Edgartown MA Beach Nourishment
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrat¡on NATIONAL IVIARINE FISHERIES SERVICE GREATER ATLANTIC REGIONAL FISHERIES OFFICE 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01 930-2276
NOv 2
I
2016
Ms. Barbara Newman Chief, Permits and Enforcement Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England District 696 Virginia Road Concord, l|l4.A01742-2751 Re: Town of Edgartown - NAE-2011-1511, Edgartown, Massachusetts Dear Ms. Newman: We have reviewed your Public Notice (NAE-2011-1511) for the Town of Edgartown to expand the footprint of the Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street beach nourishment area previously permitted under a 10 year comprehensive maintenance dredge and nourishment permit authorized on September I8,2014. The proposed work includes expanding the currently authorized 49,160 square foot (SF) nourishment area located entirely above the high tide line (HTL) to an approximately 181,500 SF nourishment area that extends into tidal waters waterward of the existing mean low water (MLW) line. An extensive submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) bed has been delineated in close proximity to the proposed footprint expansion area. No mitigation or monitoring for impacts to aquatic resources is proposed. You have made a preliminary determination that the site-specific adverse effect of the proposed action will not be substantial. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) requires federal agencies to consult with one another on projects such as this. Insofar as a project involves EFH, as this project does, this process is guided by the requirements of our EFH regulation at 50 CFR 600.920,which mandates the preparation of EFH assessments and generally outlines each agency's obligations in this consultation procedure. Unfortunately, our ability to assess potential impacts to EFH and associated marine resources is being complicated by a lack of information on the proposed expansion of the previously authorized beach nourishment footprint.
Specifically, you have not provided us with a complete EFH assessment as is required pursuant to 50 CFR 600920. In particular, you have not provided us with the information necessary to evaluate your preliminary determination that the adverse effects to EFH will not be substantial, including, an analysis of the potential adverse effects of the action on EFH and the managed species, proposed mitigation for potential adverse effects of the action, or an analysis of alternatives to the action that could avoid or minimize the adverse effects on EFH. However, based on the available information we have, we are providing the following comments and recommendations for your consideration.
General Comments We previously coordinated with you on the 1O-year comprehensive project that was authorized September 18,2014. In general, the beach nourishment footprints authorized by this permit did not extend waterward of mean high water (MHW) in areas where SAV is known to occur within the shallow subtidal area. On November 18,2013, and June 25,20I4,we provided EFH conservation recommendations to you that included measures to ensure adverse impacts to SAV habitats would not occur as a result of the final authorízationfor the lO-year comprehensive project. In a letter dated August 28,2014, you provided us with a list of special conditions that were incorporated into the hnal permit authorization to ensure the protection of existing SAV beds in the vicinity of the beach nourishment footprints. However, due to the substantial waterward expansion of the proposed footprint into the subtidal area, we do not believe the previously incorporated special conditions will be adequate to ensure adverse impacts to SAV habitats do not occur from the proposed action. Therefore, we do not concur *ith yory preliminary determination that site-specific adverse effects to EFH will not be substantial based on the information provided in the Public Notice.
EFH Resource Concerns As discussed in our November 18,2013letter, eelgrass plays a critical role in the life history stages of multiple managed fish species and NOAA-trust resources. Eelgrass serves as refuge, nursery grounds and food resources for a number of commercially important hn and shellfish (Thayer et al. 1984, Kenworthy et al.1988). Eelgrass also plays a role in stabilizing sediments by buffering the erosive force of waves and currents (Fonseca and Cahalan Ig92). In many locations along the east coast, eelgrass coverage has declined by fifty percent or more since the 1970's (Thayer et al. 1975, Short 1993 et al. and 1996). In Massachusetts, eelgrass is also in significant decline, particularly on the south coast, Cape Cod andBuzzards Bay. These widespread losses of eelgrass habitat may exacerbate the decline of commercially important species as fewer beds are available to provide new recruits to help sustain populationi (Costello and Kenworthy 2011). Given the widespread decline in eelgrass beds, any additional loss to this habitat can significantly affect the resources that depend on these meadows. Loss of eelgrass is attributed to reduced water quality and clarity (Kemp et al. 1983 Short et ql. , 1996, Short and Burdick 1996. Orth et a\.2006). Studies have confirmed that seagrasses are highly vulnerable to changes in sedimentation levels. Eelgrass was shown to have a 50yo mortality level with a burial of 4 cm of sediment (Cabaco et at.2008). With such a low tolerance for sedimentation, indirect effects of post-disturbance processes can also greatly affect seagrasses (Cabaco et al. 2008). The proposed expansion of the previously authorized beach nourishment footprint extends into the subtidal area with some areas as close as 20 feet, or less, from the existing, delineated eelgrass bed. Eelgrass have been designated as a "special Aquatic Site" by the US Environmental protection Agency under Section 404(bX1) of the Federal Clean Water Act, due to its important role within the ecosystem. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has designated eelgrass as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC), when associated with EFH for juvenile and adult
summer flounder, under Amendment 13 of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. The proposed beach nourishment footprint expansion occurs within arl area designated as juvenile and adult summer flounder EFH. Impacts to summer flounder HAPC through indirect sedimentation impacts should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. As proposed, the buffer between the proposed beach nourishment footprint and the delineated eelgrass bed is approximately 20 feet, or less, in some areas. The proposed expansion of the previously authorized beach nourishment footprint along Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street into subtidal habitat will likely result in substantial adverse impacts to SAV habitat through burial and sedimentation impacts. The feasibility of increasing the buffer area between the proposed nourishment footprint and delineated eelgrass bed should be further evaluated and pursuèd. V/e recommend a minimum 100 foot buffer be provided between the waterward extent of a beach nourishment footprint and surveyed eelgrass habitat to avoid and minimize adverse impacts that may occur from dredge material placement operations, sediment transportation procesies and sedimentation. The area of the proposed beach nourishment expansion also provides habitat for winter flounder spawning and juvenile development. Winter flounder eggs are demersal, adhesive, and stick together in clusters (Pereira et al. 1999), and can be directly impacted by elevated suspended sediments and turbidity caused by in-water construction activities (Beny et a\.2004,)Ott; Johnson et a|.2008). Decreased hatching success of winter flounder eggs is observed when covered in as little as I mm of sediment and burial in sediments greater than2.5 mm may cause no hatch (Berry et al.20ll). Elevated turbidity can also impact fish species through g..ât., utilization of energy, gill tissue damage and mortality. Egg and larvallife stages -uy b. -o.. sensitive to suspended sediments, resulting in both lethal and sub-lethal impaõts (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). To avoid such impacts, the placement of fill in tidal waters should be suspended during periods when these sensitive life stages are present.
As discussed during our prior coordination on the 10-year comprehensive project, some water bodies within the comprehensive project area also provide important spawning, nursery and feeding grounds for anadromous species including alewife and American shad. Diadromous fish serve as prey for a number of federally-managed species and several species are considered a component of EFH pursuant to the MSA. However, the currently proposed expansion of the beach nourishment area at the Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street site does not affect our previous recommendations to protect diadromous fish sensitive life history stages for the lO-year comprehensive project. Essential Fish tlabitat Conservation Recommendations The project areahas been designated as EFH under the MSA for 16 federally-managed species including, strnmer flounder, winter flounder, and Atlantic cod. As described above, the proposed expansion of the previously authorized beach nourishment footprint at Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street would have adverse effects on winter flounder EFH through turbidity and sedimentation impacts, and to EFH and summer flounder HAPC through sedimentation impacts to eelgrass habitat. These adverse impacts will not be adequately addressed through the adãption
of the previously provided EFH conservation recommendations for this project. Therefore, we recommend pursuant to Section 305(bX4XA) of the MSA that you adopt following EFH conservation recommendations :
1.
The proposed Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street beach nourishment footprint should be minimized to provide a minimum 100 foot buffer between the waterward extent of the nourishment area and the delineated eelgrass bed.
2.
Direct and indirect impacts to eelgrass from dredging or filling activities should be avoided at all times. No anchors or equipment should be placed in eelgrass at any time.
3. Updated eelgrass surveys should be conducted during the peak growing season prior to dredging at sites with mapped eelgrass in the area including, Cape Poge Gut, Cape Poge Narrows, and Edgartown Harbor Eel Pond Channel (Table 1, attached). The surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of eelgrass and distance from the dredge footprint. Surveys should be provided to resource agencies for review prior to cofilmencement of dredging activities to determine if any buffer areas are necessary. This is consistent with our EFH consultation on the lO-year comprehensive permit.
4.
.
In addition to the site-specific recommendations for Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street in item #l above, material should not be placed below mean high water (MHW) at any site where eelgrass is located offshore to avoid potential impacts to eelgrass habitat. Prior to placing material below MHV/ at sites with mapped eelgrass, including Cape Poge North Gut, Cape Poge Elbow, Eel Pond Spit Banier Beach, Eel Pond Froelich Private Beach, Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street, and Sengekontacket Pond Pay Beach and Inkwell Beaches (Table 2
- Revised, attached), an updated eelgrass survey should be conducted growing during the season prior to disposal to determine the presence or absence of eelgrass offshore. The survey should be reviewed by resource agencies prior to any disposal below MHV/ at these sites. This is consistent with our EFH consultation on the 1 O-year comprehensive permit.
5. Any silt producing activity should be prohibited between year to avoid impacts to winter flounder sensitive (attached) for details.
January 15 and May 31 of any
life stages. See Table 3- Revised
Please note that Section 305(bX4XB) of the MSA requires you to provide us with a detailed written response to these EFH conservation recommendations, including a description of measures you adopt for avoiding, mitigating or offsetting the impact of the project on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with our reconìmendations, Section 305(bX4XB) of the MSA also indicates that you must explain your reasons for not following the recommendations. Included in such reasoning would be the 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 effects pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(k).
Please also note that a distinct and further EFH consultation must be reinitiated pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(l) if new information becomes available or the project is revised in such a manner that affects the basis for the above EFH conservation recommendations.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Recommendations 1. As discussed above, the proposed beach nourishment expansion at Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street does not change the recommendations submitted in our November 18,2013, and June 25,20l4,1etters. Edgartown Great Pond and Sengekontacket Pond function as important areas for spawning, feeding and migration of anadromous fish including alewife and American shad. In order to avoid adverse impacts to migrating anadromous fish dredging activity should not occur between April I and July 15 of any year for projects located in Edgartown Great Pond and dredging activity should be avoided between April 1 and June 15 for projects within Sengekontacket Pond. This is consistent with our recommendation for the 1O-year comprehensive permit.
Endangered Species Act The proposed beach nourishment expansion may warrant re-initiation of consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. Re-initiation of consultation under section 7 of the ESA is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by the Service, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorizedby law and: (a) If new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered in the consultation; (b) If the identified action is subsequently modifred in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the consultation; or (c) If a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. No take is anticipated or exempted. If there is any incidental take of a listed species, re-initiation would be required. Please contact Max Tritt at (207)866-3756 or by e-mail ([email protected]) regarding your requirements for re-initiation of consultation. Conclusion In summary, the EFH conservation recommendations provided in our November 18, 2013 and June 25, 2014letters that were incorporated into the prior permit authorization do not adequately 'We address the adverse impacts that will occur as a result of the proposed project modification. have updated our previously adopted recommendations and provided additional EFH conservation recommendations to ensure direct and indirect impacts to eelgrass habitat are minimized. This includes providing a minimum 100 foot buffer between the delineated eelgrass bed and beach nourishment footprint, and the addition of a winter flounder time of year restriction for this area. Vy'e look forward to your response to our EFH conservation recommendations on this project. Should you have any questions regarding our EFH recommendations or Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act comments, please contact Alison Verkade at [email protected] or 978-281-9266. Should you have any questions
regarding the ESA consultation procedures, please contact Max Tritt at (207)866-3756 or by email (max.tritt@noaa. goÐ.
Sincerely,
Assistant Regional Administrator For Habitat Conservation cc:
Max Tritt, PRD Kevin Kotelly, USACE EdReiner, USEPA Phil Colarusso, USEPA EileenFeeney, MADMF John Logan, MADMF
RoberlBoeri,MACZM Tom Nies, NEFMC Chris Moore, MAFMC
LisaHavel, ASMFC
References
Berry WJ, Hinchey EK, Rubinstein NI, Klein-MacPhee G.2004. 'Winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, hatching success as a function of burial depth in the laboratory. Ninth flatfish biology conference- poster presentation;2004Dec l-2; Westbrook, CT. Woods Hole (MA): Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 04-13. Berry, W.J., Rubentstein, N.I., Hinchey, E.K., Klein-Mac-Phee, G. and Clarke, D.G. 2011. Assessment of dredging-induced sedimentation effects on winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) hatching success: results of laboratory investigations. Proceedings of the Westem Dredging Association Technical Conference and Texas A&M Dredging Seminar. Nashville, TN June 5-8, 2011. Cabaco, S., R. Santos, and C.M. Duarte. 2008. The impact of sediment burial and erosion on seagrasses: A review. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 79:354-366.
Costello, C.T. and V/.J. Kenworthy. 2011. Twelve-year mapping and change analysis of eelgrass (Zostera marina) areal abundance in Massachusetts (USA) identif,res statewide decline. Estuaries and Coasts 34:232-242. Fonseca, M.S. and J.A. Cahalan.1992. A preliminary evaluation of wave attenuation by four species of seagrass. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 35:565-576.
LA, Colosi PD, Greene K, Lellis-Dibble K, Ludeman H, Ludwig M, McDermott S, Ortiz J, Rusanowsky D, Scott M, Smith J. 2008. Impacts to
Johnson MR, Boelke C, Chiarella
marine fisheries habitat from nonfishing activities in the northeastern United States. NOAA Technical MemorandumNMFS-NE-2O9. Woods Hole, MA. 328 p.
Kemp W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.C. Stevenson, R.R. Twilley, and J.C. Means. 1983. The decline of submerged vascular plants in upper Chesapeake Bay: Summary of results concerning possible causes. Marine Technology Society Journal 17:78-89. Kenworthy, W.J., G.V/. Thayer, and M.S. Fonseca. 1988. The utilization of seagrass meadows by fishery organisms. In D.D. Hook et al.(eds.), The Ecology of Wetlands, pp. 548-560. Newcombe, C.P. and Jenson, O.T. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management I 6(4):693-727 . Orth, R.J., T.J.B. Carruthers, W.C. Dennison, C.M. Duarte, J.V/. Fourquean, K.L. Heck, A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick, V/.J. Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, F.T. Short, M. Waycott, and S.L. Williams. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience 56(12):987-996. Pereira JJ, Goldberg R, Ziskowski JJ, Berrien PL, Morse WW, Johnson DL. 1999. Essential Fish habitat source document: winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, life history
and characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-I38. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.
Short, F.T. and D.M. Burdick. 1996. Quantifying eelgrass habitat loss in relation to housing development and nitrogen loading in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Estua¡ies 19:730-739. Short, F.T., D.M. Burdick, J. Wolfe, and G.E. Jones. 1993. Eelgrass in estuarine research reserve along the East Coast, U.S.A., Part I: Declines from pollution and disease and Part II: Management of eelgrass meadows. NOAA- Coastal Oceans Program Publ. 107 pp. Thayer, G.W., W.J. Kenworthy and M.S. Fonseca.1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows of the Atlantic Coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and V/ildlife Service, FWS/OBS84102.147 pp Thayer, G.W., D.A. Wolfe, and R.B. Williams. 1975. The impact of man on seagrass systems. Am Sci. 63:288-296.
Table 1. Dredge locations, total area disturbed, volume of material removed, dredged depth below mean low water (MLV/), and proposed frequency of dredging. Depth
Area
Volume
(SF)
(CÐ
Oape Poge; The Gut
157,900
10,900
-4
Oape Poge
Dredge Site Name
(ML!Ð
Dredge Frequency Once every 5-10 years
48,500
4,770
-4.5
fhe Narrows Cape Poge; Dike Bridge
45,000
970
-4.5
Eel Pond Channel
59,000
1,850
-5.7
Eel Pond Boat Ramp
9,900
230
-5.7
Eel Pond ; Lighthouse Point Eel Pond; Inner Harbor
38,210
2,280
-8.5
r21,360
7,760
-7.5
Eel Pond; Collins Beach
23,050
r40
-6.5
iel Pond; Caleb's
50,520 72,870
1,680 1,830
-5.5 -6.5
1,930
85
-4.5
108,630
22,960
-6.5
Sreat Pond Sluiceway
121p00
11,660
-6.5
Once per 5-10 years
Flerring Creek Restoration
17,840
3,860
-4.5
Once per
191,190
2I,790
-6.5
646,670
31,270
-6.5
As often as accretion allows Once per 5-10 years
r,714r470
124,035
;
Pond
Katama Bay Boat Ramp & Channel
3reat Pond Boat Ramp Sreat Pond Delta &, Channel
Senge Pond
Bonow Site
1
Senge Pond
lnner Channel
TOTAL
Once every 5-10 years
As needed
As needed. Not done yearly.
l0
years
Table 2 - Revised. Beach nourishment locations, total extent of fill, f,rlled area below the high tide line (HTL). Disposal Site Name
Total Area Fitled
Area Below
HrL
(SF)
(SF') Cape Poge Gut;
Elbow
140,000
29,500
Cape Poge Gut; North Gut
43,380
16,600
Cape Poge Narrows ; Over Sand Roads Cape Poge Narows; Nantucket Sound Beach Cape Poge Dike Bridge Approach; Over Sand Roads Eel Pond Spit: Barrier Beach Eel Pond; Froelich Beach
46,r50
0
43,370
5,190
47,990
0
117,350
38.750 1,430 Unknown* 11,830
14,170 181,494* 23,230 1,540
Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street* Caleb's Pond; Segment A Caleb's Pond; Segment B Caleb's Pond; Segment C Caleb's Pond; Segment D Caleb's Pond; Segment E Caleb's Pond; Segment F Great Pond; South Beach 'Wilson's Great PondBoat Ramp; Landine Sylvia State Beach; Oak Blufß
4,900 52,630 42,300 175,400 13,240 418,580
Bend in the Road Beach Cow Bay Beach Pay Beach, Oak Blufß
68,860 3s5,800 t03,175
47.180 235.900
Inkwell Beach
26,871 1.926.580
0
6,1 50
TOTAL
*revised based on currently proposed project modification ** does not include currently proposed project modification
l0
1,360
4.120 3,620 8,600 10,180
124,950 13.240 235,880
0
788,230**
Table 3 - Revised: Recommended Time of Year windows for Town of Edgartown l0 year Comprehensive Permit and information on mapped eelgrass in the project area. Project Site
Winter Flounder TOY
Diadromous Fish TOY Alewife 4lI-6115 Blueback 4ll-6130 American Shad 5/17l15
Eelgrass Mapped within or nearby project site
Y Y Y
N N N
Y Y N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y Y Y Y
N N
N N
N N
Nr'
N'
Y (4n-7trs)
Nx
N' N' N' N'
Y Y Y Y
(4lr-7lrs\ (4lt-7lts\ (4lt-7lIs\
N*
(4tr-7trs)
N{'
Y
Y (4n-6ns)
N
Y
Y (4n-6ns)
N
Y
Y (4n-6^s)
N
N N N N N
N N N N N
Y
tns
-
st3r
Dredging Sites Cape Poge Cape Poge Cape Poge
- The Gut - The Narrows - Dike Bridge
Approach Edgartown Harbor-Eel Pond Channel Edgartown Harbor -Eel Pond Boat Ramp Edgartown Harbor -Lighthouse Point Edgartown Harbor -Inner Harbor Edgartown Harbor -Collins Beach Edgartown Harbor -Caleb's Pond Edgartown Harbor-Katama B ay Boat Ramp and Channel Great Pond Boat Ramp ('Wilson's Landine) Great Pond Delta Great Pond Channel Great Pond Sluiceway Approach Great Pond Herring Creek Restoration Sengekontacket Pond -Little Bridge-North Inlet Channel Sengekontacket Pond -Borrow Site #l Sengekontacket Pond - Inner Channel (Oak Bluffs)
N*
N{
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrat¡on NATIONAL IVIARINE FISHERIES SERVICE GREATER ATLANTIC REGIONAL FISHERIES OFFICE 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01 930-2276
NOv 2
I
2016
Ms. Barbara Newman Chief, Permits and Enforcement Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England District 696 Virginia Road Concord, l|l4.A01742-2751 Re: Town of Edgartown - NAE-2011-1511, Edgartown, Massachusetts Dear Ms. Newman: We have reviewed your Public Notice (NAE-2011-1511) for the Town of Edgartown to expand the footprint of the Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street beach nourishment area previously permitted under a 10 year comprehensive maintenance dredge and nourishment permit authorized on September I8,2014. The proposed work includes expanding the currently authorized 49,160 square foot (SF) nourishment area located entirely above the high tide line (HTL) to an approximately 181,500 SF nourishment area that extends into tidal waters waterward of the existing mean low water (MLW) line. An extensive submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) bed has been delineated in close proximity to the proposed footprint expansion area. No mitigation or monitoring for impacts to aquatic resources is proposed. You have made a preliminary determination that the site-specific adverse effect of the proposed action will not be substantial. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) requires federal agencies to consult with one another on projects such as this. Insofar as a project involves EFH, as this project does, this process is guided by the requirements of our EFH regulation at 50 CFR 600.920,which mandates the preparation of EFH assessments and generally outlines each agency's obligations in this consultation procedure. Unfortunately, our ability to assess potential impacts to EFH and associated marine resources is being complicated by a lack of information on the proposed expansion of the previously authorized beach nourishment footprint.
Specifically, you have not provided us with a complete EFH assessment as is required pursuant to 50 CFR 600920. In particular, you have not provided us with the information necessary to evaluate your preliminary determination that the adverse effects to EFH will not be substantial, including, an analysis of the potential adverse effects of the action on EFH and the managed species, proposed mitigation for potential adverse effects of the action, or an analysis of alternatives to the action that could avoid or minimize the adverse effects on EFH. However, based on the available information we have, we are providing the following comments and recommendations for your consideration.
General Comments We previously coordinated with you on the 1O-year comprehensive project that was authorized September 18,2014. In general, the beach nourishment footprints authorized by this permit did not extend waterward of mean high water (MHW) in areas where SAV is known to occur within the shallow subtidal area. On November 18,2013, and June 25,20I4,we provided EFH conservation recommendations to you that included measures to ensure adverse impacts to SAV habitats would not occur as a result of the final authorízationfor the lO-year comprehensive project. In a letter dated August 28,2014, you provided us with a list of special conditions that were incorporated into the hnal permit authorization to ensure the protection of existing SAV beds in the vicinity of the beach nourishment footprints. However, due to the substantial waterward expansion of the proposed footprint into the subtidal area, we do not believe the previously incorporated special conditions will be adequate to ensure adverse impacts to SAV habitats do not occur from the proposed action. Therefore, we do not concur *ith yory preliminary determination that site-specific adverse effects to EFH will not be substantial based on the information provided in the Public Notice.
EFH Resource Concerns As discussed in our November 18,2013letter, eelgrass plays a critical role in the life history stages of multiple managed fish species and NOAA-trust resources. Eelgrass serves as refuge, nursery grounds and food resources for a number of commercially important hn and shellfish (Thayer et al. 1984, Kenworthy et al.1988). Eelgrass also plays a role in stabilizing sediments by buffering the erosive force of waves and currents (Fonseca and Cahalan Ig92). In many locations along the east coast, eelgrass coverage has declined by fifty percent or more since the 1970's (Thayer et al. 1975, Short 1993 et al. and 1996). In Massachusetts, eelgrass is also in significant decline, particularly on the south coast, Cape Cod andBuzzards Bay. These widespread losses of eelgrass habitat may exacerbate the decline of commercially important species as fewer beds are available to provide new recruits to help sustain populationi (Costello and Kenworthy 2011). Given the widespread decline in eelgrass beds, any additional loss to this habitat can significantly affect the resources that depend on these meadows. Loss of eelgrass is attributed to reduced water quality and clarity (Kemp et al. 1983 Short et ql. , 1996, Short and Burdick 1996. Orth et a\.2006). Studies have confirmed that seagrasses are highly vulnerable to changes in sedimentation levels. Eelgrass was shown to have a 50yo mortality level with a burial of 4 cm of sediment (Cabaco et at.2008). With such a low tolerance for sedimentation, indirect effects of post-disturbance processes can also greatly affect seagrasses (Cabaco et al. 2008). The proposed expansion of the previously authorized beach nourishment footprint extends into the subtidal area with some areas as close as 20 feet, or less, from the existing, delineated eelgrass bed. Eelgrass have been designated as a "special Aquatic Site" by the US Environmental protection Agency under Section 404(bX1) of the Federal Clean Water Act, due to its important role within the ecosystem. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has designated eelgrass as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC), when associated with EFH for juvenile and adult
summer flounder, under Amendment 13 of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. The proposed beach nourishment footprint expansion occurs within arl area designated as juvenile and adult summer flounder EFH. Impacts to summer flounder HAPC through indirect sedimentation impacts should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. As proposed, the buffer between the proposed beach nourishment footprint and the delineated eelgrass bed is approximately 20 feet, or less, in some areas. The proposed expansion of the previously authorized beach nourishment footprint along Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street into subtidal habitat will likely result in substantial adverse impacts to SAV habitat through burial and sedimentation impacts. The feasibility of increasing the buffer area between the proposed nourishment footprint and delineated eelgrass bed should be further evaluated and pursuèd. V/e recommend a minimum 100 foot buffer be provided between the waterward extent of a beach nourishment footprint and surveyed eelgrass habitat to avoid and minimize adverse impacts that may occur from dredge material placement operations, sediment transportation procesies and sedimentation. The area of the proposed beach nourishment expansion also provides habitat for winter flounder spawning and juvenile development. Winter flounder eggs are demersal, adhesive, and stick together in clusters (Pereira et al. 1999), and can be directly impacted by elevated suspended sediments and turbidity caused by in-water construction activities (Beny et a\.2004,)Ott; Johnson et a|.2008). Decreased hatching success of winter flounder eggs is observed when covered in as little as I mm of sediment and burial in sediments greater than2.5 mm may cause no hatch (Berry et al.20ll). Elevated turbidity can also impact fish species through g..ât., utilization of energy, gill tissue damage and mortality. Egg and larvallife stages -uy b. -o.. sensitive to suspended sediments, resulting in both lethal and sub-lethal impaõts (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). To avoid such impacts, the placement of fill in tidal waters should be suspended during periods when these sensitive life stages are present.
As discussed during our prior coordination on the 10-year comprehensive project, some water bodies within the comprehensive project area also provide important spawning, nursery and feeding grounds for anadromous species including alewife and American shad. Diadromous fish serve as prey for a number of federally-managed species and several species are considered a component of EFH pursuant to the MSA. However, the currently proposed expansion of the beach nourishment area at the Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street site does not affect our previous recommendations to protect diadromous fish sensitive life history stages for the lO-year comprehensive project. Essential Fish tlabitat Conservation Recommendations The project areahas been designated as EFH under the MSA for 16 federally-managed species including, strnmer flounder, winter flounder, and Atlantic cod. As described above, the proposed expansion of the previously authorized beach nourishment footprint at Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street would have adverse effects on winter flounder EFH through turbidity and sedimentation impacts, and to EFH and summer flounder HAPC through sedimentation impacts to eelgrass habitat. These adverse impacts will not be adequately addressed through the adãption
of the previously provided EFH conservation recommendations for this project. Therefore, we recommend pursuant to Section 305(bX4XA) of the MSA that you adopt following EFH conservation recommendations :
1.
The proposed Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street beach nourishment footprint should be minimized to provide a minimum 100 foot buffer between the waterward extent of the nourishment area and the delineated eelgrass bed.
2.
Direct and indirect impacts to eelgrass from dredging or filling activities should be avoided at all times. No anchors or equipment should be placed in eelgrass at any time.
3. Updated eelgrass surveys should be conducted during the peak growing season prior to dredging at sites with mapped eelgrass in the area including, Cape Poge Gut, Cape Poge Narrows, and Edgartown Harbor Eel Pond Channel (Table 1, attached). The surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of eelgrass and distance from the dredge footprint. Surveys should be provided to resource agencies for review prior to cofilmencement of dredging activities to determine if any buffer areas are necessary. This is consistent with our EFH consultation on the lO-year comprehensive permit.
4.
.
In addition to the site-specific recommendations for Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street in item #l above, material should not be placed below mean high water (MHW) at any site where eelgrass is located offshore to avoid potential impacts to eelgrass habitat. Prior to placing material below MHV/ at sites with mapped eelgrass, including Cape Poge North Gut, Cape Poge Elbow, Eel Pond Spit Banier Beach, Eel Pond Froelich Private Beach, Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street, and Sengekontacket Pond Pay Beach and Inkwell Beaches (Table 2
- Revised, attached), an updated eelgrass survey should be conducted growing during the season prior to disposal to determine the presence or absence of eelgrass offshore. The survey should be reviewed by resource agencies prior to any disposal below MHV/ at these sites. This is consistent with our EFH consultation on the 1 O-year comprehensive permit.
5. Any silt producing activity should be prohibited between year to avoid impacts to winter flounder sensitive (attached) for details.
January 15 and May 31 of any
life stages. See Table 3- Revised
Please note that Section 305(bX4XB) of the MSA requires you to provide us with a detailed written response to these EFH conservation recommendations, including a description of measures you adopt for avoiding, mitigating or offsetting the impact of the project on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with our reconìmendations, Section 305(bX4XB) of the MSA also indicates that you must explain your reasons for not following the recommendations. Included in such reasoning would be the 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 effects pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(k).
Please also note that a distinct and further EFH consultation must be reinitiated pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(l) if new information becomes available or the project is revised in such a manner that affects the basis for the above EFH conservation recommendations.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Recommendations 1. As discussed above, the proposed beach nourishment expansion at Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street does not change the recommendations submitted in our November 18,2013, and June 25,20l4,1etters. Edgartown Great Pond and Sengekontacket Pond function as important areas for spawning, feeding and migration of anadromous fish including alewife and American shad. In order to avoid adverse impacts to migrating anadromous fish dredging activity should not occur between April I and July 15 of any year for projects located in Edgartown Great Pond and dredging activity should be avoided between April 1 and June 15 for projects within Sengekontacket Pond. This is consistent with our recommendation for the 1O-year comprehensive permit.
Endangered Species Act The proposed beach nourishment expansion may warrant re-initiation of consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. Re-initiation of consultation under section 7 of the ESA is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by the Service, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorizedby law and: (a) If new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered in the consultation; (b) If the identified action is subsequently modifred in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the consultation; or (c) If a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. No take is anticipated or exempted. If there is any incidental take of a listed species, re-initiation would be required. Please contact Max Tritt at (207)866-3756 or by e-mail ([email protected]) regarding your requirements for re-initiation of consultation. Conclusion In summary, the EFH conservation recommendations provided in our November 18, 2013 and June 25, 2014letters that were incorporated into the prior permit authorization do not adequately 'We address the adverse impacts that will occur as a result of the proposed project modification. have updated our previously adopted recommendations and provided additional EFH conservation recommendations to ensure direct and indirect impacts to eelgrass habitat are minimized. This includes providing a minimum 100 foot buffer between the delineated eelgrass bed and beach nourishment footprint, and the addition of a winter flounder time of year restriction for this area. Vy'e look forward to your response to our EFH conservation recommendations on this project. Should you have any questions regarding our EFH recommendations or Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act comments, please contact Alison Verkade at [email protected] or 978-281-9266. Should you have any questions
regarding the ESA consultation procedures, please contact Max Tritt at (207)866-3756 or by email (max.tritt@noaa. goÐ.
Sincerely,
Assistant Regional Administrator For Habitat Conservation cc:
Max Tritt, PRD Kevin Kotelly, USACE EdReiner, USEPA Phil Colarusso, USEPA EileenFeeney, MADMF John Logan, MADMF
RoberlBoeri,MACZM Tom Nies, NEFMC Chris Moore, MAFMC
LisaHavel, ASMFC
References
Berry WJ, Hinchey EK, Rubinstein NI, Klein-MacPhee G.2004. 'Winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, hatching success as a function of burial depth in the laboratory. Ninth flatfish biology conference- poster presentation;2004Dec l-2; Westbrook, CT. Woods Hole (MA): Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 04-13. Berry, W.J., Rubentstein, N.I., Hinchey, E.K., Klein-Mac-Phee, G. and Clarke, D.G. 2011. Assessment of dredging-induced sedimentation effects on winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) hatching success: results of laboratory investigations. Proceedings of the Westem Dredging Association Technical Conference and Texas A&M Dredging Seminar. Nashville, TN June 5-8, 2011. Cabaco, S., R. Santos, and C.M. Duarte. 2008. The impact of sediment burial and erosion on seagrasses: A review. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 79:354-366.
Costello, C.T. and V/.J. Kenworthy. 2011. Twelve-year mapping and change analysis of eelgrass (Zostera marina) areal abundance in Massachusetts (USA) identif,res statewide decline. Estuaries and Coasts 34:232-242. Fonseca, M.S. and J.A. Cahalan.1992. A preliminary evaluation of wave attenuation by four species of seagrass. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 35:565-576.
LA, Colosi PD, Greene K, Lellis-Dibble K, Ludeman H, Ludwig M, McDermott S, Ortiz J, Rusanowsky D, Scott M, Smith J. 2008. Impacts to
Johnson MR, Boelke C, Chiarella
marine fisheries habitat from nonfishing activities in the northeastern United States. NOAA Technical MemorandumNMFS-NE-2O9. Woods Hole, MA. 328 p.
Kemp W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.C. Stevenson, R.R. Twilley, and J.C. Means. 1983. The decline of submerged vascular plants in upper Chesapeake Bay: Summary of results concerning possible causes. Marine Technology Society Journal 17:78-89. Kenworthy, W.J., G.V/. Thayer, and M.S. Fonseca. 1988. The utilization of seagrass meadows by fishery organisms. In D.D. Hook et al.(eds.), The Ecology of Wetlands, pp. 548-560. Newcombe, C.P. and Jenson, O.T. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management I 6(4):693-727 . Orth, R.J., T.J.B. Carruthers, W.C. Dennison, C.M. Duarte, J.V/. Fourquean, K.L. Heck, A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick, V/.J. Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, F.T. Short, M. Waycott, and S.L. Williams. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience 56(12):987-996. Pereira JJ, Goldberg R, Ziskowski JJ, Berrien PL, Morse WW, Johnson DL. 1999. Essential Fish habitat source document: winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, life history
and characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-I38. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.
Short, F.T. and D.M. Burdick. 1996. Quantifying eelgrass habitat loss in relation to housing development and nitrogen loading in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Estua¡ies 19:730-739. Short, F.T., D.M. Burdick, J. Wolfe, and G.E. Jones. 1993. Eelgrass in estuarine research reserve along the East Coast, U.S.A., Part I: Declines from pollution and disease and Part II: Management of eelgrass meadows. NOAA- Coastal Oceans Program Publ. 107 pp. Thayer, G.W., W.J. Kenworthy and M.S. Fonseca.1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows of the Atlantic Coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and V/ildlife Service, FWS/OBS84102.147 pp Thayer, G.W., D.A. Wolfe, and R.B. Williams. 1975. The impact of man on seagrass systems. Am Sci. 63:288-296.
Table 1. Dredge locations, total area disturbed, volume of material removed, dredged depth below mean low water (MLV/), and proposed frequency of dredging. Depth
Area
Volume
(SF)
(CÐ
Oape Poge; The Gut
157,900
10,900
-4
Oape Poge
Dredge Site Name
(ML!Ð
Dredge Frequency Once every 5-10 years
48,500
4,770
-4.5
fhe Narrows Cape Poge; Dike Bridge
45,000
970
-4.5
Eel Pond Channel
59,000
1,850
-5.7
Eel Pond Boat Ramp
9,900
230
-5.7
Eel Pond ; Lighthouse Point Eel Pond; Inner Harbor
38,210
2,280
-8.5
r21,360
7,760
-7.5
Eel Pond; Collins Beach
23,050
r40
-6.5
iel Pond; Caleb's
50,520 72,870
1,680 1,830
-5.5 -6.5
1,930
85
-4.5
108,630
22,960
-6.5
Sreat Pond Sluiceway
121p00
11,660
-6.5
Once per 5-10 years
Flerring Creek Restoration
17,840
3,860
-4.5
Once per
191,190
2I,790
-6.5
646,670
31,270
-6.5
As often as accretion allows Once per 5-10 years
r,714r470
124,035
;
Pond
Katama Bay Boat Ramp & Channel
3reat Pond Boat Ramp Sreat Pond Delta &, Channel
Senge Pond
Bonow Site
1
Senge Pond
lnner Channel
TOTAL
Once every 5-10 years
As needed
As needed. Not done yearly.
l0
years
Table 2 - Revised. Beach nourishment locations, total extent of fill, f,rlled area below the high tide line (HTL). Disposal Site Name
Total Area Fitled
Area Below
HrL
(SF)
(SF') Cape Poge Gut;
Elbow
140,000
29,500
Cape Poge Gut; North Gut
43,380
16,600
Cape Poge Narrows ; Over Sand Roads Cape Poge Narows; Nantucket Sound Beach Cape Poge Dike Bridge Approach; Over Sand Roads Eel Pond Spit: Barrier Beach Eel Pond; Froelich Beach
46,r50
0
43,370
5,190
47,990
0
117,350
38.750 1,430 Unknown* 11,830
14,170 181,494* 23,230 1,540
Lighthouse Beach/Fuller Street* Caleb's Pond; Segment A Caleb's Pond; Segment B Caleb's Pond; Segment C Caleb's Pond; Segment D Caleb's Pond; Segment E Caleb's Pond; Segment F Great Pond; South Beach 'Wilson's Great PondBoat Ramp; Landine Sylvia State Beach; Oak Blufß
4,900 52,630 42,300 175,400 13,240 418,580
Bend in the Road Beach Cow Bay Beach Pay Beach, Oak Blufß
68,860 3s5,800 t03,175
47.180 235.900
Inkwell Beach
26,871 1.926.580
0
6,1 50
TOTAL
*revised based on currently proposed project modification ** does not include currently proposed project modification
l0
1,360
4.120 3,620 8,600 10,180
124,950 13.240 235,880
0
788,230**
Table 3 - Revised: Recommended Time of Year windows for Town of Edgartown l0 year Comprehensive Permit and information on mapped eelgrass in the project area. Project Site
Winter Flounder TOY
Diadromous Fish TOY Alewife 4lI-6115 Blueback 4ll-6130 American Shad 5/17l15
Eelgrass Mapped within or nearby project site
Y Y Y
N N N
Y Y N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y Y Y Y
N N
N N
N N
Nr'
N'
Y (4n-7trs)
Nx
N' N' N' N'
Y Y Y Y
(4lr-7lrs\ (4lt-7lts\ (4lt-7lIs\
N*
(4tr-7trs)
N{'
Y
Y (4n-6ns)
N
Y
Y (4n-6ns)
N
Y
Y (4n-6^s)
N
N N N N N
N N N N N
Y
tns
-
st3r
Dredging Sites Cape Poge Cape Poge Cape Poge
- The Gut - The Narrows - Dike Bridge
Approach Edgartown Harbor-Eel Pond Channel Edgartown Harbor -Eel Pond Boat Ramp Edgartown Harbor -Lighthouse Point Edgartown Harbor -Inner Harbor Edgartown Harbor -Collins Beach Edgartown Harbor -Caleb's Pond Edgartown Harbor-Katama B ay Boat Ramp and Channel Great Pond Boat Ramp ('Wilson's Landine) Great Pond Delta Great Pond Channel Great Pond Sluiceway Approach Great Pond Herring Creek Restoration Sengekontacket Pond -Little Bridge-North Inlet Channel Sengekontacket Pond -Borrow Site #l Sengekontacket Pond - Inner Channel (Oak Bluffs)
N*
N{
