Fire Island to Montauk NY Reformulation
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE GREATER ATLANTIC REGIONAL FISHERIES OFFICE 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01 930-2276
Peter V/eppler, Chief
Environmental Analysis Branch Planning Division New York District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 26FederaIPIaza New York, NY 10278-0900
RE:
ocI
I
I
20i6
Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point Reformulation Study
Dear Mr. Weppler: We have reviewed the Draft General Reevaluation Report, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment dated July 2016 for the Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study. The project arca extends from Fire Island Inlet east to Montauk Point in Long Island, New York. The proposed action includes beach and dune restoration, inlet modifications, groin modifications, a breach response plan, and other nonstructural measures, as well as, the continuation of the authorized dredging in Fire Island, Moriches and Shinnecock Inlets and the ebb shoals outside of the inlets with the placement of the dredged material in down drift areas. The project area includes the entire Atlantic coast of Suffolk County covering an ocean shoreline length of approximately 83 miles and over 200 miles of additional shoreline within the estuary system. We previously completed an EFH consultation in a letter dated May 3,2016. Section 305 (bX4XB) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires you to provide us with a detailed written response to our EFH conservation recommendations, including the measures adopted by you for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the project on EFH. In general this response should be provided to us within 30 days of your receipt of our conservation reconìmendations and at least 10 days before a final decision on the action. We have not yet received a response to our EFH conservation recommendations. From the review of the DEIS and accompanying EFH assessment, it appears that several of our conservation recommendations were not incorporated into the July 2016 EFH assessment or the DEIS. 'We again note them in this letter. Additionally, we have recently received submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) maps from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and we have incorporated new comments regarding SAV into this consultation.
As you are aware, the Fish and V/ildlife Coordination Act (FV/CA) and the MSA require federal agencies to consult with one another on projects such as this that may adversely affect EFH and other aquatic resources. This process is guided by the requirements of our EFH regulation at 50 CFR 600.905, which mandates the preparation of EFH assessments, lists the required contents of
EIH
assessments, and generally outlines each agency's obligations in this consultation
proceqwe. X'ish and
Wildlife Coordination Act
Anadromous species such as alewife, blueback hening, and striped bass transit the inlet to reach spawning and nursery habitat in the freshwater eel spawn in the Sargasso Sea and transit the in tributaries. As discussed in our May 3, 2016,1 within the inlets be avoided from March 1 thro these species into the inlet and to their upstre
Magnuson stevens x'isheries Management and conservation Act (MSA) The final draft of the EFH assessmenievaluates some of the potential impacts to EFH that could result from the implementation of the Tentatively Selected plan (TSp), but it lacks any discussion of the specific details of the project cómponents incluàingirr. ur.ui.rtent of the sand placement below the high tide line and ihe-amount änd extent of dreãging within the inlets and ebb shoals' Although ofßhore borrow areas are identified and evaluated and material volumes are provided, there are no estimates on the areal extent of material that will be removed nor the frequency ofdisturbance at each borrow area or inlet. The absence of these details prevents a full evaluation of the direct, indirect, individual and cumulative effects of the actions proposed. As and EFH conservation recommendations. Addi individual action or dredging event undertaken an be developed. a programmatic consultation for this entire project to reduce the , but the additional information discussed above will be needed as part of any programmatic consultation.
vities would be conducted in late fall, winter and reconìmend that dredging in the inlets and ebb each year to minimize impacts to winter
In Section D3 (" provided for the project will also We recommend that you include these ecosysten will be necessary as the project moves forward or as part of a programmatic consultation Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
one or more of the following considerations: 1)
t
.
extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced degradation,'3) whether and to what extent, development activities are stressing the habitat type, or 4) rarity of habitat type (50 CFR 600.815(a)(8)). Studies by Weinstein and Brooks (1983), Adams (1976) and Lascara (1981) in Packer et al. (1999) indicate that SAV is important habitat for juvenile summer flounder. Rodgers and Van Den Avyle (19S3) suggest that SAV beds are important to summer flounder, and that any loss of these areas along the Atlantic Seaboard may affect summer flounder stocks. 'Water
quality and, in particular, water clarity is considered among the most critical, if not the most critical, factor in the maintenance of healthy SAV habitats (Stephan and Bigford 1997). Seagrasses require at least I5o/o to 25Yo of the incident solar radiation (at the water surface) just for maintenance (Kenworthy et al. 1991). Increases in suspended sediments and the subsequent reductions in water transparency caused by construction activities, such as dredging, sand placement and other shoreline modifications can limit photosynthesis. Experiments by Short et al. (199I) with eelgrass have shown that reductions in light decrease growth, promotes a reduction in plant density and can ultimately eliminate an eelgrass population altogether. As a result, we typically recommend that activities that generate suspended sediments should be avoided in and near SAV beds when eelgrass is actively growing and flowering, to avoid affecting the plant's ability to photosynthesize and its growth and survival. Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations Pursuant to Section 305 (b) (4) (A) of the MSA, we reiterate the following five EFH conservation recommendations to minimize adverse effect on EFH and federally managed species, and add one additional recommendation (#6) to reflect the addition of the HAPC information.
l. Until any programmatic consultation
is completed, reinitiate consultation prior to each
dredging event. 2.
To maintain access to estuarine areas of EFH for summer flounder, winter flounder, bluefish and others including their prey species, dredging in the inlets and ebb shoals should be avoided from January 15 to June 30 of each year. At other times of the year, at least 50 o/o of the channel should remain unobstructed to allow ingress and egress of aquatic species.
J.
The intakes on the dredge plant should not be turned on until the dredge head is in the sediments and turned off before lifted to minimize larvae entrained in the dredge.
4.
Dredging within the borow areas should be designed and undertaken in a manner that maintains geomorphic characteristics of the borrow area and best management practices such as not dredging too deeply and leaving similar substrate in place to allow for the benthic community recovery should be employed,
5. 6.
Areas of high surf clam densities within the borrow area should be avoided.
In-water work within eelgrass beds should be avoided. To avoid and minimize impacts,
the most recent available GIS layers of mapped eelgrass beds within the project area should be provided to the contractor so they are aware of eelgrass bed locations at all times.
As stated above, a detail written response to these EFH conservation recommendations is required under the MSA. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with our recommendations, Section 305 (bX4XB) of the MSA also indicates that you must explain your reasons for not following the recommendations. Included in such reasoning *o.tid be ihe scientific justification for any disagreements with us over the anticipated effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate or offset such effect pursuant to 50 CFR 600920 (k).
In addition, please also note that adistinct and further EFH consultation must be reinitiated pursuant to 50 CRF 600.920 fi) if new information becomes available, or if the project is revised in such a manner that affects the basis for the above EFH conservation recommåndations.
Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management council policy statement Lastly, the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC) has developed policy statements on a number of coastal development activities including activities associated with beach nourishment activities that may affect federally managed spécies under their purview including summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, monkfish and butterfish. Their póti.y statements were outlined in our previous letter. 'We recommend that you incorporate the MAFMC policy into the project plans. V/e look forward to our continued coordination with your office on this project as it moves forward' As stated above, because the EFH assessment provided does nãt ðontain sufficient detail on each action proposed as part of the TSP, individual consultations are needed prior to the initiation of each activity so that site specific conservation recommendations can be dweloped. We can work with your staff to complete a programmatic consultation to reduce the need fôr individual consultations. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Ursula Howson at (732) 872-3116 ([email protected] or Karen Greene at (732) 872-3023 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Þv:0"
Louis A. Chia Assistant Regional Administrator for Habitat Conservation
cc:
NYD Corps
- R. Smith PRD D. Marrone NEFMC -T. Nies MAFMC C. Moo¡e ASMFC - L. Havel
-
NOAANEPA
Literature Cited Adams, S.M. 1976. The ecology of eelgrass, Zostera marina (L.), fish communities. I. Structural Analysis. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 22:269-291.
Kenworthy. W.J. and D.E. Haunert (eds.) 1991. The light requirements of seagrasses: proceedings of a workshop to examine the capability of water quality criteria, standards and monitoring programs to protect seagrasses. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-2|7.
J' 1981. Fish predatory-prey interactions in areas of eelgrass (Zostera marina). M.S. Thesis. Coll. V/illiam and Maty. Williamsburg, VA. gl p.
Lascara,
Packer, D.B., S.J. Griesbach, P.L. Benien, C.A. Zetlin,D.L. Johnson and V/.W. Morse. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Summer Flounder, Paralichthys dentatus,life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS.NE- 1 5 1 .
Rogers, S.G. and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (South Atlantic): summer flounder. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/l1.15. l4p. Short, F.T., G.E. Jones and D.M. Burdick. 1991. in Bolton, s.H. and o.T. Magoon. (eds.) Coastal wetlands, papers presented at Coastal Zone'9I,the seventh symposium on Coastal and Ocean management. Long Beach, CA, July B-I2,IggL p 439-453. Stephan, C. D and T.E. Bigford. eds. 1997. Atlantic Coastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: a review of its ecological role, anthropogenic impacts, state regulation ánd vaiue to Atlantic coast fish stocks. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Habitat Management Series #1.
Weinstein, M.P. and H.A. Brooks. 1983. Comparative ecology of nekton residing in a tidal creek and adjacent seagrass meadow: community composition and structure. Mai. Ecol. prog. Ser. 12: 15-27.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE GREATER ATLANTIC REGIONAL FISHERIES OFFICE 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01 930-2276
Peter V/eppler, Chief
Environmental Analysis Branch Planning Division New York District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 26FederaIPIaza New York, NY 10278-0900
RE:
ocI
I
I
20i6
Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point Reformulation Study
Dear Mr. Weppler: We have reviewed the Draft General Reevaluation Report, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment dated July 2016 for the Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study. The project arca extends from Fire Island Inlet east to Montauk Point in Long Island, New York. The proposed action includes beach and dune restoration, inlet modifications, groin modifications, a breach response plan, and other nonstructural measures, as well as, the continuation of the authorized dredging in Fire Island, Moriches and Shinnecock Inlets and the ebb shoals outside of the inlets with the placement of the dredged material in down drift areas. The project area includes the entire Atlantic coast of Suffolk County covering an ocean shoreline length of approximately 83 miles and over 200 miles of additional shoreline within the estuary system. We previously completed an EFH consultation in a letter dated May 3,2016. Section 305 (bX4XB) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires you to provide us with a detailed written response to our EFH conservation recommendations, including the measures adopted by you for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the project on EFH. In general this response should be provided to us within 30 days of your receipt of our conservation reconìmendations and at least 10 days before a final decision on the action. We have not yet received a response to our EFH conservation recommendations. From the review of the DEIS and accompanying EFH assessment, it appears that several of our conservation recommendations were not incorporated into the July 2016 EFH assessment or the DEIS. 'We again note them in this letter. Additionally, we have recently received submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) maps from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and we have incorporated new comments regarding SAV into this consultation.
As you are aware, the Fish and V/ildlife Coordination Act (FV/CA) and the MSA require federal agencies to consult with one another on projects such as this that may adversely affect EFH and other aquatic resources. This process is guided by the requirements of our EFH regulation at 50 CFR 600.905, which mandates the preparation of EFH assessments, lists the required contents of
EIH
assessments, and generally outlines each agency's obligations in this consultation
proceqwe. X'ish and
Wildlife Coordination Act
Anadromous species such as alewife, blueback hening, and striped bass transit the inlet to reach spawning and nursery habitat in the freshwater eel spawn in the Sargasso Sea and transit the in tributaries. As discussed in our May 3, 2016,1 within the inlets be avoided from March 1 thro these species into the inlet and to their upstre
Magnuson stevens x'isheries Management and conservation Act (MSA) The final draft of the EFH assessmenievaluates some of the potential impacts to EFH that could result from the implementation of the Tentatively Selected plan (TSp), but it lacks any discussion of the specific details of the project cómponents incluàingirr. ur.ui.rtent of the sand placement below the high tide line and ihe-amount änd extent of dreãging within the inlets and ebb shoals' Although ofßhore borrow areas are identified and evaluated and material volumes are provided, there are no estimates on the areal extent of material that will be removed nor the frequency ofdisturbance at each borrow area or inlet. The absence of these details prevents a full evaluation of the direct, indirect, individual and cumulative effects of the actions proposed. As and EFH conservation recommendations. Addi individual action or dredging event undertaken an be developed. a programmatic consultation for this entire project to reduce the , but the additional information discussed above will be needed as part of any programmatic consultation.
vities would be conducted in late fall, winter and reconìmend that dredging in the inlets and ebb each year to minimize impacts to winter
In Section D3 (" provided for the project will also We recommend that you include these ecosysten will be necessary as the project moves forward or as part of a programmatic consultation Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
one or more of the following considerations: 1)
t
.
extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced degradation,'3) whether and to what extent, development activities are stressing the habitat type, or 4) rarity of habitat type (50 CFR 600.815(a)(8)). Studies by Weinstein and Brooks (1983), Adams (1976) and Lascara (1981) in Packer et al. (1999) indicate that SAV is important habitat for juvenile summer flounder. Rodgers and Van Den Avyle (19S3) suggest that SAV beds are important to summer flounder, and that any loss of these areas along the Atlantic Seaboard may affect summer flounder stocks. 'Water
quality and, in particular, water clarity is considered among the most critical, if not the most critical, factor in the maintenance of healthy SAV habitats (Stephan and Bigford 1997). Seagrasses require at least I5o/o to 25Yo of the incident solar radiation (at the water surface) just for maintenance (Kenworthy et al. 1991). Increases in suspended sediments and the subsequent reductions in water transparency caused by construction activities, such as dredging, sand placement and other shoreline modifications can limit photosynthesis. Experiments by Short et al. (199I) with eelgrass have shown that reductions in light decrease growth, promotes a reduction in plant density and can ultimately eliminate an eelgrass population altogether. As a result, we typically recommend that activities that generate suspended sediments should be avoided in and near SAV beds when eelgrass is actively growing and flowering, to avoid affecting the plant's ability to photosynthesize and its growth and survival. Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations Pursuant to Section 305 (b) (4) (A) of the MSA, we reiterate the following five EFH conservation recommendations to minimize adverse effect on EFH and federally managed species, and add one additional recommendation (#6) to reflect the addition of the HAPC information.
l. Until any programmatic consultation
is completed, reinitiate consultation prior to each
dredging event. 2.
To maintain access to estuarine areas of EFH for summer flounder, winter flounder, bluefish and others including their prey species, dredging in the inlets and ebb shoals should be avoided from January 15 to June 30 of each year. At other times of the year, at least 50 o/o of the channel should remain unobstructed to allow ingress and egress of aquatic species.
J.
The intakes on the dredge plant should not be turned on until the dredge head is in the sediments and turned off before lifted to minimize larvae entrained in the dredge.
4.
Dredging within the borow areas should be designed and undertaken in a manner that maintains geomorphic characteristics of the borrow area and best management practices such as not dredging too deeply and leaving similar substrate in place to allow for the benthic community recovery should be employed,
5. 6.
Areas of high surf clam densities within the borrow area should be avoided.
In-water work within eelgrass beds should be avoided. To avoid and minimize impacts,
the most recent available GIS layers of mapped eelgrass beds within the project area should be provided to the contractor so they are aware of eelgrass bed locations at all times.
As stated above, a detail written response to these EFH conservation recommendations is required under the MSA. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with our recommendations, Section 305 (bX4XB) of the MSA also indicates that you must explain your reasons for not following the recommendations. Included in such reasoning *o.tid be ihe scientific justification for any disagreements with us over the anticipated effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate or offset such effect pursuant to 50 CFR 600920 (k).
In addition, please also note that adistinct and further EFH consultation must be reinitiated pursuant to 50 CRF 600.920 fi) if new information becomes available, or if the project is revised in such a manner that affects the basis for the above EFH conservation recommåndations.
Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management council policy statement Lastly, the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC) has developed policy statements on a number of coastal development activities including activities associated with beach nourishment activities that may affect federally managed spécies under their purview including summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, monkfish and butterfish. Their póti.y statements were outlined in our previous letter. 'We recommend that you incorporate the MAFMC policy into the project plans. V/e look forward to our continued coordination with your office on this project as it moves forward' As stated above, because the EFH assessment provided does nãt ðontain sufficient detail on each action proposed as part of the TSP, individual consultations are needed prior to the initiation of each activity so that site specific conservation recommendations can be dweloped. We can work with your staff to complete a programmatic consultation to reduce the need fôr individual consultations. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Ursula Howson at (732) 872-3116 ([email protected] or Karen Greene at (732) 872-3023 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Þv:0"
Louis A. Chia Assistant Regional Administrator for Habitat Conservation
cc:
NYD Corps
- R. Smith PRD D. Marrone NEFMC -T. Nies MAFMC C. Moo¡e ASMFC - L. Havel
-
NOAANEPA
Literature Cited Adams, S.M. 1976. The ecology of eelgrass, Zostera marina (L.), fish communities. I. Structural Analysis. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 22:269-291.
Kenworthy. W.J. and D.E. Haunert (eds.) 1991. The light requirements of seagrasses: proceedings of a workshop to examine the capability of water quality criteria, standards and monitoring programs to protect seagrasses. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-2|7.
J' 1981. Fish predatory-prey interactions in areas of eelgrass (Zostera marina). M.S. Thesis. Coll. V/illiam and Maty. Williamsburg, VA. gl p.
Lascara,
Packer, D.B., S.J. Griesbach, P.L. Benien, C.A. Zetlin,D.L. Johnson and V/.W. Morse. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Summer Flounder, Paralichthys dentatus,life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS.NE- 1 5 1 .
Rogers, S.G. and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (South Atlantic): summer flounder. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/l1.15. l4p. Short, F.T., G.E. Jones and D.M. Burdick. 1991. in Bolton, s.H. and o.T. Magoon. (eds.) Coastal wetlands, papers presented at Coastal Zone'9I,the seventh symposium on Coastal and Ocean management. Long Beach, CA, July B-I2,IggL p 439-453. Stephan, C. D and T.E. Bigford. eds. 1997. Atlantic Coastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: a review of its ecological role, anthropogenic impacts, state regulation ánd vaiue to Atlantic coast fish stocks. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Habitat Management Series #1.
Weinstein, M.P. and H.A. Brooks. 1983. Comparative ecology of nekton residing in a tidal creek and adjacent seagrass meadow: community composition and structure. Mai. Ecol. prog. Ser. 12: 15-27.
