USFWS designated 1,102 km of the western Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico coastlines as terrestrial critical habitat for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean
Distinct Population Segment (NWA DPS) of loggerhead sea turtles. Critical habitat is
designated on sandy beaches capable of supporting a high density of nests in North
Carolina (Brunswick, Carteret, New Hanover, Onslow and Pender counties), South
Carolina (Beaufort, Charleston, Colleton, and Georgetown counties), Georgia (Camden,
Chatham, Liberty, and McIntosh counties), and Florida (Bay, Brevard, Broward,
Charlotte, Collier, Duval, Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gulf, Indian River, Lee,
Manatee, Martin, Monroe, Palm Beach, Sarasota, St. Johns, St. Lucie, and Volusia
counties). The designation also includes non-continuous sections of coastline from
Alabama and Mississippi. Department of Defense lands are exempt from critical habitat
designation. Maps of the specific terrestrial critical habitat locations may be found in
the FWS Final Rule (79 FR 39756). In North Carolina, the northernmost segment of the
proposed terrestrial Critical Habitat, referred to as LOGG-T-NC-01, is located on
Bogue Banks, approximately 125 miles south of Dare County (Figure 28). There are no
units proposed within Dare County.
Additionally, on July 10, 2014 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposed
marine critical habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle NWA DPS within the Atlantic
Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. Open water critical habitat is designated for nearshore
reproductive habitat, breeding habitat, migratory habitat, and winter habitat and is
located along the U.S. Atlantic coast from North Carolina south to Florida and into the
Gulf of Mexico. Critical habitat is designated offshore of the U.S. Atlantic coast
coincident with the Gulf Stream to the edge of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) stretching from approximately 38° North latitude, 71° West longitude south to
the Gulf of Mexico-Atlantic border. This includes the majority of the Mid- and South
Atlantic and Straits of Florida Planning Areas. Detailed descriptions and maps may be
found in the NMFS Final Rule for critical habitat designation (79 FR 39856).Unit
LOGG-N-01 is the northernmost unit within North Carolina and the closest to Dare
County. This unit is defined in the Federal Register as (79 FR 39856):
LOGG-N-1—North Carolina Constricted Migratory Corridor and Northern
Portion of the North Carolina Winter Concentration Area: This unit contains
constricted migratory and winter habitat. The unit includes the North Carolina
constricted migratory corridor and the overlapping northern half of the North
Carolina winter concentration area. \[NMFS\] defined the constricted migratory
corridor off North Carolina as the waters between 36° N. lat. and Cape Lookout
(approximately 34.58° N) and from the shoreline (MHW) of the Outer Banks,
North Carolina, barrier islands to the 200-m depth contour (continental shelf).
The constricted migratory corridor overlaps with the northern portion of winter
concentration area off North Carolina. The western and eastern boundaries of
winter habitat are the 20-m and 100-m contours, respectively. The northern
boundary of winter habitat starts at Cape Hatteras (35°16 N) in a straight
77
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

latitudinal line between the 20- and 100-m depth contours and ends at Cape
Lookout (approximately 34.58° N) (Figure 29).
According to the above description, there is no designated critical habitat that falls
within the municipal boundaries of Duck or Kitty Hawk. However, the southernmost
limit of the town of Kill Devil Hills is at 35.9949° N, therefore unit LOGG-N-1 barely
extends into the waters off the southernmost portion of Kill Devil Hills. One of the
proposed borrow areas - Borrow Area A - is located within unit LOGG-N-1 which
includes constricted migratory habitat.
Figure 28. Terrestrial critical habitat proposed by the USFWS for the
loggerhead sea turtle (Northwest Atlantic DPS). The northernmost unit is
LOGG-T-NC01, located in Carteret County, NC and does not extend into the
towns of Kill Devil Hills.
78
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Figure 29. Location of the NMFS designated loggerhead sea turtle critical habitat in proximity to
Kill Devil Hills.
4.6.1.4ShortnoseSturgeon
The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) was listed as endangered on
March 11, 1967 under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (a predecessor
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973). NMFS later assumed jurisdiction for shortnose
sturgeon under a 1974 government reorganization plan (38 FR 41370). The shortnose
sturgeon is the smallest of the three sturgeon species that are found in eastern North
America, rarely exceeding a length of 1.4 meter (4.7 ft) and a weight of 23 kilograms
(50.7 pounds) (NMFS, 2014d). Shortnose sturgeons are bottom feeders, typically
feeding on crustaceans, insect larvae, worms, mollusks and some plants (NMFS,
1998b). They appear to feed either in freshwater riverine habitats or near the
freshwater/saltwater interface. This species is anadromous, primarily utilizing riverine
and estuarine habitats, migrating between freshwater and mesohaline river reaches.
Spawning occurs in upper, freshwater areas, typically in January and February while
feeding and overwintering activities may occur in both fresh and saline habitats. Aside
79
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

from seasonal migrations to estuarine waters, this species rarely occurs in the marine
environment (NMFS, 1998b; Keiffer and Kynard, 1993).
The shortnose sturgeon inhabits lower sections of rivers and coastal waters along the
Atlantic coast from the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada to the St. Johns
River, Florida (NMFS, 2014d). The NMFS federal recovery plan (1998) for the
endangered shortnose sturgeon identifies 19 distinct population segments, each defined
as a river/estuarine system in which these fish have been captured within the generation
time of the species (30 years). This species is significantly more common in northern
portions of its range than it is in the south. Shortnose sturgeons are found in rivers,
estuaries, and the sea, but populations are confined mostly to natal rivers and estuaries
(NMFS, 1998b). There are accounts of shortnose sturgeons occurring in the Atlantic
Ocean offshore of NC (Holland and Yelverton, 1973; Dadswell et al., 1984), however,
these records are not well substantiated and there is speculation as to whether they were
misidentified juvenile Atlantic sturgeon (Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team,
2010). Those shortnose sturgeon captured in the ocean are usually taken close to shore,
in low salinity environments; there are no records of shortnose sturgeon in the NMFS
database for the northeast offshore bottom trawl survey (NMFS, 1998b).
There are few confirmed historical reports of shortnose sturgeon captures, and because
fishermen and scientists often confused shortnose sturgeon with Atlantic sturgeon, there
are no reliable estimates of historical population sizes (NMFS, 1998b). There are
several reports of shortnose sturgeon taken in North Carolina in the early 1800’s, but
the distribution and status of this species have never been well known in North
Carolina. No shortnose sturgeons were reported in North Carolina waters between 1881
and 1987. Since then, several shortnose sturgeon have been caught in the Brunswick
and Cape Fear rivers by commercial fishermen, a single fish was caught in the Pee Dee
River. Based on anecdotal evidence from commercial fishermen, it is now believed that
a shortnose sturgeon population may also exist in western Albemarle Sound (Moser et
al., 1998). With this discovery, the species is once again considered part of the state's
fauna.
The inland waters along the sound side of Kill Devil Hills are part of a system of
freshwater to brackish water creeks, rivers, estuaries and sounds that make up the
Albemarle-Pamlico complex. The waters within the Albemarle Sound and the
associated tributary sounds (Currituck, Roanoke and Croatan Sounds) are used by many
anadromous fish and were historically an epicenter for commercial anadromous
fisheries on the east coast. While most historical commercial sturgeon landings were
from Albemarle Sound, the shortnose sturgeon was not differentiated from Atlantic
sturgeon. Therefore, there are no historic commercial records of shortnose sturgeon
landings from within the sound. Only two non-commercial records exist for shortnose
sturgeon, one from 1881 and one from 1998. No records have been definitively
documented in Albemarle Sound since 1998 (Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team,
2010).
Declines in shortnose sturgeon populations throughout the species’ range can be
attributed to several anthropogenic factors. During the period of industrial growth in the
80
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

1800s and early 1900s, construction of dams and pollution of many northeastern rivers
may have reduced a great deal of suitable habitat for shortnose sturgeon (NMFS,
2014c). Dams have restricted and in many cases prevented sturgeon from reaching
spawning grounds, fragmented populations and altered riverine flows and temperatures
(The Shortnose Status Review Team, 2010). Hydropower plants also pose the threat of
habitat alteration and physical injury or mortality (The Shortnose Status Review Team,
2010). In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, shortnose sturgeons were
frequently taken in the commercial fishery for the closely related, and commercially
valuable, Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus). Shortnose sturgeons were often
misidentified because, at smaller sizes, Atlantic sturgeons are easily confused with
shortnose sturgeon. More than a century of extensive fishing for sturgeon contributed to
the decline of both Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon populations along the east coast
(NMFS, 1998b).
Habitat degradation or loss (for example, from dams, bridge construction, channel
dredging, and pollutant discharges), and mortality (for example, from impingement on
cooling water intake screens, dredging, and incidental taking in other fisheries) are the
current primary threats to the species' survival (NMFS, 1998).
4.6.1.5AtlanticSturgeon
In 2009, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned NMFS to list the
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA). As a result of the petition, the Carolina Distinct Population Segment (DSP) for
Atlantic sturgeon has been designated as endangered under the ESA. Atlantic sturgeon
are similar in appearance to shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) but can be
distinguished by their larger size, smaller mouth, different snout shape and scutes
(NMFS, 2014a). The Atlantic sturgeon is a long-lived, estuarine dependent,
anadromous fish. They are benthic feeders and typically forage on invertebrates
including crustaceans, worms and mollusks. Atlantic sturgeon can grow to
approximately 14 feet long and can weigh up to 800 pounds (NMFS, 2014a). They are
bluish-black or olive brown dorsally (on their back) with paler sides and a white belly.
Adults range from St. Croix, ME south to the St. Johns River in Florida (NMFS,
2014a). These fish undergo seasonal migrations to and from freshwater, but spend
much of their adult life in the marine environment for growth (Stein et al., 2004;
Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team, 2007). Atlantic sturgeons are found offshore
primarily during the fall to spring months of approximately October to March.
However, different life stages will utilize the marine environment during the summer as
well. Although Atlantic sturgeons spawn repeatedly, they do not necessarily spawn
every year (Smith and Clugston, 1997). During non-spawning years, adults may utilize
marine waters year-round (Bain, 1997). Spawning adults migrate upriver in spring,
beginning in February to March in the south, April to May in the mid-Atlantic, and
May to June in Canadian waters. In some areas, a small spawning migration may also
occur in the fall. Spawning occurs in flowing water between the salt front and fall line
of large rivers. Atlantic sturgeon spawning intervals range from one to five years for
males and two to five years for females (NMFS, 2014a). Following spawning, males
81
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

may remain in the river or lower estuary until the fall while females typically exit the
rivers within 4 to 6 weeks (NMFS, 2014a). Juveniles move downstream and inhabit
brackish waters for a few months and when they reach a size of about 30 to 36 inches,
they move into nearshore coastal waters (Smith, 1985). Tagging data indicates that
these immature Atlantic sturgeons travel widely once they emigrate from their natal
(birth) rivers.
Records from federal, private and state surveys also show that Atlantic sturgeon have
been documented within nearshore Atlantic Ocean habitats from the North/South
Carolina state line to off the mouth of Chesapeake Bay (Moser et al. 1998). Collins and
Smith (1997) reported the occurrence of Atlantic sturgeons in the Atlantic Ocean off
South Carolina in months of low water temperatures (November–April) from nearshore
to well offshore in depths up to 40 meters. The rivers, estuaries and nearshore waters of
coastal North Carolina serve as important habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. Coastal North
Carolina is considered one of several concentration areas along the northeastern U.S.
where sturgeon have been shown to aggregate, and Stein et al. (2004) found the fish
were often associated with inlets of the Outer Banks. An acoustic array deployed
offshore Cape Hatteras has collected data on acoustically-tagged Atlantic sturgeon
(tagged by members of the Atlantic Cooperative Telemetry network) from February
2012 to May 2014. The array consists of 12 VR2W receivers placed 1.6 km apart, from
nearshore to just shy of 20 km offshore. Data has been collected for 123 individual
Atlantic sturgeon, and indicate the highest numbers of detections have occurred during
the months of November and March (Charles Bangley, pers. comm., September 15,
2014). In general, few acoustically tagged Atlantic sturgeon were recorded passing the
array during the summer months. The array has picked up signals from sturgeon
released from Connecticut through Georgia, and the data suggest the area may be a
“hotbed for Atlantic sturgeon” (Rulifson, pers. comm., September 11, 2014) (Figure
30).
A study conducted by Laney et al. (2007) provides some insight into spatial distribution
of Atlantic sturgeon in the marine waters offshore Virginia and North Carolina, based
on incidental captures in winter tagging cruises conducted between 1988 and 2006. The
surveys included sampling in and near extensive sand shoals adjacent to Oregon Inlet
and Cape Hatteras. During the months of January and February from 1998 through
2006, investigations by bottom trawling captured 146 juvenile Atlantic sturgeons in
depths from 9.1 to 21.3 m. (29.9 to 69.9 ft.) (Laney et al., 2007). Numbers of Atlantic
sturgeon captured and tagged in a given year ranged from 0 (1993, 1995) to 29 (2006).
Atlantic sturgeon were encountered in 4.2% of tows, with the percentage varying from
0 in 1993 and 1995 to 12.6% in 1988. Captures typically occurred near shore at depths
less than 18 m. Capture patterns suggested that Atlantic sturgeon were likely
aggregating to some degree. Many of the fish were captured over sandy substrates.
Total lengths of captured Atlantic sturgeon ranged from 577 to 1,517 mm (mean of 967
mm), suggesting that most fish were juveniles. Limited tagged returns and genetic data
suggest that fish wintering off North Carolina constitute a mixed stock.
82
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Figure 30. Atlantic sturgeon detections recorded by acoustic array located offshore
Cape Hatteras, NC. Sturgeon were tagged by the Atlantic Cooperative Telemetry
Network (Charles Bangley, September 15, 2014)
pers. comm.,
Sturgeons are distributed within areas that provide foraging opportunity. The narrow
depth ranges and substrate types preferred by sturgeon correspond with bottom features
that likely support depth-specific concentrations of prey (Stein et al., 2004; Kynard et
al., 2000). Analysis of commercial fishery by-catch data suggests that, along the
northeastern U.S., migratory sub-adults and adults show preference for shallow (10-50
m) coastal areas dominated by gravel and sand substrate (Stein et al., 2004). Within the
mid-Atlantic Bight (including coastal North Carolina), sturgeon may prefer even
shallower depths (25 m or less). Coastal features, such as inlets and mouths of bays,
support high concentrations of Atlantic sturgeon presumably due to the physical and
biological features produced by outflow plumes (Stein et al., 2004). This species has
also been shown to utilize sand shoals in the mid-Atlantic Bight. Atlantic sturgeon were
collected during otter trawl surveys over the Beach Haven Ridge, a large shoal feature
located about 11 km offshore New Jersey in water depths 2 - 19 m (Milstein and
Thomas, 1977). CSA International et al. (2009) suggests pelagic and demersal species
that affiliated with shoals are likely seeking food, shelter, orientation or a break from
the currents.
4.6.1.6SeabeachAmaranth
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) is an annual plant that is native to Atlantic
Ocean barrier island beaches. Historically, this species was found from Massachusetts
to South Carolina, but is currently only found in New York, New Jersey, Delaware,
83
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina (USFWS, 2011b). A reduction
in range, population sizes and number of seabeach amaranth populations prompted the
USFWS to list the species as threatened on April 7, 1993 under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973. Seabeach amaranth grows in low clumps comprised of sprawling, fleshy,
reddish branches with dark leaves. The plant is profusely branched and generally grows
to 1 meter (39 inches) in diameter. Flowering begins as soon as plants have reached
sufficient size, sometimes as early as June, but more often beginning in July and
continuing until the death of the plant in late fall. Seed production commences in July
or August and peaks in September during most years, but continues until the death of
the plant (USFWS, 1993; USFWS, 1996b; USFWS, 2011b).
The primary habitat of seabeach amaranth consists of overwash flats at accreting ends
of islands and lower foredunes and upper strands of non-eroding beaches on barrier
island beaches. It may form small temporary populations in other habitats, including
sound-side beaches, blowouts in foredunes, and sand and shell material placed as beach
nourishment or dredge spoil (USFWS, 1993; USFWS, 2011b). The plant is typically
found at elevations from 0.2 m to 1.5 m (0.6 ft. to 4.9 ft.) above mean high tide
(Weakly and Bucher 1992) and is an effective sand binder, building dunes where it
grows. A single large plant may be capable of creating a dune up to 60 centimeters
(23.6 inches) high, containing 2 to 3 cubic meters of sand, although most are smaller
(Weakley and Bucher, 1992). Seabeach amaranth appears to function in a relatively
natural and dynamic manner, allowing it to occupy suitable habitat as it becomes
available (USFWS, 1993).
Annual seabeach amaranth surveys have been performed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District (CESAW) throughout North Carolina’s coastal
counties. In accordance with conditions set forth in the 1993 Biological Opinion for
various beach disposal projects occurring in North Carolina, these surveys are
performed along beaches subject to USACE activity. Since 1991, the USACE has
surveyed a number of locations within Dare, Carteret, Onslow, Pender, New Hanover
and Brunswick counties, with the last survey completed in 2013. From 1992 to 2009,
scattered surveys were performed at various locations throughout Dare County,
including Bodie Island, Pea Island, Rodanthe, Avon, Buxton, Frisco to Hatteras, and
Hatteras to the Hatteras Inlet. No seabeach amaranth has been identified in the USACE
surveys. It should be noted that not all areas were surveyed every year, and no surveys
were performed in 2006 (USACE, 2013a). Also, no surveys have been conducted
within Dare County since 2009 as no USACE activity has occurred on the beaches
(Theresa Bullard, pers. comm., May 16, 2013). The National Park Service (NPS) has
conducted annual surveys within the Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CHNS), but as
of 1995, no plants had been found (USACE, 2000). The USFWS has no records of the
species on the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (PINWR) but suitable habitat for
this species does exist near Bonner Bridge. The nearest known population is at Cape
Point, approximately 40 miles south of the inlet (USACE, 2000).
Among those threats presently affecting the range and habitat for seabeach amaranth,
the USFWS listed shoreline stabilization as one of the primary threats (USFWS, 2007).
In many ways, hard (groins, seawalls and jetties) and soft (sand placement) beach
84
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

stabilization efforts are considered a leading contributor to the decrease in the
population (USFWS, 1996b; 2002). By stabilizing beaches and overwash areas, these
practices reduce or remove the dynamic coastal areas that serve as primary habitat for
seabeach amaranth, and are considered a major cause of loss of suitable habitat for the
species. However, hard and soft shoreline protection measures may also result in
beneficial effects. For example, beach erosion is considered one of the primary causes
of population decline for seabeach amaranth due to loss of suitable habitat. The plant is
not found on beaches where the foredune is scarped by undermining water at high or
storm tides; therefore, it is dependent on an upper beach habitat that is not flooded
during the growing season from May into the fall (USFWS, 1996b). This type of
habitat is rare on severely eroded barrier islands. Under natural conditions, storm-
related beach erosion and dune movement disturb, alter or remove seabeach amaranth
habitat, but do not pose a threat to the continued existence of the species (USFWS,
1993; USFWS, 2011b). However, coastal development and beach armoring (i.e.
seawalls) has curtailed the ability of barrier beaches to respond naturally to these
pressures, ultimately resulting in destruction of habitat for seabeach amaranth (USFWS,
1993; 2002). Estimates of sea level rise also threaten to undermine existing habitat
further.
Accretion that occurs upstream of a groin may create or maintain a shoreline that would
otherwise be completely lost to erosion. In this way, stabilization of beaches through
successful implementation of nourishment or hard structures (such as groyns) can
create or maintain habitat for seabeach amaranth (USFWS, 2002). However, it is
important to note that this species depends on dynamic coastal processes to create
primary habitat, such as overwash areas; therefore, any shoreline stabilization will
likely make the habitat marginal and ultimately be detrimental to the range-wide
persistence of the species (USFWS, 2002).
Previous beach nourishment projects have rebuilt habitat for seabeach amaranth and
encouraged growth of some populations, as seen in Bogue Inlet (Dale Suiter,
pers.comm., 2007) and Wrightsville Beach (USFWS, 1996b). For example, historically,
seabeach amaranth had been recorded on Wrightsville Beach, but after severe erosion
and lack of nourishment during the 1970’s no plants were recorded in surveys from
1987 – 1980. After two nourishment projects in 1980-81 and 1986, surveys in 1988
recorded nearly 3,000 plants. According to the USFWS (1996b), Wrightsville Beach
had become one of the largest and least variable populations of seabeach amaranth
known and had apparently reestablished itself (whether from a seedbank or from
colonization is not known) on this renourished beach. However, surveys performed by
the USACE have not recorded the species on Wrightsville Beach since 2011, when
only two plants were observed. Prior to 2011, no plants had been recorded since 2008
(USACE, 2013a). This suggests the ephemeral nature of even well-established
populations of seabeach amaranth. Another population displaying this ephemeral
behavior is located in Bogue Banks, Carteret County, NC. Prior to 2001, the area
surveyed between Fort Macon and Atlantic Beach supported substantial populations of
seabeach amaranth, with plant counts numbering in the thousands some years. In 2001,
the number of plants had fallen to 20. After nourishment, seabeach amaranth increased
85
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

to over 5,000 plants in 2002, 2003 and 2004. In 2010, plant counts fell below 100 and
by 2013, only one plant was found in the entire area surveyed within Carteret County
(USACE, 2013a).
4.6.1.7PipingPlover
The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) was federally listed in 1986 under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended with three separate breeding populations
in North America: 1) the Atlantic Coast population (threatened), 2) the Northern Great
Plains population (threatened) and 3) the Great Lakes population (endangered). Piping
plovers are also listed as threatened throughout their wintering range (USFWS, 1996a).
The Atlantic Coast population breeds along the east coast of North America from the
Canadian Maritime Provinces to North Carolina. The Northern Great Plains population
can be found breeding from southern Alberta to Manitoba and south to Nebraska. The
Great Lakes population breeds along the shorelines of the Great Lakes. All three
populations migrate to the coastal shorelines of the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and
the beaches of the Caribbean Islands to winter (USFWS, 2012c).
Piping plover are small shorebirds weighing approximately 42.5 to 56.7 gm (1.5 to 2
oz), measuring 17.8 cm (7 in) in length, with an average wingspan of 38.1 cm (15 in).
Piping plovers resemble a sandpiper with the upper body parts a pale brownish or
grayish color and the underbody white (S. Everhart, pers. comm., 2007). Distinguishing
features are noticeable during the summer months, including a black band across the
forehead, a second black band forming a ring around the neck and orange legs. During
the winter months, the black bands fade and are not visible, and the legs fade to a pale
yellow. Coloration and size of both the male and female adults are similar. Plovers
primarily feed on invertebrates endemic to the wet sand environment between mean
low and mean high water (USFWS, 1996a).
As of the 1986 listing, the USFWS (2011a) estimated that 790 piping plover breeding
pairs existed in the Atlantic Coast population (including Canada). By 1996, 1,348
breeding pairs were documented. The number of breeding pairs has continued to
steadily increase, reaching 1,438 pairs in 2000, 1,690 pairs in 2002 (USFWS, 2011a)
and 1,782 pairs in 2010 (USFWS, 2011a). However, overall population growth has
been tempered by abrupt declines within recovery units. For example, the number of
piping plover breeding pairs in North Carolina decreased from 55 pairs in 1989 to 24
pairs in 2003. Nevertheless, estimates indicate a slight increase occurred in breeding
pairs to 37 in 2005 and 46 in 2006 (USFWS, 2011a). Overall, the southern recovery
unit of the Atlantic Coast population increased by 66% between 1989 and 2008 with
the majority of this increase occurring between 2003 and 2005 (USFWS, 2009).
Coastal habitats along the U.S. Atlantic coast serve a variety of ecological functions for
piping plovers. For nesting, piping plovers utilize dry sand habitats above the high tide
line along coastal beaches, spits and flats at the ends of barrier islands, gently sloping
foredunes, blowout areas within primary dunes and washover areas (USFWS, 2010a).
Nests are usually found in sparsely vegetated dune and beach environments (USFWS,
2003b; Cohen et al., 2008a), although they may nest under patches of beach vegetation
86
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

(USFWS, 1996a). Nests are shallow, scraped depressions made of fine sand, pebbles,
shells or cobble (Patterson, 1991). In North Carolina, non-breeding piping plovers
primarily use bayshore beaches and sound islands for foraging and ocean beaches for
roosting and preening (Cohen et al., 2008).
According to the USFWS, the piping plover may be found within all eight coastal
counties of North Carolina (USFWS, 2014a). The spring migration of piping plovers
occurs from March 1 through April 30 and piping plovers have been documented
arriving on their breeding grounds in North Carolina beginning as early as mid-March.
Eggs can be found along the nesting habitat from mid-April through late July (Sue
Cameron, pers. comm., 2007). At the age of 25 to 35 days, chicks are able to fly and
leave the nest (USFWS, 1996). By mid-July, adults and young may begin to depart for
their wintering areas. In North Carolina, fall migration for the new chicks and adult
parents begins in mid-July and can extend through the end of November (S. Cameron,
pers. comm., 2007). Aside from breeding activities, the North Carolina coastline serves
as habitat for migration activities of the Atlantic Coast population, as well as wintering
grounds for all three breeding populations. Piping plovers are therefore present year-
round in North Carolina and utilize the coastal habitats for foraging, roosting, nesting,
wintering and migrating (Sarah Schweitzer, pers. comm., April 18, 2014).
Since the 1980’s, breeding pairs of piping plovers in North Carolina have been
surveyed annually; the state also participates in a winter survey held every five years,
the last of which was performed in 2011. Data on piping plovers during their migration
are more scant because they are not part of a formal survey but are recorded
opportunistically in a variety of surveys including the International Shorebird Surveys,
which determine fall and spring migration counts. Other opportunistic piping plover
data are gathered during monitoring performed by consultants as part of permit
requirements, NGO and agency surveys for other purposes including research and by
the public (Sarah Schweitzer, pers. comm., March 26, 2014). Additional data from
winter surveys, or un-specified surveys, dating back to 1965 are also included in the
database. It should be noted that it is likely that piping plovers are present outside these
survey efforts but are not recorded in a systematic manner. Thus, lack of data at a
location or during a period does not imply piping plover absence, it only implies no
surveys were conducted (Sara Schweitzer, pers. comm., April 18, 2014).
The data from the aforementioned surveys are maintained by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and are summarized in Table 20. Statewide
data were broken down into the following regions: southern (all sampling locations
from Bird Island to Bald Head Island), central (all sampling locations from Fort Fisher
to Fort Macon State Park) and northern (all sampling locations from Beaufort Inlet to
Currituck). Habitats surveyed included oceanfront beaches of barrier islands, sand
shoals, dredge spoil islands, natural marsh islands and mainland bayshores. Because the
various surveys were not performed systematically or using the same methodology,
data are not standardized across all surveys. Table 20 shows piping plovers have been
observed within all three regions during all months of the year. The total number of
piping plovers observed was highest in the summer months (July through September)
87
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

for the Central and Northern regions, and in the spring for the southern beaches. The
lowest number of observations was recorded from December to February for all three
regions. Overall, total piping plover observations were highest in July and August and
lowest during the winter months throughout the state (Table 20). These two months
also correspond with the highest number of surveys performed; therefore, it is not clear
whether the trends are seasonally driven or the result of survey effort. The northern
region supported the greatest number of piping plover observations (n = 21,029) and
also the greatest number of surveys performed; therefore, it cannot be determined if the
results are driven by regional differences in piping plover occurrence or survey effort.
Breeding pairs were observed in all three regions but only during the months of May,
June and July (Table 21). The highest number of breeding pairs was observed during
July in all three regions, as well as overall. The northern region supported the greatest
number of breeding pairs.
Data were also summarized for Bodie Island, which is in the northern region and is the
closest area surveyed to the Kill Devil Hills. The last piping plover surveys along Bodie
Island occurred in 2008, during which 62 piping plovers were recorded: 29 in March, 2
in July and 31 in August. Surveys were not performed in any other months during 2008.
Sightings data for individuals and breeding pairs are available from 1965 to 2008 and
are summarized by month in Table 20. During this time, 2,247 piping plover
individuals were observed along Bodie Island, which represents 11% of observations
within the northern region and 8% of statewide observations. The total number
observed was highest in August (508), followed closely by December (406). Breeding
pairs were observed only in June and July, which makes up less than 1% of statewide
observations.
Piping plovers have been found year-round during surveys on Bodie Island, (including
the area from Oregon Inlet to approximately the northern town limit of Nags Head), and
total counts for the area comprise a substantial portion of total statewide counts. When
totaled from 1965 to 2013, counts on Bodie Island represent 8% and 12% of statewide
counts during the months of July and August, respectively, and 29% of statewide
counts during both April and May.
88
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Table 20. Total number of individual piping plovers observed per month within the northern, central and southern regions of
North Carolina as compared to the total number of individuals observed within Bodie Island, North Carolina from 1965 to
2013. The last two rows in the table display the Bodie Island observations as a percentage of both statewide and northern
region observations. To display monthly trends, rows are color-coded such that the lowest values are shaded green and the
highest values are shaded red.
RegionJanFeb March AprilMayJune JulyAug Sept Oct NovDec*WinterTotal
Statewide
Northern
7207891311106432888738834979261818231000155176 21029
Region
Central
30330565351024316348278866647429922354 5163
Region
Southern
16577302316531719347532 334
Region
Statewide
10391099204116045941066441857843303233113061779162 26526
Monthly Totals
Bodie Island
Bodie Island Beaches 3125129312951231058018387734064 2247
% of North Region 4% 3% 10% 29% 29% 1% 8% 12% 7% 5% 7% 26% 5% 11%
% of Statewide 3% 2% 6% 19% 16% 1% 7% 10% 6% 4% 6% 23% 2% 8%
Table 21. Total number of piping plovers nesting pairs observed per month within the northern, central and southern regions
of North Carolina as compared to the total number of nesting pairs observed within Bodie Island, North Carolina from 1965 –
2008. The last two rows in the table display the Bodie Island observations as a percentage of both statewide and northern
region observations. To display monthly trends, rows are color-coded such that the lowest values are shaded green and the
highest values are shaded red.
LocationJanFeb March AprilMayJune JulyAug Sept Oct NovDec*WinterTotal
Statewide
Northern
00004448797000000 1249
Region
Central
0000115070000000 131
Region
Southern
00004619000000 29
Region
Statewide
000019504886000000 1409
Monthly Totals
Bodie Island
Bodie Island
0000038000000 11
Beaches
% of North Region 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
% of Statewide 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
90
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

On July 10, 2002, the USFWS published a
final rule to list 137 areas along the
coasts of North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas as
Critical Habitat for wintering
populations (66 FR 36038). A Critical
Habitat designation recognizes specific
areas “that are essential to the
conservation of a listed species, and that
may require species management
considerations or protection.” Eighteen
critical habitat units for the wintering
piping plover have been designated
within seven of the eight coastal
counties in North Carolina, with the
exception of Currituck County (66 FR
36038; 73 FR 62816). The Critical
Habitat closest to the Town is Unit NC-1,
which the USFWS delineates to be the
following (Figure 32).
“Unit NC-1 is approximately 8.0 km (5.0
mi) long, and consists of about 196 ha
Figure 31. Wintering piping plover critical habitat unit NC-
(485 ac) of sandy beach and inlet spit
1. Image from 73 FR 62840.
habitat on Bodie Island and Pea Island in
Dare County, North Carolina. This is
the northernmost critical habitat unit within the wintering range of the piping plover. Oregon Inlet is
the northernmost inlet in North Carolina, approximately 19.0 km (12.0 mi) southeast of the Town of
Manteo, the county seat of Dare County…The unit begins at Ramp 4 near the Oregon Inlet Fishing
Center on Bodie Island and extends approximately 8.0 km (5.0 mi) south to the intersection of NC
Highway 12 and Salt Flats Wildlife Trail…” (73 FR 62816).
The northern boundary of NC-1 is approximately 24 km (15 mi) south of Kill Devil Hills, the
southernmost of the three towns considered in this assessment. There is no critical habitat unit within
Kill Devil Hills.
4.6.1.8RufaRedKnot
Therufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is one of the six subspecies red knots and one of the three
that resides in the Western Hemisphere. Subspecies rufa winters in northern Brazil, the greater
Caribbean and along the U.S. coast from Texas to North Carolina. Due in part to substantial
population declines in the 1990’s and 2000’s, the USFWS released a proposed rule to list the rufa
red knot as threatened on September 30, 2013 (78 FR 60023). Population estimates for subspecies
rufa up to the early 1990s were 100,000-150,000, one of the smallest red knot populations
91
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

worldwide. During the 1990s, this fell to around 80,000. By the early 2000s, the population may
have dropped to 35,000-40,000. The he
population now numbers 18,000-33,000 (NatureServe, 2013). T
rufa red knot population decline that occurred in the 2000s was caused primarily by reduced food
availability from increased harvests of their key prey species, the horseshoe crab, and was
exacerbated by small changes in the timing that knots arrived at the Delaware Bay. Decreased
foraging success during migration has been linked to decreased breeding success and the probable
increased mortality of adults. Wintering rufa red knots tend to concentrate at a few localities where
habitat loss or reduced food availability can influence a sizable proportion of entire populations.
Additionally, climate change may have long-term effects on coastal foraging areas, due to sea level
rise, and its Arctic breeding grounds due to habitat change (USFWS, 2014d). The 2010 Spotlight
Species Action Plan prepared by the USFWS attributes the destruction and modification of the rufa
red knot’s habitat, and particularly the decline of key food resources resulting from reductions in
horseshoe crabs, as a significant threat. The shore of the Delaware Bay is the only significant
breeding area for horseshoe crabs on the Atlantic coast of North America. The rufa red knots rely on
the eggs of horseshoe crabs as a food source to fuel the migratory flight from the wintering grounds
of Chile and Argentina, to the breeding grounds of the Arctic. Along the North Carolina coast,
threats to migration stopover habitat include beach erosion, human disturbance and competition with
other species for limited food sources.
Rufa red knots winter at the southern tip of South America and breed above the Arctic Circle,
requiring the birds to fly over 9,300 miles from south to north every spring and reverse the trip
every autumn (USFWS, 2014d). The spring migration is broken into non-stop segments of 1,500
miles or more with the birds converging at critical stopover areas along the entire Atlantic coast.
Red knots are faithful to these specific sites, and will stop at the same locations year after year
(USFWS, 2010b). Mole crabs (Emerita talpoida) and coquina clams (Donax sp.) are reportedly an
important food source for migrating knots in North Carolina (Gilbert Grant, pers. comm., March 20,
2014). Birds arrive at stopover areas with depleted energy reserves and must quickly rebuild their
body fat to complete their migration to Arctic breeding areas. During their brief 10 to 14-day stay
in the mid-Atlantic, rufa red knots typically double their body weight (USFWS, 2010b).
Although the Delaware Bay and coastal Virginia represent the largest stopover concentration of rufa
red knots, coastal North Carolina does support the birds during their spring and fall migrations.
Various surveys for rufa red knots have been performed throughout the state and data from these
surveys is maintained by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). These
surveys are performed at discrete times of year, as well as opportunistically to fulfill various permit
requirements or research interests. Surveys are not performed systematically or monthly, therefore, it
should be emphasized that lack of data in the NCWRC database does not imply absence of the
species; rather, it implies only that no surveys were performed at that time (Sara Schweitzer, pers.
comm., March 26, 2014). Data from the various surveys within the NCWRC database were
summarized to determine total counts per month of rufa red knots observed throughout the state
from 1985 to 2013. Habitats surveyed include oceanfront beaches along barrier islands, dredge
material islands and sand and inlet shoals. It should be noted that surveys for the rufa red knot in
North Carolina are quite varied, inconsistent and were not conducted every month or in all years.
Therefore, it cannot be determined if red knots were present at un-surveyed times or locations.
The data from the aforementioned surveys are summarized in Table 22. Statewide data were broken
92
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

down into the following regions: southern (all sampling locations from the North Carolina-South
Carolina state line to Bald Head Island), central (all sampling locations from Fort Fisher to Fort
Macon State Park) and northern (all sampling locations from Beaufort Inlet to Currituck). Habitats
surveyed included oceanfront beaches of barrier islands, sand shoals, dredge spoil islands, natural
marsh islands and mainland bay shores. Table 22 shows rufa red knots have been observed
throughout the state during all months of the year. The greatest number of observations occurred
during May, followed by April. The northern region has supported a substantial number of red knot
observations with 31,218 rufa red knots recorded from 1986 to 2013. Surveys occurred all months
except November and birds have been observed during each month. The majority of surveys have
been performed in May, which corresponds with the highest number of observations. May also
corresponds with the greatest number of surveys.
Data were summarized for Dare County, including all barrier islands and inlet shoals extending from
the Hatteras Inlet to the northern limit of Southern Shores. Table 22 shows that red knots have been
observed during the months of January, April, May and June, with the greatest number of
observations occurring in May. These were also the only months surveyed; therefore, it is not known
if the birds occur in the area during other months. The greatest number of surveys also occurred in
May; therefore, it may be the larger counts are driven by survey effort. Nevertheless, the data
indicate red knots do occur within Dare County during the surveyed months.
Based on available data, it can be concluded that red knots have historically utilized numerous
locations in the northern region of coastal North Carolina, including Dare County, and may occur
outside the environmental dredge windows in substantial numbers. The birds also appear to occur in
highest numbers from April to June; however, it is unclear whether these large numbers are true
seasonal differences or the result of a larger survey effort.
93
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Table 22. Total number of red knots observed per month within the northern, central and southern regions of North
Carolina as compared to the total number observed within Dare County, North Carolina from 1986 to 2013. The last
two rows in the table display the Dare County observations as a percentage of both statewide and northern region
observations. To display monthly trends, rows are color-coded such that the lowest values are shaded green and the
highest values are shaded red.
Location Tot
JanFeb Mar AprMayJunJulAug Sept Oct NovDec
Statewide
North
868168522991201631949886179392388953631218
Central
13513514642386300000109492922
South
50181990742812881
Statewide
1053321665045232912060886179392388910958537021
Monthly Totals
Dare County
Dare County
3519501985
Monthly Totals
% of Northern
4% 8%
Region
% of Statewide
3% 7%
4.6.1.9RoseateTern
On November 2, 1987, the USFWS listed two populations of the Roseate tern (Sterna dougallii
dougallii) as endangered and threatened. The population that nests in northeastern North America
was determined to be endangered, while the Caribbean population (including nesting birds in the
U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Florida) were listed as threatened. Roseate terns measure
approximately 15 inches long with a wingspan about twice the length. They are distinguished by a
black bill, pale coloration and rosy chests during summertime. In the winter, the black cap is
replaced with a white forehead. Roseate terns breed primarily on small offshore islands, rocks, cays
and islets. Rarely do they breed on large islands. They have been reported nesting near vegetation or
jagged rock, on open sandy beaches, close to the waterline on narrow ledges of emerging rocks or
among coral rubble (USFWS, 1998). The roseate tern is a rare occurrence in North Carolina and is
not listed as one of the bird species prioritized for conservation in the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission’s Wildlife Action Plan (Sara Schweitzer, pers. comm., July 9, 2014. This
)
species is primarily observed south of Cape Hatteras, particularly at Cape Point within Cape Hatteras
National Seashore during the months of June through August. According to eBird, there have been
opportunistic sightings of the roseate tern in Dare County; however, these occurrences have been
rare. Sightings have occurred during the months of June, July and August (eBird, 2014). There are
no records of the species nesting in the proposed Project Area (USFWS, 1999; eBird, 2014).
4.7CulturalResources
Cultural resources, such as archaeological or historic artifacts and structures, may exist in or near the
project area. It is necessary to determine if any cultural resources exist within the Project Area and if
they are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The federal statutes
associated with these actions include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended (PL 89-665); the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Archaeological
94
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Resources Protection Act of 1987; the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Procedures for the
Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties (36 CFR Part 800); and the Abandoned Shipwreck Act
of 1987.
Of the twenty-seven sites in Dare County that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places,
only two are located in Kill Devil Hills: the Wright Brothers National Memorial and Sam’s Diner.
The site on which the Wright Brothers National Memorial is located is less than one mile south and
approximately 0.6 miles west of the stretch of shoreline proposed for nourishment, and will not be
influenced by project activities. Underwater sites include the shipwrecks USS Monitor andUSS
Huron. The USS Monitor is a 179 ft. iron-hulled steamship wreck located about 26 miles southeast
of Cape Hatteras. In 1973, the wreck site was designated as the United States’ first marine sanctuary,
and remains one of only thirteen marine sanctuaries created to protect a cultural resource. The USS
Huron is an iron sloop-rigged steam gunboat shipwreck located approximately 250 yards off of Nags
Head beach. The USS Huron was designated as North Carolina’s first “Historic Shipwreck Preserve”
in 1991.
In 2009, offshore underwater archaeological surveys were performed in association with the Dare
County federal project. The surveys targeted three offshore borrow areas located approximately 1.75
miles east of Nags Head. However, the Kill Devil Hills project does not propose to use the borrow
areas previously surveyed for the federal project. Accordingly, additional surveys will be performed
to identify whether any cultural resources exist in the vicinity of the newly proposed borrow areas,
and clearance from the State Historic Preservation Office will be obtained prior to project
commencement. Should the surveys identify potentially culturally sensitive material the appropriate
avoidance measures, such as buffer zones, will be recommended and implemented.
4.8SocioeconomicResources
Kill Devil Hills is situated in the geographic middle of the northern Outer Banks, and is the largest
municipality in Dare County. The town’s year-round population was estimated to be 6,920 in 2013,
which represents a 3.5% increase since April 2010. During the summer months, the population
swells to nearly 40,000 (City of Kill Devil Hills, 2014). Tourism is the main economic driver in Kill
Devil Hills, and in fact Dare County as a whole, as the area provides many recreational and scenic
resources. In 2011, tourism alone brought $877 million into the local economies within Dare County
(Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, 2012). For Kill Devil Hills, the most common three industries include
accommodation and food services, finance/insurance and real estate, and construction. The
commercial and residential construction industry in Kill Devil Hills provides new homes, commerce
and increased revenue each year to the town. In 2012, Kill Devil Hills issued 40 Single-family new
house construction building permits with the average cost being $273,900. Since 2008, Kill Devil
Hills has seen a steady increase with this resource. According to the United States Census Bureau
(USCB) the town contained 6,617 homes, 3,486 of which are for seasonal and recreational use and
income. The average value of a home in this area is $269,300 (± $17,435) (USCB, 2008-2012
American Community Survey). The median sales price for homes from April 14 to July 14, 2014
was $236,000, which was an increase of 2.6% compared to the prior quarter, and an increase of 6.9%
compared to the prior year. Although the housing market has fluctuated within the area over the past
five years, the average selling price of homes within Kill Devil Hills has steadily increased in that
time (www.trulia.com). Of the 6,617 housing units, 35 are within theProject Area.
95
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

4.9RecreationalandScenicResources
Dare County spans 110 miles of oceanfront shoreline that supports millions of residents and visitors
each year. As a tourist destination, Kill Devil Hills has numerous recreational venues that include
Aviation Park, Fresh Pond Park, Hayman Park, Meekins Field, the Centennial Pathways, NC 12
Bike Path, Ocean Bay Multi-Use Trail, Veteran’s Drive Multi-Use Trail, Wright Brothers Multi-Use
Trail, Dare County Family Recreation Park, Wright Brothers National Memorial and Avalon Fishing
Pier. Kill Devil Hills also offers surf shops, kayak rental shops, bicycle rental shops, fishing rental
shops, charter boat fishing, beach tours and bird watching. Other water related recreational services
provided are kite surfing, jet ski rentals and dive charters in the area.. The Outer Banks are also
known as a surfer’s destination. Surfer enthusiasts visit from all over to surf the waves provided by
expansive shoreline and there are six surf shops located within Kill Devil Hills. Recreational fishing
is also a major draw for tourists and locals alike. In-shore anglers, pier fishing, surf fishing and boat
fishing collectively draw in revenue through fishing enthusiasts’ hotel accommodations, rentals,
dining and permits. Avalon Fishing Pier is centrally located in Kill Devil Hills and is open 24 hours
a day during the peak season. This recreational fishing brings in revenue year round. According to
the Department of Marine Fisheries, 2010 figures show there were 975,831 recreational fishing trips,
which include outings on a charter, private boats along with bank and pier fishing. These trips
generated $30,477,340 in direct income for captains and guides but the economic impact of these
trips was $77.64 million.
Kill Devil Hills includes many natural environments that contribute to the area’s scenic draw. The
town is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the Albermarle Sound, various creeks and bays. An array
of salt marshes, wetlands, sandy beaches, maritime forests and estuarine habitats can also be found
in the area. The Project Area includes nearshore habitat types that support ecosystems typically
associated with a developed barrier island system in southeastern North Carolina, including dunes,
sandy beaches, surf zones and nearshore submarine softbottom ecosystems.
5IMPACTSASSOCIATEDWITHEACHALTERNATIVE
Beach nourishment affects the infrastructural and economic aspects of the human environment.
Beach nourishment can have considerable positive and negative biological impacts to the several
components of the beach ecosystem including terrestrial arthropods, marine zoobenthos,
microphytobentos, shorebirds, vascular plants, nesting sea turtles and swimming marine fauna.
Negative impacts dominate in short term, while long term impacts depend on the ecological recovery
of the system, which is influenced by the project timing, project size and location, techniques
employed, sand quality and quantity and conditions prior to nourishment (Speybroeck et al.., 2006).
In general, positive impacts include protection of upland structures and infrastructure, restoration of
eroded beach and dune habitat for wildlife nesting and roosting, as well as potential benefits to local
economies due to increased use for recreation.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR §§ 1508.7 and 1508.8) defines
direct effects as those caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are
defined as those caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still
reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related
to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects
on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. A Cumulative impact is the impact
96
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal)
or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place over time. The following sections describe the negative
and positive impacts anticipated for the human environment as well as the abiotic and biotic
components of the coastal system for each of the alternatives.
5.1WaterQuality
5.1.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
Turbidity along the Outer Banks is generally lowest in the summer months and highest in the winter
months, corresponding with winter storm events. The abandon and retreat alternative does not
involve any activities affecting the marine environment, therefore turbidity events will continue to
fluctuate naturally. The intertidal areas are subject to periodic increases in turbidity resulting from
storms and wave activity. As a result, the biological communities found in the intertidal and
nearshore zone are comprised of stress tolerant species. Turbidity levels near the beach fill sites will
not be affected if the abandon and retreat alternative is taken.
5.1.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
One concern associated with nourishment projects is the effect to water quality, particularly
concerning turbidity and sedimentation at the borrow site and in the surf zone adjacent to the
nourished beach. When sediment re-suspension occurs, larger particles will likely settle out;
however, the finer sediments will remain suspended for longer periods, or even indefinitely in
turbulent water (Adriaanse and Coosen, 1991). Suspended particles may interfere with the biological
functions of some organisms such as feeding, respiration, reproduction and potentially cause
predator avoidance. High turbidity and silt loads can have detrimental impacts to filter feeding
organisms associated with nearshore benthic communities including amphipods, isopods, decapods,
polychaetes, mollusks and others. The conditions of diminished light penetration can detrimentally
affect the photosynthetic activity of phytoplankton, the primary producers of energy production.
Depending on the type of dredge being used, temporary sediment plumes will arise from various
sources during borrow area dredging. In the case of a hopper dredge, sediment re-suspension will
result as the draghead moves over the seafloor, as well as during the discharge of overflow while
filling the hopper. Sediment re-suspension that results from overflow as the hopper is being filled
generally only occurs during a portion of the filling time. The time required to fill a hopper (fill
cycle) can vary, but on average may take 45 minutes to one hour when dredging sandy substrates.
The first 1/3 of the cycle involves filling the hopper with sand and water. For the remaining 2/3 of
the fill cycle, sand replaces the water in the hopper, and the water sporadically overflows back into
the ocean. Turbidity plumes can also be created sub-surface at the drag head site. These plumes are
localized to the immediate vicinity of the drag head and do not reach the surface (LaSalle et al.,
1991). The sediment plume generated by hopper dredging has been shown to extend 1,640 to 4,000
feet from the dredge, and is generally reported to be short-term (Hitchcock et al., 1999; Anchor
Environmental 2003; Roman-Sierra et al., 2011). The length and shape of the plume depends, in
part, on the hydrodynamics within the water column as well as the sediment grain size. In sandy
substrates typical of borrow sites, the grain size is larger and the extent of sediment suspension is
97
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

therefore more restricted. However, in cases where there is a fine-grained sediment overburden that
must be stripped to access the borrow sand, sediment suspension would be more extensive. The
borrow areas presently proposed for the Duck project will be composed of high-quality sand, with
low organics and biological oxygen demand. Therefore, re-suspended material is expected to have a
quicker settling time, and have no appreciable effects on the dissolved oxygen, pH or temperature.
Additionally, the hydrodynamics of the open-ocean environment at the borrow sites allows adequate
mixing with oxygen rich surface waters. Accordingly, it is anticipated the proposed project would
have only minor impacts to the marine water column at the borrow areas.
Cutter suction dredges generate comparatively lower amounts of suspended sediment and plumes are
confined to within a few meters of the drilling cutterhead at the seafloor. A cutter suction dredge
functions by drilling below the surface of the substrate; therefore, the sediment plumes created from
the drilling cutterhead are generally highly localized (CSA et al., 2009). Additionally, the material is
hydraulically moved from the cutterhead /sediment interface directly into a pipeline, eliminating the
hopper-filling stage and associated overflow. Although unlikely, a leaking submerged pipeline can
also be a source of elevated turbidity (Michel et al. 2013). At the placement site, turbidity will
increase within the surf zone due to pipeline discharge and can affect hundreds of meters of
shoreline. Several studies of similar projects involving sand placement activities have shown
elevated concentrations within the nearshore extend an alongshore distance of 1,310 to 1,640 feet
from the discharge pipe in the swash zone, and dissipate on the order of hours (Shubel et al., 1978;
Burlaset al., 2001; Wilber et al., 2006). The beach quality material that will be placed along the
shorelines for the proposed project will have a low percentage of fine-grained sediment, thus the
turbidity plume generated is anticipated to be comparable to these studies, and temporary.
The borrow areas proposed for this Alternative consist of high-quality sand; therefore, dredging these
areas is expected to result in sediment plumes that will be temporary and highly localized at the offshore
the discharged sediment will not elevate
borrow area. In the nearshore adjacent to the nourished beach,
turbidity beyond levels naturally occurring in the turbulent surf zone. The preferred alternative is
therefore not expected to result in long-term adverse impacts to water-quality in the nearshore or
offshore marine environment.
5.1.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
The no action alternative will impart no change on natural or anthropogenic activities already
occurring in the Project Area. The status quo involves short-term solutions to storm protection taken
by the property owners such as erecting sand fencing, occasional beach scraping and placement of
sand bags. None of these activities will affect the turbidity levels in the marine environment and
turbidity events will continue to fluctuate naturally. Turbidity levels will therefore not be affected if
the no action alternative is taken.
5.2AirQuality
5.2.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
The abandon and retreat alternative will result in no adverse impacts to air quality.
98
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

5.2.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
A temporary reduction in air quality will occur as a result of emissions created by dredges and
construction vehicles on the beach. These discharges will be localized and will not result in any
significant or long-term impact to ambient air quality in Kill Devil Hills.
5.2.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
The no action alternative will result in no adverse impacts to air quality.
5.3Noise
5.3.1AssociatedImpactswithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
Noise levels within the Project Area are relatively low. The abandonment of structures within the
Project Area will not elevate ambient noise. The relocation of residential or commercial structures
would require a degree of construction activity dependent on the size, number and type of buildings
being relocated, and noise levels would be elevated due to operation of construction equipment. As it
is not known at this time which structures in imminent danger would be abandoned versus relocated,
it is not feasible to estimate the extent or period for which noise levels would be elevated.
5.3.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
During dredging activities, noise levels will increase above the ambient levels at the borrow areas
and beach site due to the presence of construction equipment and personnel. Marine dredging
produces broadband, continuous, low frequency sound that can be detected over considerable
distances and may trigger avoidance reactions in marine mammals (Thomsen et al., 2009) and other
organisms. The sound produced is dependent on many factors including, but not limited to, substrate
type, sediment type being dredged, type of equipment used and skill of the dredge operator. The
variation in noise emitted by equipment type is related to how the machinery makes contact with and
extracts material from the sea floor. Clarke et al. (2002) performed a study of underwater noise
produced by various types of dredging equipment, including a hydraulic cutter suction dredge and a
trailing suction hopper dredge. Recordings of a hydraulic cutter performing maintenance dredging in
Mississippi Sound, Mississippi emitted noise as the cutterhead was turned at 1 – 10 rpm within the
substrate. Sounds were continuous and fell within the 70 to 1,000 Hz range while sound pressure
levels peaked between 100 to 110 dB re 1µPa rms. In the case of a hopper dredge, much of the
sounds emitted during the active dredging process are produced by propeller and engine noise,
pumps and generators. Similar to a cutter suction dredge, most of the sound energy produced fell
within the 70 to 1,000 Hz range and was continuous in nature. However, Clarke et al. (2002) found
that peak pressure levels for hopper dredges ranged from 120 to 140 dB re 1µPa rms, which were
much higher than a cutter suction dredge.
Sound plays an important role in the marine environment; however, the function of sound in the
ecology of many marine animals is not entirely understood. The extraction of sand from the marine
environment produces sound that elevates levels above ambient, and may therefore disturb or cause
injury to some marine fauna such as invertebrates, fishes, mammals and sea turtles. For example, in
marine cephalopods, exposure to low-frequency sound was found to cause acoustic trauma to
99
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

sensory structures responsible for the animals’ sense of balance and position (Andre et al., 2011).
Sound can also prove detrimental to fishes, especially those considered “hearing specialists”, which
have specialized hearing structures, and those with swim bladders. The frequency and sound levels
emitted by dredges overlap the range of hearing for some fish species, meaning dredging can cause
adverse effects such as behavioral changes or physiological damage (Thomsen et al., 2009). Impacts
from dredging noise incurred by certain threatened and endangered species (e.g. manatees, whales
and sea turtles) are discussed further in section 5.6.
At the placement site, noise levels will also be elevated during beach construction due to the
presence of heavy machinery such as excavators and front-end loaders. Noise disturbance created by
heavy machinery may drive birds and sea turtles from their foraging or nesting activities (Speybroek
et al., 2006). Noise levels will only be elevated during active construction and will return to pre-
construction levels upon project completion.
5.3.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
The no action alternative will impart no change on natural or anthropogenic activities already
occurring in the Project Area. Under the status quo, property owners within the Project Area have
resorted to short-term solutions to storm protection such as erecting sand fencing, occasional beach
scraping and placement of sand bags. Ambient noise levels will temporarily increase due to
operation of equipment to complete these measures, such as bulldozers, but will return to ambient
after project completion. No long-term impacts to noise levels will occur with the no action
alternative.
5.4BeachandDuneHabitat
5.4.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
Analysis of historical shoreline trends using LiDAR data and DCM shoreline change rates show
moderate recession rates tempered by some areas of accretion along the Kill Devil Hills shoreline
(refer to section 2.1). Abandonment or relocation of threatened structures would not likely alter these
trends and recession/accretion would continue at similar rates. Because the abandon and retreat
alternative would not reduce or mitigate shoreline recession within the Project Area, loss of beach
and dune habitat will continue to occur in some areas This translates into reduction or degradation
of sea turtle nesting habitat in these receding areas.
The abandon and retreat alternative does not address the purpose and need item of providing storm
damage reduction to imminently threatened structures over the next 5 years. As a result, storm
damages may be incurred in the form of acute erosion or dune overwash, but these changes would
likely be naturally restored after a period of accretion.
5.4.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
Much of the dune community along the Kill Devil Hills shoreline has been lost due to a combination
of development and erosion. Sand placement and dune construction would contribute to
development of a stable beach and dune habitat that may prove beneficial for many plant and animal
100
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

species. During construction, impacts to extant dune vegetation will be minimal, as operations will
avoid disturbing or placing sand directly on existing vegetation.
At the same time, construction would negatively impact the infaunal community that inhabits the
intertidal and subtidal beach (e.g. polychaetes, amphipods, crustaceans, gastropods) as well as the
biological community that depend on them such as, ghost crabs, fish and a variety of seabirds and
shorebirds. However, numerous studied have demonstrated that nourishment does not prevent
recolonization of the beach by infaunal organisms. An example of short-term recovery of beach
infauna can be seen in the 2011 nourishment project at Nags Head Beach, North Carolina. The Town
of Nags Head implemented a beach nourishment project and placed material along approximately 10
miles of oceanfront shoreline. Results from post-construction benthic monitoring have confirmed
that the area impacted by sand placement on Nags Head beach has regained a viable assemblage of
benthic organisms that is similar to non-impacted beaches both one year post-construction (CZR
Incorporated and CSE, Inc., 2013) and two years post-construction (CZR Incorporated and CSE,
Inc., 2014). The year-2 post-construction surveys showed no significant differences between the
nourished beach in Nags Head from the control beaches in the study in terms of mean difference of
taxa richness or sand grain size. On the nourished beach, wintertime abundance was actually
significantly higher two years post nourishment than pre-nourishment (CZR Incorporated and CSE,
Inc., 2014).
5.4.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
A barrier island is a dynamic feature that naturally undergoes erosion of the beach and dune from the
seaward side and accretion on the backside of the island. In this way, the island essentially “moves”
with changing sea states. It is this ability to adapt that allows these features to persist. However,
development along the Kill Devil Hills shoreline prevents this natural erosion/accretion cycle from
occurring resulting in sand that will be progressively lost but not replenished naturally. This may
result in progressive loss and possible elimination of the remaining beach and dune habitat and the
ecological services these areas provide. Loss of beach would threaten sea turtle nesting habitat and
result in a reduction in foraging and nesting grounds for shorebirds and seabirds that frequent the
Kill Devil Hills shoreline.
Additionally, continued erosion along the Kill Devil Hills beaches would increase the risk of storm
damages to the human and natural environments. As a result, armoring measures (i.e. sand fences,
sand bags and beach scraping) potentially undertaken by property owners to reduce the threat of
storm damage would further degrade the dune habitat and result in negative impacts to the biological
communities. While installation of sand fencing and sandbags may encourage dune formation and
increase storm protection, respectively, these efforts do little in the way of mitigating shoreline
recession. Sandbags are considered Temporary Erosion Control Structures and are regulated under
NCAC 7H .0308(a)(2), though they may persist for many years beyond their permitted use. If left
un-maintained, the sandbags can begin to deteriorate or become damaged, littering nearby nearshore
waters and beaches.
101
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

5.5EssentialFishHabitat
5.5.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
The abandon and retreat alternative is not expected to result in any adverse impacts to EFH.
5.5.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
There are no estuarine areas or associated EFH within the project area. There are also no live/hard
bottoms, coral and coral reefs, artificial/manmade reefs or sargassum essential fish habitat marine
areas located with the Project Area. As such, there are no potential impacts to these EFH categories.
There are two habitats, the marine water column and offshore shoals that are considered EFH within
the Project Area and may be affected by the project. The marine water column within the Project
Area includes the inner shelf waters around the borrow area and pump-out site and the surf zone
adjacent to the section of shoreline proposed for nourishment.
5.5.2.1EffectsonMarineWaterColumn
The Project’s proposed borrow areas are located from 4.1 to 6.5 miles offshore (Figure 1). Potential
effects from elevated turbidity levels may be expected to occur in the mid and inner shelf waters
surrounding the proposed borrow area resulting from the dredging activities’ sea floor disturbance
and in the surf zone resulting from sand placement on the beach. Potential effects to the surf zone
and benthic prey species are discussed in the next section.
The physical disturbance created by the use of a dredge in the offshore borrow areas can negatively
affect the physiology and feeding behavior of visually orienting fish via increased turbidity (Wilber
et al., 2003). Depending on the type of dredge being used, temporary sediment plumes will arise
from various sources during borrow area dredging. In the case of a hopper, sediment re-suspension
will result as the draghead moves over the seafloor and during the discharge of overflow while
filling the hopper. Cutter suction dredges generate comparatively lower amounts of suspended
sediment and plumes are confined to within a few meters of the drilling cutterhead at the seafloor. A
cutter suction dredge functions by drilling below the surface of the substrate; therefore, the sediment
plumes created from the drilling cutterhead are generally highly localized (CSA et al., 2010).
Additionally, the material is hydraulically moved from the cutterhead /sediment interface directly
into a pipeline, eliminating the hopper-filling stage and associated overflow. Although unlikely, a
leaking submerged pipeline can also be a source of elevated turbidity (Michel et al., 2013).
Several typical estuarine projects have shown sediment settling rates ranging from
centimeters/second to meters/second resulting in settlement primarily within the dredge site’s
immediate area (Bohlen, 2002). Larger grain sizes within the plume settle more rapidly. Coarse sand
(>2 millimeters) and gravels settle almost immediately, often with a distance of less than 50 meters
from the dredger (Challinor, 2000). As shown in Table 5 above and discussed in Section 2.2.1, the
material within the borrow area is comprised of a large mean grain size and low silt content.
Regardless of the dredge type used, the potential for EFH turbidity effects is therefore limited by the
borrow source’s sand percentage and rapid fallout during removal and placement. In addition, given
102
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

the high-energy environment in conjunction with the borrow area characteristics, adverse effects
from lowered DO are unlikely.
The beachfront surf zone, a subcategory of the marine water column EFH, is characterized as a high-
energy shallow area located between the marine intertidal habitat and where waves form and break.
This high-energy area is habitat to many benthic organisms and a foraging ground for finfish. The
surf zone has been designated as EFH by the SAMFC because of the ecological functions provided
to the aquatic resources.
The proposed Project’s temporal and spatial effects on surf zone habitat and associated invertebrate
prey species along the collective 15 miles of oceanfront shoreline of the Project Area could
adversely affect other fishes of commercial, recreational or ecological importance such as Atlantic
croaker (Micropogonias undulates), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus)
and Florida pompano (Trachinotus carolinus). These species serve as prey for king mackerel,
Spanish mackerel, cobia and others that are managed by the SAFMC and for highly migratory
species (e.g., billfishes and sharks) that are managed by NMFS. Effects to managed species are
discussed below.
Placing sand directly along the surf zone will adversely affect this EFH through the burial of benthic
organisms. Although the infaunal communities in both the surf zone and offshore borrow areas will
be directly impacted during construction, it is expected that these communities will recover in a short
period due to recolonization from adjacent communities as described and referenced below.
Benthic monitoring is a frequently required component of beach nourishment monitoring programs.
A study on the northern New Jersey coastline by Wilber et al. (2003) concluded that a temporary
reduction in benthos did not detrimentally affect prey consumption of fish that forage in the
nourished area. As a result, the author suggested that continued mandatory benthic monitoring does
not appear to be a prudent use of limited monitoring resources.
While the number of trophodynamic studies linking surf-zone fish and non-fish communities is
limited, researchers have evaluated the dominant prey for many surf zone and nearshore fish species.
Hackney et al.(1996) identified both the mole crab (Emerita talpoida) and the coquina clam (Donax
variabilis) as dominant prey items in the trophic web for the majority of surf zone and nearshore fish
of the South Atlantic Bight. Although the effects remain short-term, there is a difference in recovery
rate attributable to the season in which a project is constructed. A literature review of the effects of
beach nourishment on benthic habitat performed by Taylor Engineering (2009), prepared for the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, evaluated a wide variety of sites along the Atlantic
and Gulf coasts and spanned the years of 1980 to 2007. The review concluded that benthic habitat
within nourished areas typically recovered within 2 to 7 months. Variability was attributed to the
season in which fill activities occurred and the compatibility of the fill material, with winter projects
having less of an impact.
The Nags Head beach nourishment project, completed in 2011, was conducted during the peak
period of benthic productivity spanning the months of May through October. The fill area included
approximately 10 miles of oceanfront shoreline and utilized an offshore borrow source located
within states waters. The Year 1 post-construction monitoring report for the project was released in
103
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

June of 2013. The report concluded that benthic populations in the nourished beach as well as the
offshore borrow area are generally not significantly different from control stations and demonstrate
viable populations of organisms during the earliest post project sample events (CZR, 2013). The
Year 2 post-monitoring report confirmed the results of the Year 1 report. Both reports concluded
benthic populations along the beach as well as the offshore borrow area were generally no different
from control stations and demonstrated viable populations of organisms during the post-construction
sampling events (CZR, 2014). These results support more than three decades of similar previous
findings such as those described above.
In summary, although seasonality of project construction may affect the recovery time of benthic
communities, affects to benthos within nourished and borrow areas continue to be shown as minimal
and transient. With the expected relatively quick recovery of infaunal communities, non-impacted
adjacent communities, use of compatible material, mobility and adaptability of fish species found
within the surf zone EFH and offshore borrow area, the Project is not expected to result in significant
or long-term impacts to this EFH or benthic prey resources.
5.5.2.2EffectsonOffshoreShoals
Dredging at offshore shoals may result in effects associated with shoal physiology, benthic
abundance and elevated turbidity. The proposed maximum extents of the borrow areas encompass a
cumulative total of 1600 acres or approximately 2.5 square miles. Relative to the extent of shoals in
the region (Figure 12), the proposed project only has the potential to affect a comparably small area.
Potential long-term physical and biological impacts could occur if dredging significantly changes the
physiography of the shoals. Sediment removal has the potential to alter seabed topography,
particularly if sediment removal in the borrow area results in a deep hole. As shown in Figure 4 and
Figure 5, the proposed Project’s borrow area sediment removal does not exceed the surrounding
depths. Therefore, the proposed Project does not include significantly deep excavations resulting in
holes likely to alter seabed topography. It should also be noted that major shoal features (Figure 12)
will not be affected by the proposed Project.
Benthic resources within offshore borrow areas will be affected during project construction by the
removal of sediment. Benthic invertebrates that inhabit sand shoals provide structural fish habitat via
the development of worm tubes, burrows and depressions. In addition, these invertebrates provide a
foraging base for demersal feeders. Similar to the surf zone effects described above, recolonization
by opportunistic species would be expected to begin soon after project construction ceases. Because
of the opportunistic nature of the species, rapid recovery would be expected to occur from the
migration of benthic organisms from adjacent areas and larval transport. Benthos found in sand
bottoms of high-energy environments, such as those within the Project borrow areas, tend to recover
more quickly than those occurring in lower-energy environments with a higher percentage of fine
particles (Normandeau, 2014). Faster recovery in shallow high-energy environments may reflect the
adaptation of communities that occur in these habitats to frequent disturbance from episodic storm
events (Normandeau, 2014).
Benthic communities on the offshore shoals are known to vary seasonally. This seasonal variation
becomes less apparent with distance offshore and increasing depth. Slacum et al. (2006) surveyed
mobile benthic species on shoals and nearby habitats off Delaware and Maryland (16 to 25 km off
104
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

the coast, in 5 to 22 m depth) and found significant seasonal variation in assemblages at both shoals
and reference sites. Species richness and abundance were both highest in summer and fall, and
lowest in winter (Normandeau, 2014). Regardless, monitoring studies of post-dredging effects and
recovery rates of borrow areas indicate that most borrow areas usually show significant recovery by
benthic organisms approximately 1 to 2 years after dredging and greater inter-annual variability than
differences from the effects of dredging (USACE, 2013). Burlas et al. (2001) monitored borrow sites
with bathymetric high points off northern New Jersey and found that essentially all infaunal
assemblage patterns recovered within 1 year after dredging disturbance, except recovery of average
sand dollar weight and biomass composition, which required 2.5 years. Similar to the effects
determination for the surf zone, with the expected relatively quick recovery of infaunal communities,
the Project is not expected to result in significant long-term impacts to benthic prey resources.
As described in the Mid and Inner Shelf Waters Effects Determination above, the potential for EFH
turbidity effects are limited by the borrow source’s sand percentage and rapid fallout during
removal. Although turbidity plumes associated with dredging often are short-lived and affect
relatively small areas (Cronin et al., 1970; Nichols et al., 1990), resuspension and redispersion of
dredged sediments by subsequent currents and waves can propagate dredge-related turbidity for
extended periods after dredging ends (Onuf, 1994). Biological responses to turbidity depend on all of
these physical factors, coupled with the type of organism, geographic location, and the time of the
year. In the case of sand dredging from offshore shoals for beach nourishment, turbidity plumes at
the borrow site are virtually nonexistent due to rapid settling of sand-sized particles, resulting in
minimal, if any, sedimentation impacts relative to background transport processes (Louis Berger
Group, 1999). Additionally, in an analysis of potential biological and physical impacts of dredging
on offshore ridge and shoal features, CSA et al. (2009) confirmed that turbidity plumes and their
effects are expected to be less important in unprotected offshore areas. This is due to sand settling
more rapidly than clay and silt and offshore shoals tend to be coarser than inshore deposits (CSA et.
al., 2009).
5.5.2.3EffectsonManagedSpecies
The physical disturbance caused by dredging and the placement of sand onto the beach may affect
fish distribution patterns. However, it is anticipated that changes in turbidity from dredging
operations will be less significant than changes in background levels that will occur during the range
of environmental conditions experienced in the Project Area (Lally and Ikalainen, 2001).
Additionally, any managed species migrating through, or potentially near the Project Area are
expected to avoid active construction areas. Effects to managed species in regards to turbidity are
expected to be transient and minimal.
The precise nature of any obligate association of demersal or pelagic fishes with shoals is not
known, but it appears that many fish species rely on shoal features as a part of a broader, cross-shelf
habitat (CSA et al., 2010). Regardless, as discussed in in the prior Section and shown in Figure 4,
Figure 5 and Figure 12, the proposed borrow area design and cuts will have a minimal effect on the
individual shoal and a miniscule effect on the shoal complex in the area. Adverse effects to managed
species from the relatively small affected area are not anticipated.
Additionally, as discussed and documented above, effects to benthic resources and consequentially
to managed species or managed species prey sources are also expected to be transient. With the
105
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

availability of adjacent undisturbed areas and fleeting effects within the Project Area, indirect effects
to managed species in regards to prey loss and disturbance are expected to be short-lived and
minimal.
5.5.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
Continuation of the status quo is not expected to result in any adverse impacts to EFH.
5.6ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies
Several threatened and endangered species may occur directly within or near the Project Area, and
thus may be affected by the proposed project. Potential effects to threatened and endangered species
are discussed in the following sections.
5.6.1WestIndianManatee
5.6.1.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
The abandon and retreat alternative will not involve any in-water work, or impacts to habitats
utilized by manatees. This alternative will therefore have no effect on West Indian manatees.
5.6.1.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
One of the major threats to the West Indian manatee is collisions with watercraft, resulting in serious
injury or mortality. Manatee and vessel interactions are possible while the dredge is underway to and
from the fill site. However, open ocean habitat is not commonly used by manatees (Cummings et al.,
2014); therefore, the likelihood of manatees occurring within the operational area of the dredge is
quite low. Additionally, the project will not affect estuarine habitats and there is no submerged
aquatic vegetation (primary food source for manatees) near the Project Area.
Marine mammals are highly vocal and dependent on sound for many aspects of life making them
particularly susceptible to impacts from noise. For example, manatees have been shown to select
grassbeds with lower ambient noise for frequencies below 1 kHz. Noise levels within the nearshore
environment will likely be elevated due to construction activities associated with the placement of
sand onto the receiving beaches. As stated above, however, manatees do not commonly utilize the
nearshore environment off North Carolina; therefore, it is considered unlikely manatees will occur
within the Project Area.
5.6.1.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
The no action alternative will not impact any habitats utilized by West Indian manatees, and will
therefore not affect this species.
5.6.2Whales
5.6.2.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
Activities under this alternative will not impact any habitats utilized by whales, and will therefore
have no effect on any whale species.
106
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

5.6.2.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
Of the six species considered, only the humpback whale and the North Atlantic right whale would be
expected to occur within the Project Area. Although fin whales may occur within the nearshore
waters of North Carolina during the winter, it is likely these individuals would be migratory. Fin
whales are not anticipated within coastal waters of North Carolina during the summer, as they would
likely be on their feeding grounds in Northern waters. The proposed project is therefore not
anticipated to result in additional impacts to fin whales.
The major concern for humpback or North Atlantic right whales occurring within the Project Area
will be the possibility of collisions with the hopper dredge or other vessels. Due to their critical
population status, slow speeds and tendency to linger at the surface, vessel collisions are the greatest
threat for North Atlantic right whales (NMFS, 2012). Collisions with the dredge are most likely to
occur while sailing to and from the offloading site. Vessel speed has been shown to affect the
probability of lethality of a collision substantially, and is therefore considered a major concern for
North Atlantic right whales. Speeds at which dredges typically operate are quite slow, less than 10
kts., which is below the speed recommended by the NMFS if North Atlantic right whales are
spotted. Laist et al. (2013) reports that of 41 ship strike accounts for which vessel speed has been
reported, no lethal or severe injuries occurred at speeds below 10 kts. and no collisions have been
reported for speeds of less than 6 kts. The potential for an interaction between the dredge and a listed
species increases with the level of dredging effort required for the project. Dredging effort includes
parameters such as the total volume of material dredged, number and size of dredges used and total
number of dredge days. Distance from the borrow area to the pump-out site and the number of trips
made between them factor into dredging effort.
Table 23. Typical dredging operations based on information provided by potential
dredge contractors.
OperationTypical Values
Speed
Dredging 1 – 3 kts
Underway (loaded) 5 – 8 kts
Underway (empty) 10 – 11 kts
Hopper Fill Time 45 min – 75 min
Overflow Sporadic, only during 2/3 of fill time
The noise produced by dredging activity while the dredge is stationary may also impact North
Atlantic right whales and humpback whales if they are present near the Project Area. As discussed in
the previous section, underwater noise of anthropogenic origin can potentially affect or alter normal
migration patterns, communication, foraging and breeding habits. During dredging activities, noise
levels will increase above the ambient levels at the borrow areas. While the above impacts are
possible, North Atlantic right whales are not anticipated in the vicinity of the Project Area due to the
proposed summertime construction schedule. During this time, the whales are generally found on, or
migrating to, the northern feeding grounds.
107
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

5.6.2.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
Activities under the no action alternative will not impact any habitats utilized by whales, and will
therefore have no effect on any whale species.
5.6.3SeaTurtles
5.6.3.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
Under the abandon and retreat alternative, the line of development would slowly shift landward and
the beach would be allowed to shift and change shape according to changing wind and wave
conditions. In the absence of structures, the shoreline would be able to migrate inland, during times
of seasonal and storm induced erosion, yet sand would be maintained within the system for natural
recovery of the beach. Additionally, dune vegetation would likely begin to colonize the beach strand,
helping to build a dune system. Essentially, beach habitat would be naturally maintained, ultimately
benefiting sea turtles. Additionally, the abandon and retreat alternative may reduce the amount of
human presence along the beach strand, which would reduce disturbance, e.g. lighting, recreational
activity, to hatchling or nesting sea turtles.
5.6.3.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
Sea turtles utilize different habitats in different phases of their life cycle. While sea turtles spend the
vast majority of their life within the marine environment, they also utilize the beach for nesting
purposes. Beach nourishment activities, including dredging of marine substrate and placement of
sand on oceanfront beaches, may lead to several effects on swimming and nesting sea turtles. Beach
nourishment activities occurring outside the typical environmental windows recommended for sea
turtles (November 16 through March 31 for hopper dredges; November 16 through April 30 for
cutterhead dredges could exacerbate these impacts as construction would coincide with warmer
water temperatures and periods of increased sea turtle activity within North Carolina waters and
beaches. Therefore, impacts are addressed for sea turtles both within the water column and on the
nesting beach.
The greatest risk of direct impacts to swimming sea turtles comes from interactions with the
dredging vessels, where vessel strikes or entrainment by dredging equipment can result in injury or
fatality. The risk of entrainment is largely associated with hopper dredges, which can directly kill
turtles if crushed by, or caught in, the drag heads during dredging (NMFS, 1991).
Approaches to mitigating these threats include implementing environmental windows for dredging
activities, trawling and relocation ahead of the dredge, and turtle deflectors for the drag head. The
turtle deflector is a rigid shield installed over the draghead that pushes a sand wave ahead of the
draghead and displaces turtles away from the immediate suction field. Even with these mitigation
measures, turtle takes still occur on occasion. NMFS has hypothesized that the number of turtle
interactions is positively associated with the volume of material dredged and time spent dredging,
such that takes increase as the volume and duration of dredging increases (NMFS, 2012).
Although loggerhead sea turtles are the species most commonly documented within Dare County,
takes of other turtle species have occurred during offshore dredging projects. According to the
108
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

USACE’s Sea Turtle Warehouse database, among the six nourishment projects within the
Wilmington District of the USACE SAD that utilized offshore borrow areas, two projects resulted in
turtle takes (Table 24). A total of six turtle takes occurred, including two juvenile loggerheads, three
juvenile Kemp’s ridley turtles, and an additional loggerhead of unknown age. Although sizes were
not recorded for most takes, one juvenile loggerhead was measured to be 71.12 cm straight carapace
length (SCL). Of particular note is the relatively high number of takes that occurred during the
Bogue Banks Nourishment Project - Phase I completed from November 26, 2001, to April 11, 2002.
Although this project was characterized by a longer duration and larger amount of material dredged,
the first four turtle takes occurred after twenty days of dredging. The project adhered to mitigation
measures including drag head deflectors and construction well within the environmental windows
recommended for the project (December 1 through March 31); however, relocation trawling had not
yet started for the project, which may have contributed to the high number of takes. Other possible
contributing factors include a higher temp (64.4° F) than was reported for those projects that did not
result in takes. Additionally, notes within the database indicate that a diver was sent down to explore
why takes were occurring, and suggested that an “…abundance of old tires in the area attracted sea
life which the turtles were feeding on (i.e. crustaceans, octopus bycatch).” It was also reported that
observers witnessed an “appearance of Sargassum during time of December takes.” (USACE,
2013b). Relocation trawling was implemented during three of the four projects presented in Table
24, and did not cause turtle takes. However, one dolphin take did occur as a result of relocation
trawling during the Bogue Banks Phase I Nourishment Project.
The data discussed above suggest juvenile sea turtles are present in nearshore waters during the
month of December; this concurs with the spatial distributions of juvenile and adult loggerheads
presented by the Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG) (TWEG, 2009). Based on satellite telemetry
tracks of 248 loggerhead sea turtles, the TEWG concluded that few to no juvenile turtles occur close
to shore north of Cape Hatteras during the winter (January through March). High-use areas occurred
from the North Carolina-South Carolina border to the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia from spring (April
through June) through fall (October through December). The historic satellite tracking data analyzed
by the TWEG showed during the colder months of fall and winter, juvenile turtles had a higher
frequency of occurrence off the Carolinas south of Cape Hatteras.
Of the takes presented in Table 24, the one turtle measured upon take was a loggerhead with 71.12
cm SCL. The TWEG defines five life stages for loggerhead sea turtles by non-rigid size classes and
habitat usage. Stage I (hatching to 15 cm SCL) and II juveniles (15 cm to 63 cm SCL) are entirely
oceanic, while Stage III juveniles (41cm to 82 cm SCL) can be oceanic or neritic. Stage IV juveniles
(63 cm to 100 cm SCL) and Stage V adults can also be oceanic or neritic. The 71.12 cm loggerhead
turtle taken falls into the Stage III juvenile category.
Considering the TEWG studies and USACE take data, it seems that the takes reported for the Bogue
Banks Phase I nourishment do not represent an anomaly in sea turtle abundance; but rather can be
explained by the location (south of Cape Hatteras), habitat (neritic) and season (December) in which
the takes occurred. Other species including the green, leatherback and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles have
also been documented within nearshore waters of North Carolina; however, only the Kemp’s ridley
turtles have reportedly been killed during offshore dredging projects within the SAD Wilmington
District (Table 24). Nevertheless, there remains the potential for these species to occur in the Project
Area, and may therefore incur adverse project related impacts.
109
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Division using offshore borrow areas. Any records of turtle takes, conditions at time of take, and pertinent biological information are also included. A designation of ‘n/a’ indicates

Kure and Carolina Emerald Isle Post-
Bogue Banks Beach Bogue Banks Beach Nags Head Beach
Beach Shore Irene Renourishment
Nourishment-Phase II Nourishment-Phase II Nourishment Project
Protection Project Project
2/5/03 - 3/27/03 3/11/04 - 3/22/04 3/23/2004 - 3/30/04 5/24/11 - 10/27/11 2/27/13 - 3/24/13
74 11 16 180 n/a
989,895 324,453 n/a 4,615,126 630,000
18° C/ 64.4° F 16° C/ 60.8° F 16° C/ 60.8° F 12° C ± 3/ 53.6° F 12.7±3°C / 54.86°F 23-24°C/73.4-75.2°F 11.8°C/53.2°C
Offshore Dredged
Offshore Bogue Banks Offshore Borrow Area Offshore Bogue Banks Offshore Nags Head
Material Disposal Site
Kemp's Ridley Loggerhead None None None None
3/19/2003 None None None None
Dead None None None None
Juvenile Unkown None None None None
SCL(cm) 71.12 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a None None None None
Pre-dredge Trawling? No No No No No No
Yes(non-capture): Yes: 2/27/2013 -
Yes: 3/13/03-3/27/03 No Yes: 3/23/04-3/30/04
5/22/11 - 10/27/11 3/24/13
Yes(non-capture):
Yes Yes Yes Yes
5/22/11 - 10/27/11
Yes Yes Yes No Yes
110
,.
ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Should hopper dredges be utilized, the proposed projects will employ relocation trawling (as
described in Section 2.2.2 of the present document) as a means to reduce the potential for
entrainment of protected species, such as sea turtles and sturgeons. This method can successfully
reduce the number of turtles taken by entrainment during dredging projects. For example, during
the 2013 West Destin Beach Restoration project, in Okaloosa County, Florida, 23 green,
loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley and leatherback sea turtles were successfully relocated by trawling,
and no lethal takes occurred during the project (USACE, 2013c). However, relocation trawling
results in the non-lethal take of protected species, and there is also a documented history of lethal
take of both protected and non-protected species. During the 2002 Bogue Banks Phase I Beach
Nourishment Project, although four sea turtles were successfully relocated, one dolphin was
lethally taken by the trawler. Additionally, five sea turtles were taken by the dredge during this
project (USACE, 2013c).
In the Biological Opinion developed for the Shoreline Restoration Protection Project in Fort
Story, Virginia Beach, the NMFS hypothesized that the number of sea turtle-dredge interactions
is dependent upon factors such as time of year that dredging occurs, the terrain of the dredged
area and the presence or absence of sea turtle habitat within the dredged area (NMFS, 2012). The
proposed project may occur wholly or partially during the time period when loggerhead, green,
Kemp’s ridley and leatherback sea turtles are most abundant, which, coupled with the use of a
hopper dredge, elevates the potential for entrainment. Additionally, a portion of the migratory
critical habitat unit LOGG-N-1 for the loggerhead sea turtle slightly overlaps the southernmost
portion of Kill Devil Hills. Furthermore, there is a history of green sea turtle takes during
dredging of navigation channels in North Carolina. Although the risk of entrainment is reduced
during offshore dredging projects, there remains the possibility that green sea turtles could be
entrained during the proposed project. Finally, implementation of relocation trawling could result
in the capture of loggerhead, green, leatherback and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. Considering the
above listed factors and historical data, it is considered likely that sea turtles will be present in
the vicinity of the borrow areas and the proposed project may adversely affect swimming
loggerhead, green, leatherback and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles.
Similar to the potential affects due to entrainment, potential affects resulting from vessel
collisions are also elevated due to the proposed projects’ construction outside of the typical
environmental window. The risk of collision also depends upon the amount of time the animal
remains near the surface of the water (NMFS, 2012). The greatest risk of collision would occur
when the dredge is transiting between the offshore borrow area and the nearshore pump-out
location. While vessel collisions are a significant source of mortality for swimming sea turtles, it
is assumed that turtles are more likely to avoid slower moving vessels, such as dredges, due to a
greater amount of time to maneuver out of harm’s way. To date, there has been no hardbottom
areas that would serve as sea turtle foraging habitat identified in or near the borrow areas.
Therefore, it is most likely any sea turtles present will be swimming in the water column or on
the surface to breathe rather than on the bottom foraging. This may increase the chance of a
collision; while at the same time reduce the potential for entrainment
The loggerhead sea turtle is the species most commonly observed nesting in North Carolina. As
previously discussed, loggerhead nesting along the northern Outer Banks (north of Oregon Inlet)
constitutes 4.1% of total nesting activity that has occurred throughout North Carolina from 2009
111
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

through 2014. According to the Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the
loggerhead sea turtle, the loggerhead nesting season typically ranges from late April to early
September, with hatchling emergence occurring between late June and early November (NMFS
and USFWS, 2008). Green, leatherback and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles have also been
documented nesting along the northern Outer Banks, although to a much lesser extent than
loggerhead sea turtles. Beach nourishment activities occurring during nesting season therefore
have the potential to directly impact nesting females and hatchlings of these species. As
discussed in section 4.6.1.3, in the past, there has been significantly more sea turtle nesting
between June and July than the other months within the nesting season. Additionally,
significantly more hatchling emergences were found to occur between July 25 and September 4.
It is therefore considered likely that dredging activities occurring during these periods have the
greatest chance for affecting nesting and hatchling sea turtles.
The effects of a nourishment project to nesting and hatchling sea turtles depend in part on the
type of nourishment material used. An improperly re-nourished beach (i.e., one that does not
adequately mimic the physical composition and profile) can negatively affect sea turtle nesting
success, as well as hatchling emergence and survival. Nest site selection and digging behavior of
the female can be strongly influenced by the compaction and compatibility of the nourished
beach with a natural beach (Lutcavage et al., 1997). If the nourishment sand is dissimilar from
the native sand, results can include changes in sand compaction, beach moisture content, sand
color, sand grain size and shape, and sand grain mineral content, all of which may alter sea turtle
nesting behavior (Crain et al., 1995). Nest site selection and digging behavior of the female can
be altered, or deterred, if she finds the beach unsuitable. Additionally, escarpments may develop
on nourished beaches and can prevent sea turtles from accessing the dry beach causing the
female to return to the water without nesting. This is energetically wasteful to the female and
may result in overall decreased reproductive success. If unable to reach preferable nesting sites,
females may also choose to deposit nests in unfavorable areas seaward of the escarpment making
them vulnerable to washout (Crain et al., 1995).
To provide the most suitable sediment for nesting sea turtles, the color of the nourishment
material must resemble the natural beach sand in the area. A change in sediment color due to
beach nourishment could alter the natural incubation temperatures of sea turtle nests (Morreale et
al., 1982). Sex determination in hatchlings is dependent upon temperature, where higher
temperatures tend to skew the hatching sex ratio in favor of female hatchlings (Broderick et al.,
2001; Mrosovsky and Provancha, 1992; Ackerman, 1997). The thermal tolerance range for
development of sea turtle embryos falls within 25 to 27°C (77 to 80.6°F) and 33 to 35°C (91.4 to
95°F), and the threshold temperature at which sex determination occurs falls around 28 to 30°C
(82.4 to 86°F) (Ackerman, 1997). The temperature that a nest incubates is determined, in part,
on the color of sand. Lighter sand will result in a lower incubation temperature, while darker
sand will cause higher incubation temperatures. Therefore, it is possible that a change in
sediment color on a nourished beach could alter sex ratios of hatchlings in sea turtle nests.
Aside from compatibility of the nourishment material, the functionality of a newly nourished
beach as sea turtle nesting habitat also depends upon the design profile, e.g. slope and elevation.
In a report assessing how beach nourishment construction templates can affect sea turtle nesting,
PBS&J (2007) lists the following among the principle documented impacts:
112
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Traditionally built nourished beaches tend to be wide and flat, whereas heavily nested
natural beaches are often relatively narrow and steeply sloped. Alteration of beach profile
(width, slope, and elevation) presents nesting turtles with different tactile and visual cues
that may affect pre-emergent assessments of beach suitability (i.e., affect the number of
emergences onto the beach), nesting success (percentage of emergences resulting in
nests), and nest site selection. Reductions in nesting success and/or relative nest densities
are typically observed on most traditionally nourished beaches.
Changes in beach elevation and slope following nourishment may also alter incubation
environments relative to natural beaches and can affect the prevalence of scarping.
Patterns of nest placement are altered on nourished beaches relative to natural beaches. A
disproportionate number of nests are placed along the seaward edge of the beach berm.
These nests are more susceptible to erosion during periods of profile equilibration. As a
nourished beach equilibrates, a substantial amount of sand can be lost along the seaward
edge of the beach berm. Nests placed in this area of equilibration experience high rates of
loss due to “washout”.
Furthermore, the authors suggest creation of a wider beach may result in additional energy
expenditures for females and hatchlings due to greater crawl distances between the nest site and
the ocean (PBS&J, 2007).
In an attempt to address the above risks and improve the quality of habitat provided by beach
nourishment, construction of beach nourishment projects has typically been restricted to
occurring outside the sea turtle nesting season. Additionally, constructed beaches are designed to
mimic the native beach in terms of elevation, slope and sediment composition, such that scarping
is limited and the biological performance is improved.
The Dare County projects discussed herein are pursuing year-round construction, therefore it is
possible construction and subsequent equilibration of the profile may occur during a portion of
the nesting season. However, the proposed projects will incorporate a design that closely
resembles the native beach, with an upper beach slope of 1:10. These pre-cautions will preclude
dramatic changes to the beach during the equilibration process, improving the quality of sea
turtle nesting provided by the new beach.
Importantly, the potential impacts addressed above may extend into multiple nesting seasons
following the nourishment. Welch et al. \[no date\] found significant effects from nourishment
such that loggerheads largely avoided nesting on a nourished beach and nests deposited on the
nourished beach were placed in unfavorable locations. Rumbold et al. (2001) found that
loggerhead sea turtle nesting density decreased, and false crawls increased, in the first two
nesting seasons following nourishment, although these changes are lessoned during the second
season following nourishment. Therefore, while nourishment may result in an increase in
available nesting habitat for sea turtles, it is not certain to result in more nesting (Ecological
Associates, Inc., 1999).
113
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Projects that utilize fill material that is similar in grain size and composition to the nourishment
area may prevent or reduce some of the adverse effects associated with nourishment efforts
(Crainet al., 1995). The design of the beach involves the use of compatible beach material to
widen the existing dry beach, thereby increasing the amount of available suitable nesting habitat
for sea turtles. In April 2008, the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) adopted
State Sediment Criteria Rule Language (15A NCAC 07H .0312) for borrow material aimed at
preventing the disposal of incompatible material on the beach. The new rule limits the amount of
material by weight in the borrow area with a diameter equal to or greater than 4.76 mm and less
than 76 mm (gravel), between 4.76 mm and 2.0 mm (granular) and less than 0.0625 mm to no
more than 5% above that which exists on the native beach. The material proposed for use in the
project will meet these criteria (Table 4 and Table 5) and consequently reduces many of the
potential impacts to nesting and hatchling sea turtles.
The proposed project may affect sea turtles in various other ways. Project construction during
sea turtle nesting season poses the risk for direct mechanical destruction or burial of nests, and
the potential for encounters with construction equipment on the beach during nesting activities.
The presence of heavy machinery on the beach at night can create barriers to nesting females (if
stationary). Tracks left by heavy machinery in the sand may affect hatchlings as they crawl
toward the water. Studies have shown that hatchlings become diverted not because they are
unable to maneuver out of the tracks (Hughes and Caine, 1994), but because the sides of the rut
cast a shadow, causing the hatchling to lose sight of the horizon (Mann, 1977). Driving over un-
marked nests may destroy them, or cause sand compaction that adversely affects nest site
selection, digging behavior, clutch viability and hatchling emergence (Mann, 1977; Nelson and
Dickerson, 1989). Artificial lighting associated with the project may also directly affect sea turtle
nesting and hatchling behavior. Artificial lighting on beaches tends to deter sea turtles from
emerging from the sea to nest (Witherington and Martin, 1996). Project lighting can also result in
the hatchling disorientation. Hatchlings, which use visual cues to locate the sea once they emerge
from the nest, can be misdirected by artificial lighting (Dickerson and Nelson, 1989; Lorne and
Salmon, 2007). Following beach nourishment projects, the wider and flatter beach berm may
expose turtles and their nests to artificial lighting that was less visible, or not visible at all, from
nesting areas before the project, leading to greater hatchling disorientation and possible mortality
(Trindell et al., 2005).
The closest segment of terrestrial Critical Habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle, unit LOGG-T-
NC01, is located 125 miles to the south of Dare County, and will therefore not be affected by the
proposed project. A small portion of the offshore North Carolina Constricted Migratory Corridor
Critical Habitat unit LOGG-N-01 does extend into the southern part of Kill Devil Hills. Two of
the four proposed borrow areas (Borrow Area A and S1-4) fall within the boundaries of this unit.
The portion of the unit the encompasses the borrow areas is considered constricted migratory
critical habitat, which consists of 1) constricted continental shelf area relative to nearby
continental shelf waters that concentrate migratory pathways; and 2) passage conditions to allow
for migration to and from nesting, breeding, and/or foraging areas. The constricted migratory
corridor serves as a concentrated migratory pathway for loggerheads transiting to neritic foraging
areas in the north and back to winter, foraging and/or nesting areas in the south. While the
majority of loggerheads pass through this corridor from April to June and September to
November, loggerheads are present in the area from April through November. Periods in which
114
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

loggerheads are present in these areas vary with water temperatures and individual migration
patterns.
In the final rule designating critical habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle, the NMFS highlights
special management considerations for the physical or biological features (PBF) of constricted
migratory habitat., and states that the “…primary impact to the functionality of the migratory
routes…would be a loss of passage conditions that allow for free and efficient migration along
the corridor.” Of major concern are large-scale or multiple construction activities that alter the
habitat to such a degree that large scale deviations of migration patterns result. The NMFS also
highlights activities that may, but will not likely impact important characteristics of the habitat,
including the “Dredging and disposal of sediments that results in altered habitat conditions
needed for efficient passage” (79 FR 39856).
The proposed activities may result in elevated turbidity levels in the immediate vicinity of the
dredge, and this impact will be greater for hopper dredges than cutterhead dredges. However, the
turbidity plumes will be temporary and localized to the dredging site, and should not result in
large-scale deviation from migration patterns. Additionally, the proposed borrow areas
encompass a very small area (2.5 square miles or 1600 acres)relative to the much larger area
encompassed by the entire LOGG-N-01 unit.
In summary, with the potential project construction occurring during periods of higher sea turtle
abundance, the proposed project may affect sea turtles. Further, without the conservation
measure discussed in Section 7 of the present document, the proposed project would likely
adversely affect nesting, hatching and swimming loggerhead sea turtles. There are no impacts to
critical habitat expected.
5.6.3.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
Under the no action alternative, the Kill Devil Hills shoreline will experience the same long-term
erosion rates and risk of storm damage as discussed under the abandon and retreat alternative,
which will ultimately result in loss of nesting habitat for sea turtles over the next 20 to 25 years.
Additionally, the nesting habitat may be further degraded by efforts of property owners within
the Project Area to afford their properties storm protection temporarily, including beach
scraping, sand fencing and sand bagging. Placing hard structures such as sand fences and sand
bags along the beach creates obstacles to nesting females, and, in the case of sand bags, may
exacerbate erosion seaward of the bag. These items may also obstruct hatchling sea turtles
attempting to traverse the beach to get to the ocean.
5.6.4ShortnoseSturgeon
5.6.4.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
The abandon and retreat alternative will not involve any activity that affects the spawning,
migratory, foraging or overwintering habitat of the shortnose sturgeon, and will therefore have
no effect on this species.
115
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

5.6.4.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
Shortnose sturgeons primarily utilize riverine and estuarine habitats, neither of which is located
in the proposed Project Area. Spawning occurs in upper, freshwater areas, typically in January
and February while feeding and overwintering activities may occur in both fresh and saline
habitats. Aside from seasonal migrations to estuarine waters, this species rarely occurs in the
marine environment (NMFS, 1998b; Keiffer and Kynard, 1993). Shortnose sturgeons appear to
feed either in freshwater riverine habitats or near the freshwater/saltwater interface (NMFS,
1998b). Although shortnose sturgeons are capable of entering open ocean water, it has been
suggested that the species appears hesitant to enter open ocean water (Gilbert, 1989). This factor
may limit extensive coastal migrations of this species. Dredging will not occur within the typical
spawning or foraging grounds for the shortnose sturgeon
5.6.4.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
The no action alternative will not involve any activity that affects the spawning, migratory,
foraging or overwintering habitat of the shortnose sturgeon, and will therefore have no effect on
this species.
5.6.5AtlanticSturgeon
5.6.5.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
The abandon and retreat alternative will not involve any activity that affects the spawning,
migratory, foraging or overwintering habitat of the Atlantic sturgeon and will therefore have no
effect on this species.
5.6.5.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
Atlantic sturgeons are known to inhabit the nearshore waters in North Carolina (Moser and Ross,
1995; Laney et al., 2007). The project area does not include suitable spawning grounds for the
Atlantic sturgeon, as the closest spawning grounds are located in the Roanoke River and
Albemarle Sound. However, Atlantic sturgeon spend much of their life history in the marine
environment and can be found there year-round; therefore, the possibility of transient individuals
occurring near the Project Area during dredging operations on the offshore sand shoals cannot be
ruled out.
Dredging offshore sand shoals will have various effects on the physical and biological
environments of these features. Dredging these areas is expected to alter the benthic community
by removing sediments and benthic invertebrates, thereby disrupting trophic energy flow from
mined sites until re-establishment of the community occurs (CSA International et al., 2009).
Additionally, removal of sediment from the shoal will create a depression that may or may not
refill after dredging. A simulation of morphologic changes associated with offshore sand mining
using numerical modeling suggests that borrow area location will determine whether infilling
will occur. If dredging is performed in an active shoal area, the dredged area will be filled;
conversely, if the dredged area is in an un-active area, the depression will not be refilled (CSA
International et al., 2009). The depression left by a dredged area that does not refill, may affect
the hydrodynamics and hydrology that affects recolonization and recovery of benthic
116
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

invertebrates. The ability of fish populations to recolonize dredged areas is largely unknown, but
is thought to depend on degree of association with the dredged feature and reestablishment of the
trophic structure of the features (CSA International et al., 2009).
The ocean environment may be affected by elevated turbidity levels resulting from placement of
sand; however, any increase should be transient and restricted to the nearshore environment.
Although Atlantic sturgeons are highly mobile, there is conflicting evidence on whether they will
evade dredging activities. Moser and Ross (1995) noted that Atlantic sturgeon occupied both
undisturbed areas as well as regularly dredged areas and were present during dredging operations
in the Wilmington Harbor. Alternatively, in a study of Atlantic sturgeon presence at an open-
water disposal site in an estuarine transition zone, Hatin et al. (2007) found a significant decrease
in presence of Atlantic sturgeon after sand disposal occurred. The authors suggest habitat
modification was likely the driving factor, rather than elevated turbidity or reduction of dissolved
oxygen levels, which are more likely to occur when the material disposed is silt-clay, not sand.
Furthermore, Atlantic sturgeon frequently use estuarine zones with high levels of suspended
matter. Because only beach quality sand will be placed into the nearshore environment of the
Project Area, turbidity levels are not expected to reach levels considered detrimental to Atlantic
sturgeon.
Vessel strikes have been reported as a threat to Atlantic sturgeon but have only been reported to
occur in river systems (NMFS, 2012). For the proposed projects, the greatest risk of collision
would occur when the dredge is transiting between the offshore borrow area and the nearshore
pump-out location. Similar to the sea turtles, it is assumed that Atlantic sturgeon are more likely
to avoid slower moving vessels, such as dredges operating at approximately 5 to 11 kts while
transiting, as they are considered highly mobile and able to maneuver away from an approaching
dredge. Because sturgeon will not likely be at the surface and are highly mobile, the chance of a
collision is considered unlikely.
The greatest threat for Atlantic sturgeon occurring in the Project Areas would be the potential for
entrainment by the hopper dredge; this risk is not as much of a concern with cutterhead dredges.
Entrainment data from projects within the USACE North Atlantic Division suggest that
entrainment risk for Atlantic sturgeon is much higher in channel or river dredging projects than
offshore or coastal project. The USACE reports 17 interactions with Atlantic sturgeon during 12
separate river and harbor dredging operations along the entire U.S. east coast from 1990 to 2011.
Of these 17 interactions, 15 involved entrainment in hopper dredges (NMFS, 2012). While only
seven were measured and confirmed to be juveniles, the NMFS deemed it likely that all
entrained individuals were juveniles as the large size of adult sturgeon relative to the opening of
the draghead would prevent their entrainment. By comparison, the USACE reported only three
entrainments of Atlantic sturgeon among 31 coastal and offshore projects between 1998 and
2011. Pre-dredge trawling and relocation trawling was employed during 3 of the 31
offshore/coastal projects, and a total of 16 Atlantic sturgeon were successfully removed using
these methods. No takes were documented during trawling or dredging activities during these
projects, despite the fact that Atlantic sturgeon were obviously present in the vicinity of
construction. The NMFS suggests the low level of interactions may have been due, in part, to the
use of pre-dredge trawling and relocation trawling (NMFS, 2012).
117
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

In the Biological Opinion developed for a shoreline restoration project in Virginia Beach,
Virginia, the NMFS put forth several factors that may contribute to the likelihood of entrainment
for large mobile animals, such as sturgeon (NMFS, 2012). It was suggested that risk of
entrainment is high where space is limited, as in rivers and channels, such that restricted
movement inhibits the chance to escape an approaching dredge. Entrainment risk would also be
elevated where there are higher numbers of individuals, as in aggregation areas. Additionally,
sturgeons are benthic feeders and are commonly found foraging along the bottom. Because
hopper dredge drag heads operate along the bottom, there would be a greater risk of entrainment
if dredging of this type occurred within foraging areas.
These risk factors, along with knowledge of sturgeon behavior, can be used to assess the threat of
entrainment at the offshore dredge sites that may be utilized by sturgeon during the summer
months. Because an offshore borrow area is an open ocean environment, movements would not
be restricted and sturgeon may therefore be able to avoid an approaching dredge (NMFS, 2012).
There is evidence to suggest sturgeon may not behave in this manner, however. During a channel
dredging project, Moser and Ross (1995) noted that shortnose sturgeon regularly moved through
an area during dredging operations; however, one Atlantic sturgeon moved within 100 m of a
hydraulic pipeline dredge on two separate occasions, showing no signs of behavioral changes.
While this suggests sturgeon behavior may not be negatively impacted by dredging, it may also
imply that, although mobile, sturgeon may not readily swim away from an approaching dredge.
Risk of entrainment may also vary with location of the dredge site in offshore waters. An
offshore borrow area may exist within sturgeon migration corridors. In this case, the fish may be
highly mobile and positioned higher in the water column, which could lower entrainment risk
(NMFS, 2012). However, as discussed in Section 4.6.1.5, sturgeon distribution was found to be
concentrated within a narrow depth range offshore North Carolina, suggesting the fish are
aggregating with bottom features that support prey. Therefore, it is possible that migrating
sturgeon forage within coastal North Carolina waters. Because sturgeons are bottom feeders,
they would be vulnerable to entrainment if a dredge is operating within these areas of higher
distribution. Additionally, the proposed use of a hopper dredge elevates the risk of entrainment
In summary, Atlantic sturgeon may be present near the Project Area and susceptible to
entrainment by hopper dredges. However, the proposed borrow areas are not located in river,
harbor or channel areas and instead are located in the unconfined open ocean environment
outside of any known congregating or spawning areas.
5.6.5.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
The no action alternative will not involve any activity that affects the spawning, migratory,
foraging or overwintering habitat of the Atlantic sturgeon, and will therefore have no effect on
this species.
5.6.6SeabeachAmaranth
5.6.6.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
Under the abandon and retreat alternative, no action will be taken to provide storm damage
reduction to the environmental resources in the Project Area. Storm vulnerability analyses
118
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

indicate a high probability that a large hurricane similar in magnitude to Hurricane Isabel will
impact the area within 20 to 25 years, in which case much of the dry beach and dune that may
serve as habitat for seabeach amaranth will likely be lost. Consequently, the abandon and retreat
alternative could adversely affect this species. However, as discussed in above, seabeach
amaranth is likely not found along the Kill Devil Hills shoreline due to development and heavy
recreational use of the beach; therefore, it is not likely to adversely affect seabeach amaranth.
5.6.6.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
As discussed in Section 4.6.1.6, beach stabilization efforts have the potential to affect seabeach
amaranth negatively. The nourishment portion of the proposed project could result in adverse
effects as seed burial may deter germination the following season, depending upon the depth of
disposal material (USFWS, 1993). Additionally, seabeach amaranth grows in dynamic coastal
environments such as overwash areas and dune blowouts; therefore, stabilization of these areas
through nourishment actually degrades the primary habitat. Burial during sand placement
presents another direct impact to the species. Although seabeach amaranth seeds are accustomed
i
to becoming wholly or partially buried by winter sand movement (USFWS, 1996b), f seeds
become deeply buried due to nourishment activity, populations could be negatively affected
(USFWS, 2002; 2010). Studies have found that seedlings do not emerge from a depth of more
than 1 or 2 cm (USFWS, 2010a). Burial of the seed bank may be particularly detrimental to
isolated populations, as no nearby seed sources are available to re-colonize the nourished site and
will contribute to fragmentation (USFWS, 2002). USFWS biologist Dale Suiter suggested it is
likely that burial would delay germination of seeds, not prevent germination entirely (pers.
comm., 2007). The extent of the potential effects of burial relies on the nature of seabeach
amaranth’s seed bank and the importance of long distance and water dispersal of seeds; however,
these topics need further study (USFWS, 1996b). In contrast, the restoration of the eroded
shoreline may provide suitable habitat and encourage colonization post-nourishment, as has been
observed following other nourishment projects. It should also be noted that while the above
impacts may occur to seabeach amaranth, no recent (post 2009) surveys have been performed in
the area; therefore, it is not known if any plants exist there currently.
5.6.6.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
Under the no action alternative, the Kill Devil Hills shoreline will experience the same long-term
erosion rates and storm vulnerability discussed under the abandon and retreat alternative, which
will likely result in a loss of beach and dune habitat over the next 20 to 25 years. Additionally,
this habitat may be further degraded by efforts of property owners within the project area to
afford their properties storm protection temporarily, including beach scraping, sand fencing and
sand bagging. There is conflicting evidence that sand fencing may adversely affect this species.
On the one hand, sand fencing may stabilize dunes such that the plant communities undergo
succession to species that outcompete seabeach amaranth, which prefers unstable, dynamic
environments. Contrastingly, plants have been observed thriving in areas where sand fencing
occurs, such as Bogue Banks, NC (USFWS, 2009) Placement of sand bags generally occurs in
the narrow strip of sand where seabeach amaranth would occur. As previously stated, it is
unlikely seabeach amaranth would occur within the project area due to the level of development
and recreational use of the beach. Therefore, the No Action Alternative is not likely to affect
seabeach amaranth adversely.
119
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

5.6.7PipingPlovers
5.6.7.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
With the abandon and retreat alternative, the line of development would slowly shift landward
and the beach would be allowed to shift and change shape according to changing wind and wave
conditions. In the absence of structures, the shoreline would be able to migrate inland, during
times of seasonal and storm induced erosion, yet sand would be maintained within the system for
natural recovery of the beach. Storms winds and waves would result in the creation of natural
overwash areas, which serve as primary habitat for the piping plovers. Essentially, beach habitat
would be naturally maintained, ultimately benefiting piping plovers. Additionally, the abandon
and retreat alternative may reduce the amount of human presence along the beach strand, which
would reduce disturbance to piping plovers while foraging, nesting and roosting..
5.6.7.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
Because piping plovers occur year-round in North Carolina, construction may overlap with the
presence of wintering, breeding or migrating piping plovers. The data provided by the NCWRC
indicates that piping plovers have been observed along Bodie Island and that breeding activity
occurs there as well. If piping plovers are present within the Project Area, they will be
temporarily disturbed by the staging, storage and transportation of equipment, materials, supplies
and workers on the beach in support of the sand placement onto the beach. Noise associated with
construction may stress the piping plovers during the projected construction period by causing
them to spend more time being alert than foraging and resting (Burger, 1994). These
disturbances will likely cause piping plovers to seek out and use alternative habitat areas outside
of the influence of project activity. Responses to noise levels are difficult to predict and the
frequency, duration and intensity of noise must be taken into account. Higher noise levels may
result in a startle response such as flushing from nests when incubating eggs, or interruption of
feeding or courtship (USFWS, 2010).
Infaunal prey density has been shown to affect habitat use in shorebirds (Peterson et al., 2006).
The direct placement of sand will result in the burial and nearly complete mortality of benthic
infauna along the beach and shallow water surf zones at the project nourishment locations. This
would indirectly affect any adult and flightless chicks attempting to forage in the ocean intertidal
zone within the Project Area. While adults may seek out alternate foraging areas adjacent to the
Project Area, chicks would be unable to and hence would be adversely impacted.
A wider and more stable beach following project construction may both positively and
negatively affect piping plovers. While it may provide a more consistent buffer between
important bird habitat areas and upland development and associated human activities, it may also
encourage more development and recreational use of the beach, further degrading habitat. With
increased development comes the potential for increases in populations of domesticated and feral
animals that predate on piping plover nests. At the same time, beach nourishment may benefit
plovers by creating new habitat in an area where erosion has degraded or reduced available
habitat. The increase in beach width from beach nourishment activities should increase the
amount of available roosting habitat, and eventually increase the amount of suitable foraging
habitat after benthic invertebrates repopulate the nourished area.
120
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Beaches near the Project Area (Bodie Island) have historically supported 12% of piping plover
occurrences within the northern region and 10% of statewide occurrences. However, in the case
of Kill Devil Hills, shoreline recession coupled with residential development has greatly reduced
the amount of dry beach available for roosting and nesting, as well as wet beach for foraging.
Additionally, the beaches in these areas are heavily utilized recreationally, with pedestrians, dogs
and vehicular traffic that discourages use by shorebirds (Sara Schweitzer, pers. comm., August
29, 2013). Therefore, it is not likely that piping plovers will occur within the Project Area.
1.1.1.1AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
Under the no action alternative, the Kill Devil Hills shoreline will experience the same long-term
erosion rates and risk of storm damage as discussed under the abandon and retreat alternative,
which will ultimately result in loss of beach and dune habitat over the next 20 to 25 years.
Additionally, this habitat may be further degraded by efforts of property owners within the
project area to temporarily afford their properties storm protection, including beach scraping,
sand fencing and sand bagging. These activities can temporarily disrupt benthic communities
(beach scraping) and reduce amount of habitat available (sand bagging). Regardless, it is
unlikely piping plovers would occur within the project area due to the level of development and
recreational use of the beach.
5.6.8RedKnot
5.6.8.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
The retreat of development from the shoreline would allow the beach and dune system to
respond naturally to the ever-changing environmental conditions. The shoreline would shift
landward during times of increased wind and wave activity, and accrete seaward during more
benign sea states. This would allow for the persistence of primary foraging habitat – the wet
beach – and ultimately benefit red knots. Additionally, the abandon and retreat alternative may
reduce the amount of human presence along the beach strand, which would reduce disturbance to
red knots while foraging.
5.6.8.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
In North Carolina, shore protection projects occurring outside the environmental dredging
windows, particularly during the months of April through June, may affect migrating red knots.
Construction activities will likely cause the birds to seek out other areas for foraging or roosting,
expending extra energy to do so. Because the birds arrive at stopover locations with depleted
energy reserves, having to seek out alternate foraging areas could be detrimental to weight gain
before departing to the next stopover. Departing for the next stopover with depleted energy
reserves could result in cumulative weight problems that prove detrimental to survival and
successful reproduction once the birds reach nesting grounds in the artic.
Shore protection projects involving sand placement may also indirectly affect the foraging
success of red knots by reducing or eliminating the infaunal prey source. Key infaunal prey
species for red knots include coquina clams, mole crabs and marine worms, all of which will be
susceptible to burial and smothering in a beach nourishment project. Although the infaunal
121
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

communities will likely be directly impacted during construction, it is expected that these
communities would recover in a short period due to re-colonization of infaunal organisms from
adjacent undisturbed habitat. In a literature review of the effects of beach nourishment on benthic
habitats covering documentation of a wide variety of sites along the United States coasts of the
Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, Taylor Engineering, Inc. (2009) concluded that most studies
have found impacts to benthic habitat to be short-term, as most benthos are adapted to a dynamic
environment. Nelson (1985) also found organisms that reside in intertidal zones are more
adaptable to fluctuations in their environment, including high sediment transport and turbidity
levels. Therefore, long-term affects to the infaunal community are not expected to result from a
project placing material onto the beach. An example of a project that constructed a beach fill
project spanning a considerable length of shoreline was completed in Nags Head in 2011. The
Town of Nags Head implemented a beach nourishment project and placed material along
approximately 10 miles of oceanfront shoreline. Results from post-construction benthic
monitoring have confirmed that the area impacted by sand placement on Nags Head beach has
regained a viable assemblage of benthic organisms that is similar to non-impacted beaches both
one year post-construction (CZR Incorporated and CSE, Inc., 2013) and two years post-
construction (CZR Incorporated and CSE, Inc., 2014). The year-2 post-construction surveys
showed no significant differences between the nourished beach in Nags Head from the control
beaches in the study in terms of mean difference of taxa richness or sand grain size. On the
nourished beach, wintertime abundance was actually significantly higher two-years post
nourishment than pre-nourishment (CZR Incorporated and CSE, Inc., 2014).
In summary, although the Delaware Bay and coastal Virginia represent the largest stopover
concentration of red knots, coastal North Carolina does support a relatively small number of red
knots during their spring migration. Beach nourishment activities have the potential to affect red
knots directly due to disturbance and indirectly due to impacts to benthic prey sources. A
reduction in the infaunal prey base could adversely affect red knots by causing them to expend
valuable and depleted energy reserves to locate prey in adjacent areas. However, the adaptability
and rapid recovery of benthic communities, sufficient periods between maintenance events and
proximity of adjacent non-effected and less disturbed habitats, all serve to reduce the level of
impact to rufa red knots. In addition, one of the many planning initiatives identified in the 2010
USFWS Action Plan includes habitat enhancement and restoration, including sand nourishment
and beach restoration; hence the proposed projects may serve to benefit the species (USFWS,
2010b).
5.6.8.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
Impacts to red knots resulting from the no action alternative will be similar to those discussed for
piping plovers. With no action, the current long-term erosion rates and risk of storm damage will
continue as the status-quo, and may ultimately result in loss of beach and dune habitat over the
next 20 to 25 years. Additionally, this habitat may be further degraded by efforts of property
owners within the Project Area to afford their properties storm protection temporarily, including
beach scraping, sand fencing and sand bagging. These activities can temporarily disrupt benthic
communities (beach scraping) and reduce amount of habitat available (sand bagging).
Regardless, it is unlikely red knots would occur within the Project Area due to the level of
development and recreational use of the beach. Therefore, the No Action Alternative is not likely
to affect red knots adversely.
122
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

5.6.1RoseateTurn
5.6.1.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
This species has rarely been observed within Dare County, and specific nesting locations within
the state are largely unknown. The abandon and retreat alternative will likely have no effect on
the roseate turn.
5.6.1.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
Construction of the proposed project will not affect habitats preferred by this species for nesting
(densely vegetated areas of coastal islands, among rock rip-rap or coral rubble piles), or foraging
(shallow bays, tidal inlets and channels, sandbars with rapidly moving water) nor will it
significantly affect food resources on which it depends during migrations (most often small
schooling fish). The proposed project should therefore have no effect on the roseate tern.
5.6.1.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
With the absence of roseate turn habitat and lack of observations within the project area, the No
Action Alternative is not likely to affect roseate terns adversely.
5.7CulturalResources
5.7.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
There were no imminently threatened structures of historical or cultural importance along the
shoreline where sand will be placed. As a result, abandonment or relocation of any structures
along the shoreline within the Project Area will not impact any cultural resources.
5.7.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
Currently, there are no known cultural resources within the proposed offshore borrow areas.
Should culturally significant materials be identified the appropriate avoidance measures will be
taken to ensure the project activities do not impact these resources.
5.7.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
No impacts are anticipated for cultural resources, offshore or on land, with the no action
alternative.
5.8SocioeconomicResources
5.8.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
While analysis of LiDAR data and historical shoreline change indicate only 16 structures will
become imminently threatened by long-term erosion within the next 25-30 years, storm
vulnerability (SBEACH) analysis suggests there are 40 (35 residential and 5 commercial)
structures at risk of substantial storm damage within the next 20 to 25 years. The tax values of
the 35 residential threatened structures range from $50,000 to just under $1.0 million. The low
123
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

tax value of some of the structures is due to their proximity to the shoreline and the non-
conforming status of their lots that would not, under existing CAMA (Coastal Area Management
Act) development rules, allow the structures to be rebuilt if they are damaged by more than 50%
of their value for any reason. The total tax value of the 35 structures is $5.64 million, or an
average of $161,000 per structure.
At the present time, there are an estimated 40 vacant lots located between N. Virginia Dare Trail
and NC 158 (Croatan Highway) south of the town limits to the vicinity of the Avalon Pier. This
is the same general area where most of the vulnerable structures are located. The vacant lots have
a tax value ranging from $32,000 to around $250,000 and average $124,000 per lot.
While there appears to be enough vacant lots to accommodate the at-risk ocean front structures
in this section of Kill Devil Hills, many factors would be involved in determining which
structures would or could be moved to new lots and which structures would be demolished. The
primary factors include the desires of the property owners to either move or demolish the
structure, the associated cost to move a structure versus demolition, and the willingness of the
owners of the vacant lots to sell. Due to the many unknowns, no attempt was made to determine
the total cost of relocating or demolishing the at-risk structures. However, based on previous
analysis performed by Coastal Science & Engineering (CSE) for the Town of Nags Head (CSE,
2005), the cost of moving a structure could cost up to $150,000 per structure. This does not
include the cost of the new lot.
In order to implement the Abandon/Retreat alternative in an orderly fashion, it is recommended
the Town of Kill Devil Hills acquire at least 30 vacant lots north of the Avalon Pier in advance
of the need to move threatened structures. This assumes that at least 5 of the at-risk structures
would be demolished. Based on the average tax value of vacant lots along the northern portion of
Kill Devil Hills, the cost of 30 lots would be around $3.75 million.
The five (5) commercial buildings at risk of damage due to a storm similar to Hurricane Isabel
include portions of two (2) motels (The Mariner and the Sea Ranch) and three (3) large
condominium complexes (the Sands, Golden Strand, and Sea Oat Villas). The assessed value of
the five (5) structures is about $6.0 million or an average of $1.2 million per structure.
Under the Abandon/Retreat alternative, structures that are relocated to another lot within the
Town of Kill Devil Hills should retain their value; however, the value of the abandoned lot
would decrease to essentially zero. Structures that are demolished would be removed from the
Kill Devil Hills tax base as would most of the value of the lot on which they were located.
5.8.2AssociatedImpactwithPreferredActionAlternative
Due to the proposed project schedule, construction activities will be performed during the peak
of tourist season in Kill Devil Hills. During periods of active construction, sections of the beach
will be closed to the public to ensure public safety. Likewise, the borrow areas and pump-out
locations will be closed to boat traffic. These safety measures, coupled with increased noise and
decreased aesthetics of construction equipment on the beach, may result in a temporary reduction
in the number of beach visitors and associated revenue. Upon completion of the project there will
be several benefits to the socioeconomics of the Town. A wider beach will create more space for
124
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

recreational activities, while affording the residential and commercial properties there a greater
level of storm damage reduction. This will sustain the beaches that support the local economy
and maintain tax base, as well as prevent the Town from incurring the costs associated with
demolition or relocation of the structures.
5.8.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
Under the No Action alternative, no additional attempts would be made to reduce or mitigate
shoreline recession or the threat of storm damages beyond the status quo. As such, property
owners would be expected to continue to implement temporary protection measures such as sand
fences, beach scraping or sand bagging. As a result, the same 35 residential and 5 commercial
structures identified at risk under Alternative 1 would remain for Alternative 3. Based on the risk
analysis for a storm similar to Hurricane Isabel, there is better than a 50% chance that all 35 of
the at-risk residential structures would be damaged beyond repair within the next 15 years. This
would remove the tax value of the structures from the town’s tax base. The lots on which the at-
risk structures are on would also decrease in tax value with the value essentially dropping to
zero.
Of the 5 at-risk commercial building, only one would probably suffer enough damage to make it
non-repairable in its present location. That structure could possibly be demolished and a new
structure built further back on the same lot. Damage to the other 4 at-risk commercial properties
would not necessarily destroy the entire complexes, as some of the structures located on the
properties are situated landward of the storm impact line. However, assuming the structures
remain at their present locations, the potential for repetitive storm damage would impact their
habitability for significant periods of time post-storm and could lower their overall value.
The primary financial difference between Alternative 1 (Abandon/Retreat) and Alternative 3 (No
Action) is that individual property owners would not incur the cost of moving structures to
inland lots. Demolition and rebuild cost for the at-risk commercial structures would be
essentially the same for both Alternative 1 and Alternative 3.
5.9RecreationalandScenicResources
5.9.1AssociatedImpactwithAbandonandRetreatAlternative
Scenic resources will deteriorate if any of the at-risk properties are abandoned and left to the
elements. Damages incurred by the structures from coastal processes such as winds, waves, and
erosion will eventually render the structures uninhabitable, and may make the beach area in the
immediate vicinity unsafe for any recreational activities. The recreational value of the beach will
also depreciate as storm induced erosion reduces the amount of beach available for activities
such as beach driving, walking, surf fishing, etc.
5.9.2AssociatedImpactwith!∞∞¨©£°Æ¥΄≥PreferredAlternative
The proposed timeline for the project means construction may occur during peak recreation
season in Kill Devil Hills. Beachgoers will temporarily be exposed to elevated noise levels due
125
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

to construction activities on the beach, and sections of the beach and nearshore environment will
be off-limits to the public for safety reasons.
5.9.3AssociatedImpactwithNoActionAlternative
Under the no action alternative, impacts to the scenic and recreational resources will be similar in
nature to the abandon and retreat alternative. As storm-induced erosion causes shoreline
recession, the short-term protection measures potentially taken by some property owners can
alter the recreational and aesthetic value of the beach. Activities such as beach scraping and sand
bag placement effectively reduce the amount of recreational beach available, as well as reduce
the aesthetic nature of the shoreline. In this way, no action can negatively impact recreational
and scenic resources of the Kill Devil Hills shoreline.
5.10ImpactsComparisonofAlternatives
For comparative purposes, each of the major impacts discussed for the three alternatives are
summarized in Table 25.
126
&,.
COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA INC

Table 25. Comparison of potential impacts for each resource resulting from the three alternatives.
Potential Impacts
Resource
Abandon/Retreat Proposed Action No Action
No impacts. Temporary turbidity increase at No impacts.
borrow area; temporary
Water Quality
increase at fill site
No impacts. Temporary and localized No impacts.
reduction in air quality due to
Air Quality
emissions from construction
equipment and dredging vessels
Temporary increases due to Temporary increase at beach Possible temporary and
construction associated with fill site due to construction sporadic increase in noise
demolition or relocation equipment and activites; levels due to use of
efforts.temporary increase in marine construction equipment
Noise sound at borrow areas from used for beach scraping or
dredging; higher peak pressure sand bag emplacement
levels produced by hopper
dredges may be detrimental to
marine life
Loss of beach/dune in some Increase in beach/dune habitat; Loss of beach/dune in
areas due to long-term temporary elimination of receding areas due to
erosion and storms until infaunal benthic community long-term erosion and
structures removed; storms; potential further
Beach and Dune Removal of coastal degradation of habitat
Habitat structures may allow from beach scraping or
shoreline to respond sand bag emplacement.
naturally to erosion,
undergoing natural recession
and accretion.
No impacts. Temporary elevated turbidity No impacts.
levels at borrow site(mid-and
EFH – Marine Water
inner-shelf) and fill site (surf
Column
zone); burial of benthics in
surfzone
No impacts. Removal of benthic organisms No impacts.
EFH – Offshore due to sand excavation;
Shoals alteration of seabed topography
could reduce habitat value
i

Table 25 Continued.
Loss of beach/dune habitat in Adverse impacts include:
Loss of beach/dune habitat
some areas due to long-term Entrainment of sea turtles;
potentially utilized by sea
erosion could adversely affect Noise harassment to sea turtles; turtles (nesting), red knots
sea turtles, red knot and piping Burial of beach/subtidal; (foraging, roosting), piping
plovers; Removal of structures Harassment/injury to nesting plovers (nesting, foraging,
may indirectly create additional and hatchling sea turtles from roosting), seabeach
habitat and reduce human construction lighting and amaranth (germination,
disturbance to sea turtles, red activities; Alteration of sea growth); degradation of
knots, piping plovers turtle nesting habitat; same habitats due to
Disruption of foraging and potential use of sand
T&E Species
roosting activity for piping fencing, beach scraping,
plovers and red knots during
sand bags
active construction
Positive impacts include:
Increased beach habitat for sea
turtles (nesting), red knots
(foraging, roosting), piping
plovers (nesting, foraging,
roosting), seabeach amaranth
(germination, growth)
Cultural No impact. No impact. No impact.
Resources
If at-risk structures are
Cost of project implementation Loss of recreational beach
abandoned, the value of and periodic nourishment, may from storms would decrease
structures and lots will be be reduced if performed in
tourism revenue; Eventual
removed from tax base; If conjunction with Duck and
removal of at-risk
relocated, structure will Kitty Hawk; temporary
residential structures from
maintain value, original lot will reduction in tourism and tax base if damaged beyond
decrease to $0; expenditure to associated revenue due to repair; Reduction of lots to
Socioeconomics purchase new lots for construction activity and $0 if structures damaged;
relocation (~$3.75 million); temporary closure of actively Temporary impact to
reduction in volume and cost of constructed beach sections; habitability of at-risk
material needed to construct post-project increased tourism commercial structure due to
beach nourishment project. due to wider recreational beach; storm damages.
maintains the tax base of homes
in the Project Area by reducing
storm vulnerability
If structures are abandoned, Temporary reduction in tourism
Loss of recreational beach
storm-induced erosion may due to construction activity and
from storm-induced
reduce amount of recreational temporary closure of actively erosion, Reduced aesthetics
opportunities afforded by the constructed beach sections; from beach scraping or
beach; Deterioration of Closure of areas in proximity to sand bag projects
abandoned property will the offshore borrow areas to
temporarily reduce aesthetic recreational boat traffic;
Recreational and value of beach, reduce safety Reduced aesthetics due to
Scenic and usage of beach until construction equipment and
demolition occurred. offshore dredges; Increased
Relocation of structure may beach width supports more
allow establishment of natural
recreational activity and creates
communities, improving
a more aesthetically pleasing
aesthetics, and allow natural
beach
cycles of accretion/recession to
maintain recreational beach
ii

6CumulativeImpacts
The Council of Environmental Quality defines cumulative impacts as:
“The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action
when added to other past, present, and reasonably forseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of time.”(NEPA 40 CFR 1508.7)
Cumulative impacts may occur on a temporal (e.g. time crowding or time lagging) or spatial (e.g.
space crowding, cross-boundary, or fragmentation). The likelihood that multiple projects will
occur throughout coastal North Carolina contributes to time-crowded and space-crowded
cumulative effects. Currently, there are several non-federal beach nourishment/construction
projects within the state that have been proposed or are currently in the permitting process, some
of which also propose to construct outside the environmental windows (Table 26).
Table 26. Proposed federal and non-federal beach nourishment projects within
North Carolina and the projected start dates.
Project Projected Start Date
Duck February 2016
Kitty Hawk February 2016
Kill Devil Hills February 2016
Rodanthe Summer 2016
Atlantic Beach/Ft. Macon Winter 2019/2020
Pine Knoll Shores Winter 2022/2023
Salter Path Winter 20222023
Emerald Isle Winter 2019/2020
North Topsail Beach Winter 2014/2015
Topsail Beach November 2014
Figure Eight Island November 2015
Wrightsville Beach Winter 2018/2019
Carolina Beach Winter 2016/2017
Kure Beach Winter 2016/2017
Bald Head Island Winter 2015/2016
Caswell Beach Winter 2017/2018
Ocean Isle Beach November 2015
As can be seen in the table, various other projects are also slated to occur during 2016. Carolina
and Kure beaches will be constructed during the winter, within the environmental windows
typically recommended for nourishment projects. While they will not occur at the same time as
Kill Devil Hills, there is the potential for any time lag effects to occur simultaneously with those
resulting from Kill Devil Hills.
The towns of Kitty Hawk and Duck are pursuing nourishment projects similar in nature to the
Kill Devil Hills project, and the projects will likely be coordinated between the three towns. The
iii

towns are all pursuing constructing their respective projects outside the environmental windows.
The proximity of these beaches and timing of the projects leads to the potential of time-crowded
and space-crowded impacts in Dare County.
It is also important to evaluate the amount of beach habitat that could be impacted by beach
nourishment in the foreseeable future, relative to the entire North Carolina shoreline. Table 27
presents a summary of the miles of shoreline that are currently managed, under development for
a beach management program, or could potentially be managed in the future. In the case of Kill
Devil Hills, the proposed project will involve approximately 2.77 miles of nourished shoreline,
representing less than 0.01% of the 326 miles of oceanfront shoreline in North Carolina. Going
further, there are 124 miles of shoreline that are actively managed either in a beach nourishment
program or under development for one. Additionally, when the municipalities that could
potentially seek management in the future are considered, the total amount of managed shoreline
could reach 163 miles. Considering an average nourishment interval of 4.4 years, up to 11.4%
(37 miles) of shoreline could be nourished per year. This number assumes all projects will be
constructed during the same year, and is therefore the maximum amount of shoreline that could
be nourished in a given year. Actual mileage of nourished shoreline per year will likely vary
from this number. Additionally, it is not likely that all projects will pursue summertime dredging,
therefore the type and magnitude of direct and indirect impacts will vary.
Table 27. Summary of beach nourishment projects in North Carolina that are authorized, being pursued, or
may be pursued in the foreseeable future.
Miles of Average Nourishment % of NC
Status of Beach Management
Shoreline Interval Shoreline.
Currently Managed 86 4.4 6
Currently Managed and Under Development 124 4.4 8.7
Currently Managed, Under Development,
163 4.4 11.4
and Potentially Managed
Bearing this information in mind, the following sections discuss the cumulative impacts for the
resources identified in Chapter 4
6.1WaterQuality
The water quality along the beaches in Kill Devil Hills and the Outer Banks in general, is very
high. Offshore borrow areas targeted for beach nourishment projects are generally comprised of
“clean” sand with a low percentage of fine material. As a result, sediment plumes generated
while dredging are generally short-lived, measurable on a scale of thousands of meters, and a not
considered a source of concern (Michel et al., 2014). In the proposed project, the dredging and
placement of high quality sand will limit the amount of turbidity created within both the offshore
borrow area and nearshore surfzone. There are no long-term adverse impacts to water quality
anticipated for the Kill Devil Hills nourishment project. Therefore, cumulative impacts are also
not anticipated within the project area.
iv

6.2AirQuality
It can be assumed that insignificant additions of greenhouse gases will be emitted from dredge
and construction equipment. There are no long-term adverse impacts to air quality anticipated for
the proposed project. As a result, the project will not contribute to cumulative impacts to air
quality within or in the vicinity of the project area.
6.3Noise
There are many sources of sound in the marine environment, and sound produced in one location
can perpetuate for long distances, reaching areas many miles from the source. Within the Project
Area, the most likely sound sources include noise from commercial shipping activities,
commercial and recreational fishing vessels, and dredging activities. Although the hearing
thresholds for many marine organisms are unknown, it has been determined that hopper dredging
noise overlaps the hearing spectrum for baleen whales and possibly sea turtles. Although
increased noise levels from the proposed project will be temporary, and not likely to cause
injury, the cumulative impact of many sources of marine noise may mask biologically important
sounds for these and other marine animals.
Additional sources of marine noise that may occur within the project area in the forseeable future
include geological and geophysical (G&G) activities, which have recently been approved by the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The G&G activities will require the use of air
guns to perform seismic surveys in search of oil and gas resources under the ocean floor, as well
as to map sand deposits. One of the major concerns with these activities comes from the potential
impacts to marine life that would result from the intense blasts of sound used during the surveys,
which send acoustic waves into the sea floor. These blasts may be detrimental to marine
mammals, fishes and other marine organisms in the area.
6.4NaturalSettingandWildlife
Current factors affecting the beach and dune setting include increasing population along the
coast, increasing recreational use of coastal habitats, and increased development. In some cases,
the presence of hard structures (roads, homes, commercial buildings) prevents the shoreline from
naturally responding to erosional forces, precluding natural accretion. Sea level rise and storm-
induced erosion have also decreased the amount and quality of natural beach habitat. All of these
elements cumulatively encroach upon natural beach and dune habitat that serves has storm
protection for the human environment and habitat for wildlife.
It is reasonable to expect that the factors affecting the beach and dune habitat will continue, as
will the demand for shoreline nourishment and increased storm protection. The major impacts to
these habitats resulting from future nourishment projects will likely be similar to the proposed
project. Firstly, burial of the infaunal community will be complete and instantaneous, removing
an important food source for many animals. The period anticipated for infaunal recovery varies,
but is generally reported to be less than one-year post disturbance. Secondly, the project will
artificially create a new, larger beach and dune. As the sand is reshaped by natural forces (sun,
wind, rain, waves), the beach can eventually provide habitat suitable for flora and fauna, such as
nesting habitat for sea turtles. This is only true if the restored beach is sufficiently representative
v

of the native beach in shape and composition. The restored beach is still subject to the above
listed anthropogenic and natural forces that will continually result in loss of the beach. This
creates the need for repeated nourishment projects. For example, the volume of material that will
be placed along the project shoreline in Kill Devil Hills includes five years of advanced
nourishment. Thereafter, the beach will be maintained through a program of periodic
nourishment. The larger beach welcomes more human activity such as recreation and
development and may make it unsuitable habitat for some species, such as piping plovers and
seabeach amaranth.
Cumulative impacts to the beach and dune environment may be time crowded (as in maintenance
nourishment occurring frequently on a single beach) and/or space crowded (multiple beaches
within a region undergoing nourishment simultaneously). In essence, if numerous beach
nourishment projects with relatively insignificant negative impacts are clustered spatially and
temporally, the result could be a summation of impacts such that they become large scale and
significant.
6.5ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies
6.5.1WestIndianManatee
The greatest threat to manatees is watercraft strikes, and it is reasonable to expect that these
collisions will continue to take place in the future. However, the proposed projects will not occur
within primary habitat (warm water sights or areas containing submerged aquatic vegetation),
and manatees reportedly do not frequent open ocean areas where dredging will occur. There are
no cumulative impacts to manatees within the Project Area and the proposed project is therefore
not expected to contribute to cumulative effects for the West Indian Manatee.
6.5.2HumpbackandNorthAtlanticRightWhales
In addition to those threats previously discussed in section 4.6.1.2, it is reasonable to expect that
federal and non-federal beach nourishment projects will continue to occur for many coastal
towns of North Carolina in the foreseeable future. Although humpback and North Atlantic right
whales may be present within coastal waters of North Carolina, they are most commonly
observed in the fall, winter and spring; therefore, the proposed projects do not pose a significant
risk for direct impacts to whales. The proposed project is therefore not expected to contribute to
cumulative effects for either whale species.
6.5.3SeaTurtles
Activities that cumulatively threaten the survival of all sea turtle species include mortality or
injury from fisheries by-catch, vessel strikes, marine debris ingestion or entanglement,
environmental contamination and disease. These factors may occur within the Project Area and
are expected to continue in the future. Threats to nesting and hatchling success include
disturbance from humans (unintentional or intentional harassment of nesting females or
hatchlings), coastal development (increased lighting issues, reduced nesting habitat quality and
quantity), predation and nest washout.
vi

The proposed beach nourishment project may compound several of these threats and therefore
may contribute to these negative cumulative impacts. The potential for the project construction
24 hours-per-day exposes nesting females and hatchlings to affects caused by artificial lighting
used at night. These affects include false crawls, nest deposition in unfavorable areas and
hatchling disorientation and mortality. As artificial lighting from coastal development already
poses a great risk to sea turtles, the proposed project could potentially exacerbate these impacts.
The construction activities and presence of machinery on the beach may also deter females from
nesting, resulting in an increase in the number of false crawls. Other nighttime human activity
reduces nesting success by preventing nesting females from emerging to nest, or causing them to
abandon a nesting attempt. Additionally, beach furniture and recreational equipment left on the
beach overnight can create barriers to females and hatchlings.
The proposed project aims to create a more stable, wider beach that may lead to a greater
anthropogenic use such as increased recreational activities and more urban development to
support growing tourism. An increase in development brings with it domesticated animals such
as cats, dogs and other wildlife that are attracted to an urban setting such as raccoons and foxes.
These animals may prey on eggs and hatchlings, exacerbating the natural predation pressure.
The likelihood that multiple nourishment projects will occur throughout coastal North Carolina
also contributes to these cumulative impacts. At the present time, there are several non-federal
beach nourishment/construction projects within the state that have been proposed or are currently
in the permitting process, some of which also propose to construct outside the environmental
windows (Table 26). In essence, numerous beach nourishment projects could lead to reduced
nesting success, increased hatchling mortality and a larger draw for tourism, development and
subsequent negative impacts across a large area. It is important to evaluate the amount of sea
turtle nesting habitat in North Carolina that could be impacted by beach nourishment in the
foreseeable future. Table 27 evaluates the current and potential beach nourishment activities
affecting the North Carolina coastline, which spans 326 miles. In the case of Kill Devil Hills,
Kitty Hawk and Duck, the proposed projects will involve a combined 8 miles of nourished
shoreline, representing just over 2% of the oceanfront shoreline in North Carolina. Going further,
there are 124 miles of shoreline that are actively managed either in a beach nourishment program
or under development for one. Additionally, when the municipalities that could potentially seek
management in the future are considered, the total amount of managed shoreline could reach 163
miles. With an average nourishment interval of 4.4 years, up to 11.4% (37 miles) of shoreline
could be nourished per year. This number assumes all projects will be constructed during the
same year, and is therefore the maximum amount of shoreline that could be nourished in a given
year. Actual mileage of nourished shoreline per year will likely vary from this number.
Additionally, it is not likely that all projects will pursue summertime dredging; therefore, the
type and magnitude of direct and indirect impacts to sea turtles will vary.
Beach erosion is also considered a threat to sea turtles due to loss and degradation of nesting
habitat. While erosion can be remedied through beach nourishment projects, if they are designed
and constructed such that the new beach does not mimic the native beach in composition or
profile, sea turtles can be negatively affected. It follows that if multiple projects produce
improperly designed beaches with poor-quality sediment, the cumulative impacts to turtles could
be negative and quite substantial. However, when designed and constructed properly, a re-
vii

nourished beach may benefit sea turtles by providing a stable nesting habitat. Therefore, if the
culmination of beach nourishment projects within the region were able to construct turtle
friendly beaches, the resulting cumulative effect would be a substantial increase in habitat
available for nesting.
6.5.4AtlanticandShortnoseSturgeon
The proposed projects will not occur within habitats utilized by the shortnose sturgeon, as this
species has rarely been sighted in the marine environment. There are no cumulative effects for
this species within the Project Area. However, the Atlantic sturgeon may utilize the offshore
marine environment throughout the year, therefore the Project Area may contain habitat used by
migrating and foraging individuals. Cumulative effects for Atlantic sturgeon that occur within
the Project Area include by-catch of sturgeon in fisheries targeting other species, and habitat
degradation of foraging areas resulting from shoal dredging. Continued beach nourishment
projects are likely to occur throughout the sturgeon’s range. Many of these projects, like those
for Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk and Duck, will likely propose dredging of offshore sand shoals
as a source of beach restoration material, which may also serve as foraging or aggregation areas
for Atlantic sturgeon. Dredging of multiple offshore sand shoals may result in detrimental
changes in physical and environmental characteristics of these features resulting in degradation
of this habitat.
6.5.5SeabeachAmaranth
Seabeach amaranth is threatened, in part, due to loss of suitable habitat caused by dune and
beach erosion. Proposed beach nourishment projects will provide suitably sorted, beach-
compatible material and will offer potential habitat for seabeach amaranth colonization. Previous
beach nourishment projects have rebuilt habitat for seabeach amaranth and have had long-term
benefits to populations, as seen in Bogue Inlet (Dale Suiter, pers. comm., 2007) and Wrightsville
Beach (USFWS 1996b). The cumulative impact that would result from multiple beach
nourishment projects throughout this species range is therefore considered beneficial.
6.5.6PipingPlover
Disturbance from humans, motorized vehicles and pets are cited as some of the major
contributors to the decline of the Atlantic coast population of this species. The proposed project
may result in an increase in anthropogenic influence (increased recreational use of the new
beach), potentially intensifying the negative disturbances caused by humans and domestic
animals.
Piping plovers can be found on many beaches throughout the North Carolina coastline, therefore;
the various projects presented in Table 26 may cumulatively affect piping plovers. Of particular
note are the Kitty Hawk and Duck nourishment projects that may occur simultaneously with Kill
Devil Hills. As discussed in section 6.5.3, the three shorelines constitute a combined 8 miles,
which is just over 2% of the total oceanfront shoreline within North Carolina. The cumulative
effects of these projects can be complex; however, as beach nourishment can simultaneously
benefit the birds by restoring important foraging habitat for the Atlantic Coast populations, yet
also degrade foraging habitat by eliminating infaunal communities within the wet beach.
viii

Nourishment projects may also adversely affect wintering and nesting habitat by stabilizing and
eliminating dynamic overwash areas. The assumption that the Kill Devil Hills project and all
other proposed projects will be constructed with quality, compatible sand that allows for
recovery of the infaunal community permits the determination that the proposed project will not
permanently affect foraging. Nourishment projects in North Carolina may affect a maximum of
approximately 11% of the North Carolina coastline annually, which is considered a
comparatively small amount of the shoreline available to piping plovers within the state.
6.5.7RufaRedKnot
The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed to list the rufared knot due to several factors
including habitat loss from sea level rise, shoreline stabilization, Artic warming, reduced food
availability, increasing asynchronies in timing of the bird’s migratory cycle and food availability
and increases in predation at the Artic breeding grounds (78 FR 60023). Beach nourishment may
contribute to these factors, mainly the reduction in food availability and asynchronies between
stopovers and feeding opportunities.
Red knots need to encounter favorable food, habitat and weather conditions within narrow
seasonal windows at stopover locations to successfully complete the migration and are therefore
sensitive to changes in these parameters. This can be exemplified by the reduction in availability
of horseshoe crab eggs at the Delaware Bay stopover, which caused a substantial decline in red
knot numbers beginning in the 1980’s (78 FR 60023). Therefore, the burial and subsequent
reduction of the infaunal communities caused by beach nourishment activities, combined with
already stressed food resources, may cumulatively affect food availability for the migrating
birds.
A related and major factor threatening the rufa red knot is the asynchronies between arrival at
stop overs with food availability caused by climate change. Timing of stopovers must be precise,
as the birds must reach the Artic breeding grounds in time for the short breeding season there.
The birds arrive at the stopovers nearly depleted of energy; therefore, the ability to accumulate
small additional energy reserves at a stopover is crucial, should migration be delayed or feeding
conditions be poor at the next location (78 FR 60023). Beach nourishment projects inevitably
bury and smother the infaunal communities when fill is placed on the beach. While this impact is
expected to be temporary, and the infaunal communities are anticipated to recover, the reduction
in foraging success could potentially create long-term impacts such as reducing breeding success
and increased adult mortality.
Aside from reduced food resources, human disturbance and beach erosion threaten the amount of
quality habitat available, which is exacerbated by rising sea levels associated with climate
change. Beach nourishment may serve to restore crucial habitat by replacing sand lost to storms
and erosion. At the same time, the nourishment can indirectly increase human disturbance and
development, create a steeper beach or reduce sediment quality, thereby impeding foraging and
invertebrate recovery, all of which can negatively affect the rufa red knot.
As all of the risks are associated with any beach nourishment project, the combined effects of the
projects presented in Table 26 could cumulatively affect the food availability, synchrony of rufa
red knot presence with prey and habitat quality. Those projects occurring in the same year will
ix

produce a cumulative effect of disturbance and reduced infaunal prey available during the year
following nourishment, while also creating a synergistic and positive effect on the amount of
foraging habitat available (assuming recovery of infaunal communities). But, as discussed for
piping plovers above, the assumption that the Kill Devil Hills project and all other proposed
projects will be constructed with quality, compatible sand that allows for recovery of the infaunal
community supports the determination that the proposed project will not permanently affect
foraging. Nourishment projects in North Carolina may affect a maximum of approximately 11%
of the North Carolina coastline annually, which is considered a comparatively small amount of
the shoreline available to red knots within the state.
6.5.8RoseateTern
The Project Area does not include habitats or other resources utilized by the roseate tern. There
are no cumulative effects for this species expected to occur within the Project Area.
7CONSERVATIONANDMONITORINGMEASURES
The following describes actions and measures incorporated into the design of the Applicant’s
Preferred Alternative to avoid and/or minimize direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the
resources found within the Permit Area and the species that utilize it.
7.1ConstructionPractices
7.1.1BorrowAreaDesign
The design and configuration of the borrow area can play a major role in dredging efficiency, as
well as the level of risk of sea turtle entrainment. For example, hopper dredging within small and
irregularly shaped borrow area with varying and step contours can lead to challenging hopper
dredging conditions, resulting in a need for frequent turns, or difficulty keeping the draghead in
contact with the bottom at all times during pumping. Both of these scenarios result in lifting the
draghead from the bottom, which substantially increases the risk for sea turtles to be entrained in
the suction field. Therefore, the size and shape of the borrow areas have been designed such that
a minimum number of turns will be required by the hopper dredge, which increases dredge
efficiency and reduces the potential for sea turtle entrainment.
7.1.2DredgeType
Construction of the project will be accomplished using cutterhead suction dredges, trailing
suction hopper dredges or a combination of the two. To minimize impacts from hopper dredging,
the project will follow all provisions set forth in the South Atlantic Division Corps of Engineers
Hopper Dredging Protocol for Atlantic Coast. Specific measures implemented to reduce impacts
to turtles are discussed in section 7.3.2.
7.1.3DredgePositioning
DREDGEPAK® or similar navigation and positioning software will be used by the contractor to
accurately track the dredge location. The software will provide real-time dredge positioning and
digging functions to allow color display of dredge shape, physical feature data as found in
x

background Computer Aided Design (CAD) charts and color contour matrix files from
hydrographic data collection software described above on a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) display.
The software shall also provide a display of theoretical volume quantities removed during actual
dredging operations.
Dredge anchors shall not be placed any further than 200 feet from the edge of the areas to be
dredged. The dredge contractor will be required to verify the location of the anchors with real
time positioning each and every time the anchors are relocated.
7.1.4PipelinePositioning
On the beach, pipelines will transport the sediment to the designated placement area. The
pipeline alignment will be designed to avoid potential piping plover habitat or sea turtle nests.
The alignment will be coordinated with, and approved by, the USACE. As-built positions of the
pipeline will be recorded using GPS technology and included in the final construction
observation report.
7.2ConstructionObservations
Several initiatives will be undertaken by the Town, the Engineer or his duly authorized
representative to monitor construction practices. Construction observation and contract
administration will be periodically performed seven days per week, approximately twelve hours
per day during periods of active construction. Most observations will be during daylight hours;
however, random nighttime observations may be conducted. The Town, the Engineer, or his duly
authorized representative will provide onsite observation by an individual with training or
experience in beach nourishment and construction observation and testing, and that is
knowledgeable of the project design and permit conditions. The project manager, a coastal
engineer, will coordinate with the field observer. Multiple daily observations of the pump-out
location will be made for quality assessment and quality control (QA/QC) of the material being
placed on the beach. The construction contractor will provide redundant observations 24 hours
per day during construction.
7.2.1SedimentCompatibility
The Sediment Criteria Rule, contained in the Technical Standards for Beach Fill Projects (15A
NCAC 07H .0312), provides beneficial guidelines for both grain size and percent weigh of
calcium carbonate. However, other important characteristics such as organic content, heavy
mineral content and color are not addressed. These aspects of the beach material will be
considered. Maintaining adherence to this sediment criteria rule for material placed on the beach
will reduce adverse impacts to the beach invertebrate community and would also reduce effects
to sea turtle nest construction and incubation of the eggs. Multiple daily observations of the
active placement locations will be made by the Town, the engineer or his duly authorized
representative for QA/QC of the material being placed on the beach. The individual will collect a
representative sub-surface (6 in. below grade) grab sediment sample from each 100-ft long
(along the shoreline) section of the constructed beach to visually assess grain size, wet Munsell
color, granular, gravel, and silt content. Each sample will be archived with the date, time, and
location of the sample. Samples will be collected during beach observations. The sample will be
xi

visually compared to the acceptable sand criteria. If determined necessary by the Engineer, or his
duly authorized representative, quantitative assessments of the sand will be conducted for grain
size, wet Munsell color, and content of gravel, granular and silt. A record of these sand
evaluations will be provided within the Engineer’s daily inspection reports and submitted to
USACE and NC DCM for verification.
Following construction, compaction of placed fill material will be inspected by the Town, the
Engineer or his duly authorized representative in coordination with the Division of Coastal
Management and USACE. Compaction monitoring will begin after the material has been graded
and dressed to the final slope and a period of time will be allowed for finer particles to be
washed away and final settling of the material to occur prior to compaction monitoring. If the fill
material appears to have a higher degree of compaction than that which is acceptable additional
testing such as cone penetration testing will be considered. After subsequent testing, if it is
determined that tilling is necessary to reduce compaction based on consultation with the
appropriate agencies, the contractor will till the beach to a minimum depth of 36 inches
throughout the constructed portion of the beach to loosen the compaction of the placed material.
Beach tilling will only be performed as a result of an identified compaction problem based on
agency consultation. Beach compaction monitoring and, if necessary, tilling would ensure that
project impacts on sea turtle nesting are minimized.
7.2.2Escarpments
Visual surveys of escarpments will be made along the beach fill area immediately after
completion of construction. Escarpments in the newly placed beach fill that exceed 18 inches for
greater than 100 ft. shall be graded to match adjacent grades on the beach. Removal of any
escarpments during the sea turtle hatching season (May 1 through November 15) shall be
coordinated with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), USFWS and
the USACE. The likelihood of escarpment formation can be reduced by incorporating a beach
design that closely resembles the native beach in terms of berm elevation, sediment size, and
sediment sorting characteristics. The proposed project will be designed with a berm elevation of
+6 ft. NAVD88, and sediment characteristics that fall within the ranges required by the North

Carolina State Sediment Criteria
7.2.3WaterQuality
The nearshore and offshore water columns are classified as SB waters under the North Carolina
State water quality standards. North Carolina state standards require that work within the water
column shall not cause turbidity levels to exceed 25 NTU or background (ambient) conditions
that are above 25 NTU.
Construction operations are expected to temporarily elevate turbidity levels in the water column
at the borrow area and beach placement sites. Higher turbidity levels are likely to be found in the
discharge zone (nearshore swash zone) during periods of active construction. Turbidity
monitoring during construction will be managed by the contractor. The contractor will be
responsible for notifying the construction engineer in the event that turbidity levels exceed the
state water quality standards. Measures that could be taken to subsequently reduce turbidity
xii

include moving the dredge to a different location, or asking the contractor to extend the berm,
which would allow more time for fines to settle out before the water flows back into the ocean.
7.2.4PipelineObservations
In order to avoid adverse effects associated with the transport of placement material to the active
shoreline reach, observation and assessment of the pipeline during construction will also be
conducted. This will serve to avoid pressurized leaks from the pipeline couplings or other
equipment that may result in sediment plumes, siltation and/or elevated turbidity levels. The
Town, along with the associated engineer, will coordinate with the dredgers and have in place a
mechanism to cease dredge and fill activities in the event that a substantial leak is detected In the
event that a substantial leak is detected (leaks resulting in turbidity that exceed state water
quality standards). The contractor will cease dredge and placement activities until an appropriate
repair of the affected equipment has been completed.
7.3SpeciesMonitoringandImpactMinimization
7.3.1WestIndianManatee,HumpbackandNorthAtlanticRightWhalesMonitoring
During construction or dredging activities, the contractor will adhere to the “Guidelines for
Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee” created by the USFWS. Full-time NMFS-
certified endangered species observers will be present on the hopper dredge(s) to alert dredge
operators of any whales or manatees in the area. In the event a whale or manatee is spotted, the
ship’s captain will make proper maneuvers to avoid collisions or injury to the marine mammals.
Vessel operators will abide by the 10 kt (18.5 km/h) speed restrictions in any Dynamic
Management Areas (DMAs) that may be established while underway. Operators will abide by
NMFS Southeast Region marine mammal viewing guidelines and maintain 50 yds. from sea
turtles and dolphins and 100 yds. from whales. Vessel operators will also follow the restricted
vessel approach of 500 yds. established for North Atlantic right whales. Participation in the Right
Whale Early Warning System is required; therefore, dredging within right whale critical habitat
from December through March will follow the protocol established within the Early Warning
System (NMFS, 1995).
7.3.2SeaTurtleMonitoring
Several measures will be taken to reduce impacts to swimming turtles during dredging activities.
In the event hopper dredges are used, a turtle relocation trawling plan will be implemented to
decrease risk of entrainment. The terms and protocols that will be implemented in association
with relocation trawling are discussed in section 2.2.2. The applicant will electronically monitor
the locations of trawlers and hopper dredges so that trawling is implemented to maximum
effectiveness. Risk of entrainment can be further reduced by use of a sea turtle deflector, which
is rigid device mounted on the draghead that effectively displaces the sea turtle outside the reach
of the suction field. Every effort will be made to keep the dredge pumps disengaged when the
hopper dredge dragheads are not firmly on the bottom. Also, the rotating cutterhead will not be
lifted from the sediment surface during operations. Additionally, full-time NMFS-certified
endangered species observers will be present on the hopper dredge to document any sea turtle
activity and monitor turtle takes through screening of inflow and/or outflow. Dredging
xiii

operations will abide by the terms and conditions deemed necessary to minimize hopper
dredging impacts to sea turtles set forth in the 1995 and 1997 South Atlantic Regional Biological
Opinion (SARBO).
On the beach, several steps will be taken to minimize construction impacts to nesting and
hatchling sea turtles. Artificial lighting used during nighttime construction activities will be
angled or shielded to reduce deterrence of sea turtle nesting and hatchling disorentation. A sea
turtle nest monitoring and avoidance/relocation plan will be implemented through coordination
with USFWS and NCWRC. Sea turtle nest monitoring is also considered an important part of sea
turtle conservation. Dare County is included in surveys conducted by Network for Endangered
Sea Turtles (N.E.S.T), the volunteer organization which performs systematic surveys of the
northern Outer Banks from the Virginia border to the southern tip of Nags Head. Surveys are
performed throughout the nesting season (May through August), and include daily morning
patrols to mark and protect newly laid nests, as well as monitoring during incubation period and
emergence. These surveys have been performed since 1981. Because the Dare County projects
propose nourishment during the summer months (nesting season), monitoring will be needed to
identify, and subsequently avoid burial or excavation of, existing nests during construction. This
monitoring will be performed by trained individuals knowledgeable of the beach construction
operations.
In addition to these monitoring surveys, efforts will be taken to reduce potential impacts to
incubating sea turtle eggs. One manner of doing so is to relocate nests deemed in danger of being
impacted by construction activities. Sea turtle nest relocation is a management tool with the
potential to both aid, or impair, the recovery of sea turtle populations. The primary benefit
associated with relocating sea turtle nests (clutches) is to abate threats that would otherwise
compromise the hatching and emergence success rate. Where clutches would otherwise have
been lost and where populations require intervention, clutch relocation may be an acceptable
management practice for conservation of marine turtle populations. Some studies, including
Hopkins & Murphy (1983) and Stancyk et al. (1980), have shown that the relocation of
presumed “doomed” eggs increases nest productivity. In the case of beach nourishment
activities, nests may be crushed, buried, or unearthed by construction equipment; therefore,
moving a nest out of the activity area may be beneficial. Nevertheless, there are potential
negative effects associated with relocating eggs. Nest relocating that is unnecessary or
improperly executed can result in movement-induced mortality of embryos, or adverse changes
to hatchling fitness or sex-ratios due to changes in the egg chamber environment. Studies
evaluating hatch success reported higher hatch success rates in relocated than in situ nests, lower
hatch success rates in relocated than in situ nests and no difference in hatch success between
relocated and in situ nests (Bimbi 2009, Pintus et al. 2009, Tuttle 2007, Wyneken et al. 1988).
However, implementing measures such as strict adherence to decision criteria for relocation and
using only highly trained personnel can improve the effectiveness of this technique. For the
proposed project in Duck, trained personnel will be used to monitor for sea turtle nests and
relocate them out of the project area as necessary.
7.3.3BirdMonitoring
Migrating, wintering and breeding piping plovers in North Carolina are monitored through
various systematic and non-systematic surveys. North Carolina participates in an International
xiv

Piping Plover Winter Census that takes place every five years, and Bodie Island is included in
these surveys. The last survey was performed in 2011 but surveys are likely to continue in the
future. A Breeding Census for breeding pairs of piping plovers is conducted annually, although
not all locations are surveyed every year and Bodie Island has not been surveyed since 2008.
Migrating piping plovers are not part of a formal survey; however, they are picked up in
International Shorebird Surveys that capture spring and fall migration counts. Additionally,
piping plover data are picked up opportunistically in surveys conducted pursuant to permit
requirements, research interests for non-governmental groups, consultants and federal agencies
(Sarah Schweitzer, pers.comm.,2014).
In the past, rufa red knot surveys have been performed annually during the month of May in
Dare County (2010 – 2012), Bodie Island (2007 – 2009) and the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore (2006 – 2010). The aerial surveys are coordinated out of the New Jersey state
department and are dependent upon funding. The North Carolina coast has been flown by
biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Audubon
and/or the Center of Conservation Biology (Sara Schweitzer, pers. comm., June 14, 2014).
All personnel involved in the construction process along the beach will be trained to recognize
the presence of piping plovers and red knots prior to the initiation of beach construction.
Personnel will be provided photos of each species, which will be required to be kept at the
construction site for quick reference. A contractor representative authorized to stop or redirect
work will conduct a shorebird survey prior to 9:00 am each day of sand placement activities. The
survey will cover the work area and any locations where equipment is expected to travel. The
contractor will note any observance of red knots or piping plovers and submit observations to the
USACE Wilmington District Office the next calendar day.
xv

8REFERENCES
Ackermann, R. A. 1996. The nest environment and the embryonic development of sea turtles. In:
P. L. Lutz and J. A. Musick (eds.). The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida. pp. 83–106.
Adriannse, L.A. and J. Coosen. 1991. Beach and Dune Nourishment and Environmental Aspects.
Coastal Engineering 16:129-146.
Anchor Environmental CA, L.P., Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force, and
California Coastal Commission. 2003. Literature review of effects of resuspended sediments
due to dredging operations. Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force. 87 pp +
Appendices.
Andre, M., M. Sole, M. Lenoir, M. Durfort, C. Quero, A. Mas, A. Lombarte, M. van der Schaar,
M. Lopez-Bejar, M. Morell, S. Zaugg, L. Houegnigan. 2011. Low-frequency sounds induce
acoustic trauma in cephalopods. Frontiers in Ecologyand the Environment 9(9): 489-493.
ASMFC. 2013. Addendum I to Amendment 2 to the Red Drum Fishery Management Plan:
Habitat Needs & Concerns.
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
Bain, M. B. 1997. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson River: Common and divergent
life history attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48(1-4): 347-358.
Bargo, T., J. Glass, T. Fitzpatrick, D. Oullette. 2005. Sea turtle relocation trawling: Is it
effective? REMSA, Inc. 5 pp.
Bjorndal, K.A., 1997. Foraging Ecology and Nutrition of Sea Turtles. In: Lutz, P.L. and Musick,
J.A. (eds.) The Biology of Sea Turtles, CRC Press, New York, 8:199-231
Boettcher, R., T. Penn, R.R. Cross, K.T. Terwilliger, and R.A. Beck. 2007. An overview of the
status and distribution of piping plovers in Virginia. Waterbirds 30 (special publication
1):138-151.
Bohlen, W. 2002. Gravitational Flows and the Dispersion of Dredged Resuspended Sediments:
The Forgotten Factor? University of Connecticut, Department of Marine Sciences. Online at:
http://massbay.mit.edu/marinecenter/conference/abstracts01.html
Bolten, A. B., H. R. Martins, K. A. Bjorndal, and J. Gordon. 1993. Size distribution of pelagic-
stage loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the waters around the Azores and Madeira.
Arquipelago 11A:49-54
i

Bolten, A.B. and Witherington, B.E. 2003. Loggerhead Sea Turtles, Geographic Distribution,
Abundance, and Population Status. In: Lutz, P.L. and Musick, J.A. (eds.) The Biology of Sea
Turtles, CRC Press, New York, 10: 168-170, 16: 255-273
Broderick, A.C., Godley, B.J., and Hays, G.C. 2001. Metabolic heating and the prediction of sex
ratios for green turtles (Chelonia mydas).Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 74(2),
161-170
Brown, M.W. and M.K. Marx. 1998. Surveillance, monitoring and management of North
Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts: January to mid-
May, 1998. Final Report submitted to the Division of Marine Fisheries, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, October 1999, Contract No. SCFWE3000-8365027.
Burger, J. 1994. The effect of human disturbance on foraging behavior and habitat use in piping
plover (Charadrius melodus).Estuaries 17(3):695-701
Burlas, M., D.G. Clarke, G.L. Ray, and D.H. Wilber. 2002. Biological monitoring of beach
nourishment operations in northern New Jersey, USA: Linkages between benthic in fauna
and higher trophic levels. Dredging '02: Key Technologies for Global Prosperity.
Proceedings of 3rd Specialty Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material, May 5-8,
2002, Orlando, Florida. American Society of Civil Engineers.
Cameron, S. 2008. North Carolina piping plover breeding summary, 2008. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission.
Challinor, John S.A. 2000. Scoping the assessment of sediment plumes from dredging.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association. CIRIA Publication C547
City of Kill Devil Hills. 2014. Kill Devil Hills, NC! Official Website. Online at:
http://www.kdhnc.com/index.aspx?NID=75 Accessed: 7/9/2014.
Clark, C.W. 1995. Application of US Navy underwater hydrophone arrays for scientific research
on whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 45:210–212.
Clarke, D., C. Dickerson, and K. Reine. 2002. Characterization of Underwater Sounds Produced
by Dredges. ASCE, Orlando, Florida.
Cohen, J.B., S.M. Karpanty, D.H. Catlin, J.D. Fraser, and R.A. Fischer. 2008. Winter ecology of
piping plovers at Oregon Inlet, North Carolina. Waterbirds 31: 472-479.
Collins, M. R., and T. I. J. Smith. 1997. Distributions of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in
South Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:995–1000
Crain, D.A., Bolten, A.B., and Bjorndal, K.A., 1995. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles:
review and research initiatires, Restoration Ecology, p. 3, 2, 95-104
ii

Cronin, E.L., R.B. Biggs, D.A. Flemer, G.T. Pfitzmeyer, F. Goodwin, Jr., W.L. Dovel, and D.E.
Richie, Jr. 1970. Gross physical and biological effects of overboard spoil disposal in Upper
Chesapeake Bay. University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Natural
Resources Institute Special Report Number 3. 66 pp.
CSA International, Inc., Applied Coastal Research and Enginnering, Inc., Barry A. Vittor &
Associates, Inc., C.F. Bean, L.L.C., and Florida Institute of Technology. 2009. Analysis of
Potential Biological and Physical Impacts of Dredging on Offshore Ridge and Shoal
Features. Prepared by CSA International, Inc. in cooperation with Applied Coastal Research
and Engineering, Inc., Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., C.F. Bean, L.L.C., and the Florida
Institute of Technology for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management
Service, Leasing Division, Marine Minerals Branch, Herndon, VA. OCS Study MMS 2010-
010. 160 pp. + apps.
CSE. 2005. Preliminary coastal engineering analyses for large-scale beach restoration at Nags
Head. Technical Report for Town of Nags Head, North Carolina; CSE, Columbia (SC) and
Morehead City (NC), 88 pp + three appendices (August).
Cummings, E.W., D.A Pabts, J.E. Blum, S.G. Barco, S.J. Davis, V.G. Thayer, N. Adimey, and
W.A. McLellan. 2014. Spatial and Temporal Patterns fo habitat use and mortality of the
Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) in the Mid-Atlantic States of North
Carolina and Virginia from 1991 – 2012. Aquatic mammals 40(2): 126-139.
CZR Incorporated and CSE, Inc. 2013. Nags Head Beach 2011 Nourishment Project: Post-Year
1 Report. Town of Nags Head, Dare County, NC. 45 pp.
CZR Incorporated and CSE, Inc. 2014. Nags Head Beach 2011 Nourishment Project: Post-Year
2 Report. Town of Nags Head, Dare County, NC. 40 pp. + Appendices.
Dadswell. M.J., B.D. Taubert, T.W. Squiers, D. Marchette, J. Buckley. 1984. Status of the
shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 98:75-79.
Dickerson, D.D. and D.A. Nelson. 1989. Recent results on hatchling orientation response to light
wavelengths and intensities. In: S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (compilers),
Proceedings of the 9th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology, pp. 41-
43. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232.
Ecological Associates, Inc. 1999. Martin County beach nourishment project sea turtle monitoring
and studies, 1997 annual report and final assessment. Jensen Beach, FL. 323 pp
Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A. Veishlow. 1995. Sea turtles in North Carolina waters.
Conservation Biology. 9(2): 384-394.
iii

Finkl, C.W, S. Khalil and J. Andrews. 1997. Offshore sand sources for beach replenishment:
Potential borrows on the continental shelf of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Geosources
and Geotechnology, 15:155-173.
Finkl, C.W., J. Andrews and L. Benedet. 2003. Shelf sand searches for beach nourishment along
Florida Gulf and Atlantic coasts based on geological, geomorphological, and geotechnical
principles and practices. Coastal Sediments 2003. Clearwater, Florida. CD-ROM.
Finkl, C.W. and S.M Khalil. 2005. Offshore Exploration for sand sources: General guidelines
and procedural strategies along deltaic coasts. Journal of Coastal Research. SI44: 203-233.
Fletmeyer, J.R., 1978. Underwater Tracking Evidence that Neonate Loggerhead Sea Turtles Seek
Shelter in Drifting Sargassum. Copeia, p. 1, 148
Florida Museum of Natural History. 2010 Biological Profiles: Cobia. Online at:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/cobia/cobia.html Accessed: August 5, 2014
Garcia-Rodriguez, A.I.; Bowen, B.W.; Domning, D.; Mignucci-Giannoni, A.A.; Marmontel, M.;
Montoya-Ospina, R.A.; Morales-Vela, B.; Rudin, M.; Bonde, R.K., and Mcguire, P.M.
(1998). Phylogeography of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus): how many
populations and how many taxa? Molecular Ecology 7(9), 1137–1149.
Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons. United States Department of Interior
Biological Report 82, 28 pp.
Hain, J.H.W., M.J. Ratnaswamy, R.D. Kenney, and H.E. Winn. 1992. The fin whale,
Balaenoptera physalus, in waters of the northeastern United States continental shelf. Rep. Int.
Whal. Comm. 42:653-669.
Halpin, P.N., A.J. Read, E. Fujioka, B.D. Best, B. Donnelly, L.J. Hazen, C. Kot, K. Urian, E.
LaBrecque, A. Dimatteo, J. Cleary, C. Good, L.B Crowder, and K.D. Hyrenbach. 2009.
OBIS-SEAMAP: the world data center for marine mammal, sea bird, and sea turtle
distributions. Oceanography 22(2):104-155. Online at: http://seamap-
dev.env.duke.edu/species/180488 Accessed: February 20, 2014.
Hamilton, P.K., and C.A Mayo. 1990. Population characteristics of right whales (Eubalaena
glacialis) observed in Cape Cod and Massachusetts bays, 1978-1986. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm.
(Special issue) 12: 203-208
Hatin, D., S. Lachance, D. Fournier. 2007. Effect of dredged sediment disposal on use by
Atlantic sturgeon and Lake sturgeon at an open-water disposal site in the St. Lawrence
estuarine transition zone. American Fisheries Society Symposium 56: 1-22.
Hays, G.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.
iv

Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus,
1758), 97(1), U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Holland, B.F., Jr. and G.F. Yelverton. 1973. Distribution and biological studies of anadromous
fishes offshore North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic
Resources, 368 Division of Commercial and Sports Fisheries, Morehead City. Special
Scientific Report 24:1-132
Hughes, A.L. and E.A. Caine. 1994. The effect of beach features on hatchling loggerhead sea
turtles. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.
Hilton Head, South Carolina, p. 237.
Humphrey, S.R.. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume I. Mammals: 190-198
Hurricanecity.com. 2013. Elizabeth City, North Carolina’s history with tropical systems. Online
at:http://www.hurricanecity.com/city/elizabethcity.htm. Accessed: February 25, 2014.
Inman, D.L and R. Dolan. 1989. The Outer Banks of North Carolina: budget of sediment and
inlet dynamics along a migrating barrier system. Journal of Coastal Research 5(2): 193-297.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2013: Summary for policymakers. In:
Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdon and New York, NY, USA.
Katona, S.K. and J.A. Beard. 1990. Population size, migrations and substock structure of the
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the western North Atlantic. Reports of the
International Whaling Commission (Special issue 12): 295-305.
Keiffer, M.C. and B. Kynard. 1993. Annual movements of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in
the Merrimack River, Massachusetts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122(6):
1088-1103.
Kenney, R. D., and H. E. Winn. 1987. Cetacean biomass densities near submarine canyons
compared to adjacent shelf/slope areas. Continental Shelf Research 7(2):107-114.
Klinger, R.C. and Musick, J.A.. 1995. Age and Growth of Loggerhead Turtles (Caretta caretta)
from Chesapeake Bay, Copeia, (1), pp. 204
Kraus, S.D., J.H. Prescott, A.R. Knowlton, and G.S. Stone. 1986. Migration and calving of right
whales (Eubalaena galcialis) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Cetacean
Research Management (special issue) 2: 193-208.
Kynard B., M. Horgan, M. Kieffer, and D. Seibel. 2000. Habitats used by shortnose sturgeon in
two Massachusetts rivers. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society 129: 487-503
v

Lally, J. and Ikalainen, A., 2001. Final Pre-Design Field Test Dredge Technology Evaluation
Report – New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New England District. Concord, Massachusetts: Foster Wheeler Corporation. 119
p
Laney, R. W.; Hightower, J. E.; Versak, B. R.; Mangold, M. F.; Cole, W. W., Jr; Winslow, S. E.,
2007: Distribution, habitat use, and size of Atlantic sturgeon captured during cooperative
winter tagging cruises, 1988–2006. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 56, 167–182.
Laist, D.W., C. Taylor, and J.E. Reynolds III. 2013. Winter habitat preferences for Florida
manatees and vulnerability to cold. PLOS/one 8(3): e57978
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057978.
Larson, M. and N. Kraus. 1989. SBEACH: Numerical model for simulating storm-induced beach
change; Report 1: Empirical Foundation and Model Development. Report 1. Technical
Report CERC-89-9. USAEWES, Coastal Engineering Research Center. 267 pp.
Leatherman, S.P., K. Zhang, and B.C. Douglas. 2000. Sea level rise shown to drive coastal
erosion. EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union 81(6):55-57.
Lefebvre, L.W. M. Marmontel, J.P. Reid, G.B. Rathbun, and D.P. Domning. 2001. Status and
biogeography of the West Indian manatee. Pages 425-474 inC.A. Woods and F.E. Sergile,
Editors. Biogeography of the West Indies: Patterns and Perspectives. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL. 582 pp.
Leffler, M, C Baron, B Scarborough, K Hathaway, P Hodges, and C Townsend. 1996. Annual
data summary for 1994 CERC Field Research Facility (2 volumes). USACE-WES, Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS, Tech Rept CERC-96-6.
Lorne, J.K. and M. Salmon. 2007. Effects of exposure to artificial lighting on orientation of
hatchling sea turtles on the beach and in the ocean. Endangered Species Research 3: 23-30.
Louis Berger Group. 1999. Use of Federal Offshore Sand Resources for Beach and Coastal
Restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Minerals Management, OCS Study MMS 99-0036. 355 pp
Lund, W.A. Jr. and G.C. Maltezos. 1970. Movements and migrations of the bluefish
(Pomatomus saltatrix) tagged in waters of New York and southern New England. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc. 99(4):719-725.
Lutcavage, M. and Musick, J.A., 1985. Aspects of the Biology of sea turtles in Virginia, Copeia,
2:449
Lutcavage M. E., Plotkin P., Witherington B. & Lutz P. L. 1997 - Human Impacts on Sea Turtle
Survival, pp. 387-409. In: Lutz P. L. & J. A: Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtle. CRC
Press
vi

Lutz, P.L. and Musick, J.A., 1997. The Biology of Sea Turtles, CRC Press, New York
MAFMC. 2014. Fishery Management Plans & Amendments. http://www.mafmc.org/fishery-
management-plans. Last visited May 2014.
Mallinson, D.J., S.R. Riggs, S.J. Culver, D. Ames, B.P. Horton, A.C. Kemp. 2009. The North
Carolina Outer Banks barrier islands: A field trip guide to the geology, geomorphology, and
processes.
Mann, T.M. 1977. Impact of developed coastline on nesting and hatchling sea turtles in
southeastern Florida. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,
Florida.
Mansfield, K.L., J. Wyneken, W.P. Porter, and J. Luo. 2014. First satellite tracks of neonate sea
turtles redefine the ‘lost years’ oceanic niche. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281:
20133039
Marquez, M.R., 1994. Synopsis of biological data of Kemp's ridley turtle, Lepidochelys kempii
(Garman, 1880). NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS – SEFC, pp. 343
McLellan, N.T. and R.J. Hopman. 2000. Innovations in Dredging Technology: Equipment,
Operations and Management. USACE ERDC, Report No. TR-DOER-5. Vickburg,
Mississippi.
McLellan, W. 2001. University of North Carolina at Wilmington marine mammal sightings for
southeastern US. Online at: http://seamap-dev.env.duke.edu/dataset/65 Accessed: February
21, 2014.
McNinch, J.E. 2004. Geologic control in the nearshoore: shore-oblique sandbars and shoreline
erosional hotspots, Mid-Atlantic Bight, USA. Marine Geology 211: 121-141.
Michel, J., A.C. Bejarano, C.H. Peterson, and C. Voss 2013. Review of Biological and
Biophysical Impacts from Dredging and Handling of Offshore Sand. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, VA. OCS Study BOEM 2013-
0119. 258 pp.
Miller, 1997. Reproduction in Sea Turtles. In: Lutz, P.L. and Musick, J.A. (eds.) The Biology of
Sea Turtles, CRC Press, New York, 3: 51-81
Milstein, C.B. and D.L Thomas. 1977. Summary of ecological studies for 1972-1975 in the bays
and other waterways near Little Egg Inlet, and in the ocean in the vicinity of the proposed
site for the Atlantic generating station, New Jersey. Ichthyological Associates, Inc. Bulletin
No. 18
Morreale, S.J, G.J. Ruiz, J.R. Spotila and E.A. Standora. 1982. Temperature-dependent sex
determination: current practices threaten conservation of sea turtles. Science 216: 1245-1247
vii

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(2):225–234.
Moser, M. L., J. B. Bichey, and S. B. Roberts. 1998. Sturgeon distribution in North Carolina.
Center for Marine Science Research, Wilmington, North Carolina. Final Report to U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
Mrosovsky N, Provancha JA. 1992. Sex ratio of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles: data and
estimates from a 5-year study. Can J Zool 70:530–538
Musick, J.A. and C.J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat Utilization and Migration in Juvenile Sea Turtles.
In: Lutz, P.L. and Musick, J.A. (eds.) The Biology of Sea Turtles, CRC Press, New York
NCDMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 2006. North Carolina Shrimp Fishery
Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Division of Marine Fisheries. Morehead City, North Carolina. April 2006.
NCDMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 2008a. North Carolina Inter-
jurisdictional Fisheries Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. Morehead City, North
Carolina. June, 2008.
NCDMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 2008b. North Carolina Red Drum
Fishery Management Plan. Amendment I. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. Morehead City, North
Carolina. November, 2008.
NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2014. Interactive North Atlantic right whale
sightings map. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Online at:
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/psb/surveys/ Last accessed: M, 2014
National Research Council. 1987. Responding to Changes in Sea Level, Engineering
Implications. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life \[web application\].
Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Accessed: February 20, 2014
Nelson, W. G. 1985. Guidelines for Beach Restoration Projects. Part I - Biological. Florida Sea
Grant College. SGC-76. 66 pp.
Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1989. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles. In: S.
Eckert, K. Eckert, and T. Richardson (compilers). Proceedings of the ninth annual
viii

symposium on sea turtle conservation and biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-
SEFSC-232, pp. 125-127.
Newell, R.C., L.J. Seiderer, N.M. Simpson, and J.E. Robinson. 2004. Impacts of marine
aggregate dredging on benthic macrofauna off the south coast of the United Kingdom.
Journal of Coastal Research 20(1):115-125.
Nichols, M., R.J. Diaz, and L.C. Shaffner. 1990. Effects of hopper dredging and sediment
dispersion, Chesapeake Bay. Environ. Geol. Water Sci. 15:31-43
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1991. Regional Biological Opinion for Southeastern
Hopper Dredging. November 25, 1991. NMFS Southeast Regional Office. St. Petersburg,
FL.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998a. Recovery plan for the blue whale
(Balaenoptera musculus): Prepared by Reeves R.R., P.J. Clapham, R.L. Brownell, Jr., and
G.K. Silber for theNational Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 42 pp.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998b. Recovery plan for the shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the
National MarineFisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pages.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Endangered Species Act Section 7
Consultation on Dredging of Gulf of Mexico Navigation Channels and Sand Mining
(“Borrow”) Areas Using Hopper Dredges by COE Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, and
Jacksonville Districts (Consultation Number F/SER/2000/01287), 119 pp
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Recovery plan for the North Atlantic right
whale (Eubalaena glacialis). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006. Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species Fishery Management Plan. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species
Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public Document. 1600pp.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Final Amendment 1 to the 2006 Consolidated
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, Essential Fish Habitat.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver
Spring, MD. Public Document. 395pp.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010. Essential fish habitiat: A marine fish habitat
conservation mandate for federal agencies. South Atlantic Region. National Marine Fisheries
Service. St. Petersburg, FL. 14 pp.
ix

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2012. Biological Opinion for the shoreline
restoration and protection project - Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek/Fort Story
(F/NER/2012/02020). National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region. Gloucester, MA.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013a. Green Turtle (Chelonias mydas),
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm. Accessed June 2, 2014
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013b. Hawksbill Turtle.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/hawksbill.htm. Accessed: May 20, 2014
NMFS (National Marine fisheries Service). 2013c. Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii).
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/kempsridley.htm Accessed: May 30, 2014
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013d. Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta)
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm. Accessed March 26, 2014
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013e. North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena
glacialis. NOAA Office of Protected Resources. Online at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/rightwhale_northatlantic.htm
Accessed: May 28, 2014.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014a. Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus
oxyrinchus). http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/atlanticsturgeon.htm . Accessed June
2, 2014
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014b. Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Online
at:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/finwhale.htm Accessed
6/5/2014.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014c. Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).
NOAA Office of Protected Resources. Online at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/humpbackwhale.htm Accessed:
May 28, 2014.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014d. Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostrum). Online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm
Accessed: June 2, 2014
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008.
Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta
caretea), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS, USFWS and SEMARNAT. 2010. Bi-National Recovery plan for the Kemp’s ridley sea
turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver
Spring, MD
x

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013a. Draft guidance for assessing
the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals. Acoustic threshold levels for onset
of permanent and temporary threshold shifts. NOAA. 24 pp. + Appendices.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013b. Website on mean sea level
trend, 8651370 Duck, North Carolina. Online at:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8651370 Accessed:
June 17, 2014. Olsen Associates, Inc. (OAI). 2010b. Broward County, FL Shore Protection
Project Shore-Stabilizing Structure Feasibility Study. Broward County Environmental
Protection and Growth Management Department Natural Resources Planning and
Management Division. Broward County, Florida. Olsen Associates Inc.: Jacksonville,
Florida.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2014. Understanding the Habitat Value and Function of
Shoal/Ridge/Trough Complexes to Fish and Fisheries on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
Outer Continental Shelf. Draft Literature Synthesis for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management. Contract # M12PS00031. 116pp.
Onuf, C.P. 1994. Seagrasses, dredging, and light in Laguna Madre, Texas, U.S.A. Est. Coast.
Shelf Sci. 39:75-91
Outer Banks Visitors Bureau. 2012. Tourism dollars add to quality of life for Dare Residents.
Online at: http://www.outerbanks.org/media/902629/obvb_tourism_mailer.pdf. Accessed:
7/14/2014.
Peterson, C.H., M.J. Bishop, G.A. Johnson, L.M. D’Anna, and L.M. Manning. 2006. Exploiting
beach filling as an unaffordable experiment: Benthic intertidal impacts propagating upwards
to shorebirds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 338:205-221.
Pritchard, P.C.H, 1997. Evolution, Phylogeny, and Current Status. In: Lutz, P.L. and Musick,
J.A. (eds.) The Biology of Sea Turtles, CRC Press, New York
Rabon, D.R.; Johnson S.A.; Boettcher, R.; Dodd, M.; Lyons, M.; Murphy, S.; Ramsey, S.; Roff,
S., and Stewart, K., 2003. Confirmed Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) nests from
North Carolina, with a summary of Leatherback nesting activities north of Florida. Marine
Turtle Newsletter, 101, 4-8
Riggs, S.R., S.J. Culver, D.V. Ames, D.J. Mallinson, D.R. Corbett and J.P, Walsh. 2008. North
Carolina’s coasts in crisis: A vision for the future. North Carolina Coastal Geology
Cooperative Research Program. Greenville, NC. 32 pp.
Rogers, S. and D. Nash. 2003. The Dune Book. North Carolina Sea Grant, Raleigh, North
Carolina, 28 pp.
xi

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 1987 -8. 20 pp
Rumbold, D.G., P.W. Davis and C. Parretta. 2001. Estimating the effect of beach nourishment on
Caretta caretta (Loggerhead sea turtle) nesting. Restoration Ecology 9(3): 304-310
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. 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 Reefs,
and Live/Hardbottom Habitat Fishery Management Plan, The Sargassum Habitat Fishery
Management Plan, and The Calico Scallop Fishery Management Plan. Prepared by the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, South Carolina, October 1998.
SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2014. http://www.safmc.net/. Last
visited May 2014.
Schwartz, F.J. 1995. Florida manatees, Trichechus manatus (Sirenia: Trichechidae), in North
Carolina 1919-1994. Brimleyana 22:53-60.
Shepherd, G.R. and Packer, D.B., June 2006. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Bluefish,
Pomatomus saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics, Second Edition: National
Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 100p.
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm198/tm198.pdf.
Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team. 2010. A biological assessment of shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional
Office. November 1, 2010. 417 pp.
Smith, T. I. J. 1985. The fishery, biology and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser
oxyrhynchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 14(1): 61–72
Smith, T. I. and J. P. Clugston. 1997. Status and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser
oxyrinchus,in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48(1-4): 335-346
Speybroeck, J., D. Bronte, W. Courtens, T. Gheskiere, P. Grootaert, J. Maelfait, M. Mathys, S.
Provoost, K. Sabbe, E.W.M Stienen, V. Van Lancker, M. Vincx and S. Degraer. 2006. Beach
nourishment: An Ecologically Sound Coastal Defense Alternative? A review. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 16:419-435.
xii

Stein, A.B., K.D. Friedland, and M. Sutherland. 2004. Sturgeon marine distribution and habitat
use along the northeast coast of the United States. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 133:527–537
Swingle, W.M., S.G. Barco, T.D. Pitchford, W.A. McLellan and D.A. Pabst. 1993. Appearance
of juvenile humpback whales feeding in the nearshore waters of Virginia. Mar. Mamm. Sci.
9(3): 309-315.
Taylor Engineering, Inc. 2009. Literature review of effects of beach nourishment on benthic
habitat. Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Martin County, Florida.
Jacksonville, Florida
TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2009. An assessment of the loggerhead turtle population
in the Western North Atlantic ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-575,
131 pp
Thomsen, F.T., S. McCully, D. Wood, F. Pace, and P. White. 2009. A Generic Investigation into
Noise Profiles of Marine Dredging in Relation to the Acoustic Sensitivity of the Marine
Fauna in UK Waters with Particular Emphasis on Aggregate Dredging: PHASE 1 Scoping
and Review of Key Issues. Center for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science.
Lowestoft, Suffolk, 61 pp.
Trindell, R., M. Conti, D. Gallagher, and B. Witherington. 2005. Sea turtles and lights on
Florida’s nesting beaches. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology
and Conservation, pp. 152-153. Savannah, GA.
UNCW (University of North Carolina Wilmington). UNCW Right Whale Aerial Survey 05-06.
University of North Carolina, Wilmington. Online at: http://seamap.env.duke.edu/dataset/360
Accessed: August 6, 2014.
USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers).1996. Coast of Florida Erosion and Storm
Effects Study, Region III, Feasibility Report with Final Environmental Impact Statement.
USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2000. Final feasibility report and
environmental impact statement on hurricane protection and beach erosion control: Dare
County beaches (Bodie Island portion), Dare County, North Carolina. Vol I and Vol II, US
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, South Atlantic Division.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010a Final Environmental Impact Statement May
2010. Beach nourishment project, Town of Nags Head, North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District. Washington, NC. 172 pp.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010b . Wave Information Studies Project
Documentation. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Engineer Research and Development
Center. Online at: http://wis.usace.army.mil/hindcasts.shtml. Accessed: February 25, 2014.
xiii

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2013. Integrated Feasibility Report And Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Coastal Storm Damage Reduction. Bogue Banks, Carteret
County, North Carolina. Draft Report
USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District). 2013a. 2013 Seabeach
amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) survey. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
53 pp
USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District). 2013b. Sea Turtle Data
Warehouse. Online at:
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/seaturtles/info.cfm?Type=District&Code=SAW Accessed: June
20, 2014.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Online at:
http://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/12_5YR/DP04/1600000US3735720%7
C0400000US37 Accessed July 9, 2014.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. Current nonattainment counties
for all criteria pollutants. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html
Accessed: August 8, 2014.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1993. Formal Conference Report Regarding Seabeach
Amaranth, In:1993 Biological Opinion Concerning Beach Nourishment Projects as
Masonboro Island, Wrightsville Beach, Topsail Beach and West Onslow Beach. 22 pp
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996a. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic
Coast Population, Revised Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 258 pp
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996b. Recovery Plan for Seabeach Amaranth
(Amaranthus pumilus) Rafinesque. Atlanta, Georgia
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Biological Opinion on the effects of an interim
beach fill at the critical zone and south beach areas of the sandy hook unit of gateway
national recreation area, Monmouth County, New Jersey on the piping plover (Charadrius
melodus) and seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus). National Park Service, Fort
Hancock, NJ. 111 pp.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003a. Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West
Indian Manatee, Precautionary Measures For Construction Activities In North Carolina
Waters, http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/mammal/manatee_guidelines.pdf Last visited December
4, 2013.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003b. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes piping
plover (Charadrius melodus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Great Lakes – Big Rivers
Region. 141 pp
xiv

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007a. Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) 5-
Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. USFWS Southeast Region. Raleigh, North Carolina.
41 pp.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. West Indian manatee, (Trichechus manatus).
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/manatee.pdf. Last visited March 18, 2014.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009a. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) 5-Year
Review: Summary and Evaluation. USFWS Northeast Region and Midwest Region. 214 pp
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009b. Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) 5
Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. USFWS Southeast Region, Ecological Services.
Raleigh, NC. 41 pp.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Biological opinion for expansion of Wallops
Flight Facility and ongoing operations, Accomack County, Virginia, Project #2010-F-0105
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011a. Abundance and productivity estimates – 2010
update: Atlantic Coast piping plover population. Sudsbury, Massachusetts. 4 pp
.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011bSeabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus)
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_seabeach_amaranth.html Accessed: March 26, 2014
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a. Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas).
http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/green-sea-turtle.htm.
Accessed March 25, 2014
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012b. Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta)
http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/PDF/Loggerhead-Sea-
Turtle.pdf Accessed March 26, 2014
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012c. Piping Plover Critical Habitat.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_piplch.html Accessed March 26, 2014
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013a. Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys
imbricata).http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/hawksbill-sea-
turtle.htm. Accessed: May 30, 2014
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013b. Kemp’s ridely sea turtle (Lepidochelys
kempii).http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/kemps-ridley-sea-
turtle.htm. Accessed May 30, 2014
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013c. Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys
coriacea. http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/leatherback-sea-
turtle.htm Last visited March 18, 2014.
xv

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014a. Endangered species, threatened species, federal
species of concern, and candidate species, Dare County, North Carolina.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/dare.html Accessed May 27, 2014
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2014c. Leatherback Sea Turtles in North Carolina,
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/reptile/leather.html. Accessed: March 18, 2014
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014d. Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa). Online
at:http://www.fws.gov/northeast/redknot/. Last visited March 26, 2014
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014e. Species profile: Green sea turtle (Chelonia
mydas) Online at:
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C00SAccessed: July
18, 2014
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014f. West Indian Manatees in North Carolina,
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/mammal/manatee.html. Accessed: March 18, 2014.
)
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014g. West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus
Florida Stock. Online at:
http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/manatee/SARS/FR00001606_Final_SAR_WIM_FL_Stock.
.
pdfAccessed May 30, 2014
Weakley, A.S. and Bucher, M.A.. 1992. Status survey of seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus
pumilusRafinesque) in North and South Carolina. Report submitted to the North Carolina
Plant Conservation Program and Endangered Species Field Office
Welch, L., P. Davis, B. Howard, and C. Pfistner. \[no date\]. Sea turtle nesting at Juno Beach,
Florida, USA: The effects of two construction projects on this beach. Results of a five-year
study. Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management. Poster
presentation
W.F. Baird & Associates Ltd. 2004. Review of existing and emerging environmentally friendly
offshore dredging technologies. OCS Report MMS 2004-076: Madison, Wisconsin 441 pp.
Whitehead, H., S. Brennan, and D. Grover. 1992. Distribution and behavior of male sperm
whales on the Scotian Shelf, Canada. Can. J. Zool. 70:912–918.
Wilber DH, Clarke DG, Ray GL, Burlas M. 2003. Response of surf zone fish to beach
nourishment operations on the northern coast of New Jersey, USA. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 250: 232
Wiley, D.N., R.A. Asmutis, T.D. Pitchford and D.P. Gannon. 1995. Stranding and mortality of
humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the mid-Atlantic and southeast United States,
1985-1992. Fish. Bull. 93: 196-205.
xvi

Witherington, B.E. and R.E. Martin. 1996. Understanding, assessing, and resolving light-
pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. Florida Marine Research Institutional
Technical Report TR-2. 73 pp.
Witzell, W.N. 1983. Synopsis of biological data on the hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata
(Linnaeus, 1766). FAO Fisheries Symposium FAO, Rome, pp. 78
xvii