Appendix_I_-_Biological_Opinion.pdf

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY

2.1 Norfolk Harbor -- Thimble Shoals and Atlantic Ocean Channel

2.2 Baltimore Harbor Entrance Channels and York River Entrance Channel

2.3 Sandbridge Shoal

2.4 Virginia Beach Nourishment and Hurricane Protection Project

2.5 Norfolk Harbor Channels

2.6 Craney Island Eastward Expansion

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

3.1 Port of Hampton Roads Approach Channels – Thimble Shoals and Atlantic Ocean Channel

3.2 Port of Baltimore Approach Channels

3.3 York River Entrance Channel Federal Navigation Project

3.4 Virginia Beach Nourishment and Hurricane Protection Project

3.5 Sandbridge Beach Nourishment and Hurricane Protection

3.6 Norfolk Harbor Channels

3.7 Craney Island Eastward Expansion

3.8 Dredged Material Borrow and Disposal Areas

3.9 Information on Dredges That May Be Used

3.9.1 Self-Propelled Hopper Dredges

3.9.2 Hydraulic Cutterhead Pipeline Dredges

3.9.3 Mechanical Dredges

3.10 Bed Leveling Devices

3.11 Interrelated or Interdependent Actions

3.12 Summary of Proposed Action

3.13 Action Area

3.13.1 Physical Characteristics of the Action Area

4.0 STATUS OF LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT

4.1 Species and Critical Habitat Not Likely to be Adversely Affected by the Proposed Action

4.2 Species Likely to be Adversely Affected by the Proposed Action

4.2.1 Status of Sea Turtles

4.2.1.1 Status of Loggerhead Sea Turtles – Northwest Atlantic DPS

4.2.1.2 Status of Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles

4.2.1.3 Status of Green Sea Turtles – North Atlantic DPS

4.2.2 Status of Atlantic Sturgeon

4.2.2.1 Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic sturgeon

4.2.2.2 New York Bight DPS of Atlantic sturgeon

4.2.2.3 Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon

4.2.2.4 Carolina DPS of Atlantic sturgeon

4.2.2.5 South Atlantic DPS of Atlantic sturgeon

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

5.1 Federal Actions that have Undergone Section 7 Consultation

5.1.1 Authorization of Fisheries through Fishery Management Plans

5.1.2 Hopper Dredging, Sand Mining, and Beach Nourishment

5.1.3 Vessel Activity and Military Operations

5.1.4 Research and Other Permitted Activities

5.1.5 Coal Burning Power Stations

5.2 Non-Federally Regulated Fisheries

5.3 Other Activities

5.3.1 Maritime Industry

5.3.2 Pollution

5.3.3 Coastal Development

5.3.4 Global Climate Change and Ocean Acidification

5.4 Reducing Threats to ESA-listed Species

5.4.1 Education and Outreach Activities

5.4.2 Stranding and Salvage Programs

5.4.3 Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network

5.4.4 Regulatory Measures for Sea Turtles

5.4.5 Regulatory Measures for Atlantic Sturgeon

5.5 Summary of Available Information on Listed Species Likely to be Adversely Affected by the Proposed Action in the Action Area

5.5.1 Sea Turtles

5.5.2 Atlantic Sturgeon

6.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

6.1 Hopper Dredge

6.1.1 Interactions with Hopper Dredges – Sea Turtles

6.1.1.1 Background Information on Sea Turtles Interactions with Hopper Dredges ... 129

6.1.1.2 Predicted Entrainment in Proposed Hopper Dredging

6.1.2 Hopper Dredge Entrainment – Atlantic Sturgeon

6.1.3 Interactions with the Sediment Plume - Hopper Dredge

6.2 Hydraulic Cutterhead Dredge

6.2.1 Available Information on the Risk of Entrainment of Sturgeon in Cutterhead Dredge

6.2.2 Predicted Entrainment of Atlantic sturgeon in a cutterhead dredge

6.2.3 Interactions with the Sediment Plume from Cutterhead Dredges

6.3 Mechanical Dredge

6.3.1 Impacts to Sea Turtles

6.3.2 Capture of Atlantic sturgeon in the dredge bucket

6.3.3 Interactions with the Sediment Plume from Mechanical Dredges

6.4 Habitat Impacts from Dredging

6.4.1 Effects on Sea Turtle Foraging

6.4.2 Effects on Atlantic Sturgeon Foraging

6.4.3 Effects of Deepening and Maintenance Dredging on Substrate/Habitat Type . 159

6.4.4 Effects of Deepening on Salinity

6.4.4.1 Existing Salinity Conditions in the Chesapeake Bay

6.4.4.2 Effects of Salinity Changes on sturgeon

6.4.4.3 Effects of Salinity Change on Sea Turtles

6.4.5 Effects of Deepening on Dissolved Oxygen

6.5 On Shore Dredged Material Disposal

6.6 Use of Offshore/Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites

6.6.1 Turbidity and Suspended Sediments

6.6.2 Contaminants

6.6.3 Effects to the Benthic Environment

6.7 Craney Island Eastward Expansion

6.8 Vessel Traffic

6.9 Unexploded Ordinance and Munitions of Concern

6.10 Bed Leveling Devices

6.11 Effects of relocation trawling as required by the Incidental Take Statement

6.11.1 Past Relocation Trawling in the Action Area

6.11.2 Effects of Relocation Trawling on Sea Turtles

6.11.3 Effects of Relocation Trawling on Atlantic sturgeon

6.11.4 Summary of Effects of Relocation Trawling

6.12 Tissue Sampling

7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

8.0 INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS OF EFFECTS

8.1 Atlantic sturgeon

8.1.1 Determination of DPS Composition

8.1.2 Gulf of Maine DPS

8.1.3 New York Bight DPS

8.1.4 Chesapeake Bay DPS

8.1.5 Carolina DPS

8.1.6 South Atlantic DPS

8.2 North Atlantic DPS of Green sea turtles

8.3 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles

8.4 Northwest Atlantic DPS of Loggerhead sea turtles

9.0 CONCLUSION

10.0 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

10.1 Amount or Extent of Incidental Take

10.2 Reasonable and Prudent Measures

11.0 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

12.0 REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION

13.0 LITERATURE CITED

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX H

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX J

APPENDIX K

APPENDIX L

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This constitutes the biological opinion (Opinion) of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, on the effects of the following projects:

• Cape Henry Channel;

• York Spit Channel;

• Rappahannock Shoal;

• York River Entrance Channel;

• Sandbridge Beach Nourishment and Hurricane Protection Project;

• Virginia Beach Hurricane Protection Project;

• Thimble Shoals Channel;

• Atlantic Ocean Channel;

• Norfolk Harbor Channels;

• Craney Island Eastward Expansion; and,

• Dredged Material Disposal Areas: Dam Neck Ocean Disposal Site, Wolf Trap Alternate Placement Site, Rappahannock Shoal Deep Alternate Open Water Site, Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area, and, Norfolk Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site.

The basis for this Opinion come from information provided in the Biological Assessments (BAs) dated March 2018, past consultations with the USACE Norfolk and Baltimore Districts and scientific papers and other sources of information as cited in this Opinion. We will keep a complete administrative record of this consultation at our Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office. This Opinion replaces the following Opinion, which is hereby withdrawn: Maintenance of Chesapeake Bay Entrance Channels and Use of Sand Borrow Areas for Beach Nourishment (October 16, 2012). This consultation was initiated on March 14, 2018. A draft of the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions was sent to you on June 20, 2018.

A complete draft of the Opinion was provided to you on June 26, 2018 and September 24, 2018.

2.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY

Consultation between USACE and NMFS on effects of dredging in the Chesapeake Bay navigation channels and borrow areas has been ongoing since the 1980s. We have completed numerous consultations, culminating in four separate biological opinions, most of which have been reinitiated multiple times (see below for detailed history). In all of these Opinions we concluded that the proposed dredging was likely to adversely affect, but not likely to jeopardize any species of listed sea turtle and was not likely to adversely affect any species of listed whales.

In February 2012, we published two final rules listing five Distinct Population Segments (DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon. The New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, South Atlantic and Carolina DPSs are listed as endangered and the Gulf of Maine DPS is listed as threatened. Reinitiation of consultation is required if: (a) the amount or extent of taking specified in the ITS is exceeded;

(b) new information reveals effects of these actions that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (c) any of the identified actions are subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species that was not considered in the Opinion; or (d) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified actions (50 CFR § 402.16).

Following the listing of Atlantic sturgeon, you prepared BAs to supplement the BAs prepared previously for the channels and dredged material disposal areas listed in Section 1.0. These BAs were submitted to us along with requests to reinitiate consultation and produce new Biological Opinions. Because the actions considered in those Opinions were similar, they took place in the same geographic area, and affected the same species in the same manner, we determined it would be most efficient to combine the analysis of effects of continued dredging of these channels and borrow areas into one consultation. As such, while there were seven independent actions considered (i.e., dredging Baltimore Harbor Entrance Channels, York River Entrance Channel, Sandbridge Shoal, Virginia Beach Nourishment, Port of Norfolk Entrance Channels, Norfolk Harbor Channels and Craney Island Eastward Expansion), we produced one Biological Opinion. This type of “multi-action” consultation is contemplated in the NMFS-USFWS Section 7 Consultation Handbook (see page 5-5), and is referred to as a Batch Opinion. Further below, we detail the consultation history for each of these activities.

Additionally, on August 17, 2017, we published a final rule designating critical habitat for all five DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon (82 FR 39160; effective date September 18, 2017). A portion of the action area for this consultation overlaps with the James River unit of critical habitat designated for the Chesapeake Bay DPS, the effects to which are analyzed in this Opinion.

On September 28, 2017, and December 20, 2017, we received your Biological Assessments and letters requesting reinitiation of formal consultation to assess the potential impacts of dredging and placement activities associated with the Craney Island Eastward Expansion Project and Norfolk Harbor Navigation Improvements Project, respectively. In your requests, you stated that reinitiation had been triggered due to changes in the project that introduce effects not previously considered as well as the need to consider Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat that was designated in August, 2017 (not included in the Batch Opinion in 2012). In emails dated January 4, 2018, and February 5, 2018, we requested additional information from you before we could initiate consultation. We received a revised BA for the Norfolk Harbor Navigation Improvement Project on March 5, 2018. We received the revised BA for the Craney Island Eastward Expansion Project on March 14, 2018. On April 12, 2018, we sent you a letter with our determination that we had received all of the information necessary to reinitiate consultation on the Norfolk Harbor Navigation Improvement Project and the Craney Island Eastward Expansion Project with updates to the remainng project included in the 2012 Batch Opinion. We determined that we initiated consultation on March 14, 2018.

2.1 Norfolk Harbor -- Thimble Shoals and Atlantic Ocean Channel Previous consultations for Thimble Shoals Channel regarding maintenance dredging operations were conducted on April 16, 1984, March 14, 1985, March 20, 1985, and March 10, 1986 and were concluded informally due to scheduling of dredging outside of the time of year when sea turtles would be present. Formal consultation for dredging activities in Thimble Shoals Channel (TSC) and Atlantic Ocean Channel (AOC) was initiated on April 14, 1999; a biological opinion was issued on February 7, 2001. Consultation was re-initiated on March 30, 2001 to account for sand borrow for beach nourishment in Atlantic Ocean Channel and associated impacts to listed sea turtles and other listed species. An amendment to the February 7, 2001 biological opinion was issued on May 30, 2001. You requested re-initiation of consultation on August 15, 2001 due to a change in the scope of the project; a revised biological opinion was issued on September 6, 2001. On December 4, 2001, you re-initiated consultation on the 50-foot deepening of the Norfolk Harbor and Channels project, which would require the removal of a total of up to 7.5 million cubic yards in the inner Norfolk Harbor and 5 million cubic yards of dredged material from TSC and AOC. In response to the request for re-initiation, we issued a biological opinion on April 25, 2002. In this biological opinion, we concluded that the proposed dredging may adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. An ITS was included with this biological opinion, exempting the lethal take of up to 18 loggerhead and 4 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles during each dredge event and the non-lethal capture of an “unquantifiable” number of loggerheads and Kemp’s ridleys during each relocation trawling event. Most recently, we issued a biological opinion in response to a request for re-initiation on October 16, 2012. In this biological opinion, we concluded that the proposed dredging may adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. An ITS was included with the 2012 biological opinion, exempting the lethal take of up to 151 loggerhead, 13 Kemp’s ridley and 3 green sea turtles, and 25 Atlantic sturgeon, incidental to hopper dredging activities at Thimble Shoals and the Atlantic Ocean Channel over the course of 50 years.

2.2 Baltimore Harbor Entrance Channels and York River Entrance Channel Formal consultation for dredging activities in Cape Henry Channel (CHC), York Spit Channel (YSC), Rappahannock Shoal Channel (RSC), and York River Entrance Channel (YEC) was initiated on May 18, 1993. We issued a biological opinion on October 6, 1993.

Consultation was re-initiated on October 12, 2001, to account for greater dredging quantities, project durations, and associated impacts to listed sea turtles; we issued a new biological opinion on January 24, 2002. In letters dated January 15 and February 6, 2003, you requested re-initiation of consultation as the exempted level of take was exceeded in 2002. We issued a new biological opinion on July 24, 2003. We concluded that the proposed dredging was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. An ITS was included, exempting the annual lethal take of up to 18 loggerhead, up to 4 Kemp’s ridley and 1 green sea turtle, depending on the volume of material removed from the channels. The ITS also exempted the capture of up to 120 sea turtles (loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley and green) and one lethal take of a loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley or green sea turtle during each relocation trawling event. Most recently, we issued a biological opinion in response to a request for re-initiation on October 16, 2012. In this biological opinion, we concluded that the proposed dredging may adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. An ITS was included with this biological opinion, exempting the lethal take of up to 194 loggerheads, 17 Kemp’s ridleys, 4 greens, and 32 Atlantic sturgeon incidental to hopper dredging activities at the Baltimore Harbor Entrance Channels over the course of 50 years. In addition, the ITS exempted the lethal take of 20 loggerheads, 2 Kemp’s ridleys, and 3 Atlantic sturgeon incidental to hopper dredging activities in the York River Entrance Channel.

2.3 Sandbridge Shoal

Formal consultation for the use of the Sandbridge Shoal borrow area was initiated in May 1992.

We issued a biological opinion on April 2, 1993. This biological opinion was amended by letter issued August 20, 2001, to account for greater dredging quantities, project durations, and associated impacts to listed sea turtles. In 2007, you requested that we waive the requirement for 100% endangered species observer coverage for dredging planned for 2007. This request was due to the presence of unexploded ordinance in the area to be dredged and the placement of screening on the dragheads. We granted that request by letter and determined that the use of UXO screening did not require reinitiation of the consultation. The 1993 biological opinion, as amended in 2001, concluded that dredging in Sandbridge Shoal was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species of whale or sea turtle. An ITS was included with the biological opinion, exempting the lethal take of five loggerhead sea turtles and one Kemp’s ridley or green sea turtle for each biennial dredge event. This consultation was re-initiated in 2012. In September 2012, we issued a new biological opinion on effects of proposed dredging at Sandbridge Shoal in 2012-2013 with placement of 1.5-2 million cubic yards of sand along Sandbridge Beach. We concluded that the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize any DPS of Atlantic sturgeon or any species of listed sea turtle, and not likely to adversely affect any species of listed whale. The ITS exempted the lethal take of six loggerheads and one Kemp’s ridley or green and one Atlantic sturgeon from any of the five DPSs. On October 16, 2012, we replaced the September 2012 biological opinion in response to a request for re-initiation. An ITS was included with this biological opinion, exempting the lethal take of up to 38 loggerheads, 3 Kemp’s ridleys, 1 green sea turtle, and 6 Atlantic sturgeon incidental to hopper dredging activities at Sandbridge Shoal over the course of 50 years. Use of the Sandbridge Shoal borrow areas requires coordination with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM); the USACE’s Norfolk District was designated the lead agency for purposes of complying with ESA requirements per 50 C.F.R 5402.07 and served as the lead agency for biological consultation.

2.4 Virginia Beach Nourishment and Hurricane Protection Project Formal consultation for dredging activities at the Thimble Shoals Surround borrow area (TSS) and the Atlantic Ocean Offshore borrow area (AOO) was initiated with your submittal of a BA in January 2005. We issued a biological opinion on December 2, 2005. In this biological opinion, we concluded that the proposed dredging may adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles and is not likely to adversely affect leatherback or green sea turtles or right, humpback or fin whales. An ITS was included with this biological opinion, exempting the lethal take of 4 loggerheads and 1 Kemp’s ridley during each dredge event and the non-lethal capture of 45 sea turtles (loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley and green) during each relocation trawling event. The ITS also exempted one lethal take of a loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley or loggerhead sea turtle during each relocation trawling event. We issued a biological opinion in response to a request for re-initiation on October 16, 2012. An ITS was included with this biological opinion, exempting the lethal take of up to 13 loggerheads, 2 Kemp’s ridleys or greens, and 22 Atlantic sturgeon incidental to hopper dredging activities for the Virginia Beach Hurricane Project over the course of 50 years.

2.5 Norfolk Harbor Channels

We previously considered effects of maintenance dredging and deepening of the Norfolk Harbor inner channels. These actions were considered in the biological opinion dated April 25, 2002 described in Section 2.1 above. In the biological opinion, we determined that dredging in the inner channels was not likely to adversely affect any species of sea turtles because a hydraulic cutterhead or mechanical dredge would be used and these dredge types are not known to capture, injure or kill sea turtles. We issued a biological opinion in response to a request for re-initiation on October 16, 2012. In this biological opinion, we concluded that the proposed dredging was not likely to adversely affect any species of sea turtles. An ITS was included with this biological opinion, exempting the lethal take of up to 1 Atlantic sturgeon incidental to mechanical dredging activities at the Norfolk Harbor Channels over the course of 50 years.

2.6 Craney Island Eastward Expansion

We completed informal consultation with you on the Craney Island Eastward Expansion project in 2006. In a letter dated June 15, 2006, we concluded that the proposed action was not likely to adversely affect any species of sea turtle. This conclusion was based on the use of mechanical or hydraulic dredges for dredged material removal and the lack of benthic prey at the site. We issued a biological opinion in response to a request for re-initiation on October 16, 2012. In this biological opinion, we concluded that the proposed dredging was not likely to adversely affect any species of sea turtles. An ITS was included with this biological opinion, exempting the lethal take of up to 1 Atlantic sturgeon incidental to mechanical dredging activities at the Craney Island Eastward Expansion project over the course of 50 years.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

This Opinion considers the effects of proposed new dredging, continued maintenance dredging, and sand borrow operations in several Federal navigation channels located in the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean. The Opinion also evaluates the placement and disposal of dredged material at the Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA) and open ocean disposal sites, the Dam Neck Ocean Disposal Site (DNODS) and the Norfolk Ocean Disposal Site (NODS). The Opinion considers that dredged material could also be potentially placed at beneficial use sites or upland disposal sites. Construction is scheduled to being in 2023, but is contingent on funding availability. Construction of the Norfolk Harbor and Channels Deepening Project will take approximately 3.5 to 4 years to complete. Table 2 provides the approximate schedule for maintenance dredging, which is also subject to change based on funding availability.

These activities are carried out by you and your contractors as independent actions, as detailed below. The Norfolk District in coordination with the Baltimore District maintains the Port of Baltimore Approach Channels. Additionally, authorization with BOEM, in the form of a lease, is required for use of the Sandbridge Shoal borrow area. The U.S. EPA has regulatory authority over the designation of the ocean disposal sites considered in this Opinion. While you requested consultation on the Craney Island Eastward Expansion Project and Norfolk Harbor Navigation Improvements Project, we are including updates on all projects batched under the 2012 biological opinion, which are reflected in the sections below.

3.1 Port of Hampton Roads Approach Channels – Thimble Shoals and Atlantic Ocean Channel The Atlantic Ocean Channel (AOC) and Thimble Shoals Channel (TSC) make up the approach channels to the Port of Hampton Roads, Virginia. These channels provide access for all ships calling on port facilities, naval bases, and shipyards in the Hampton Roads area. All commercial tonnage entering and leaving the Port of Hampton Roads passes through these channels. The USACE Norfolk District is responsible for maintaining these Federal navigation channels to ensure safe passage for all vessel traffic. To provide depths needed for safe navigation of large vessels, maintenance dredging of these Federal navigation channels must occur before shoaling causes draft restrictions and/or other safety concerns. The location of TSC and AOC is depicted in Appendix A.

The proposed action involves continued ongoing sand borrow operations, maintenance and new dredging of the AOC and TSC and the use of the associated dredged material placement sites.

The project includes the entire footprint of these channels and the shoals contained within each channel, plus the entire footprint of the associated dredged material placement sites. Dredged material would be placed at the DNODS and/or the NODS. Other potential placement sites could include CIDMMA or upland disposal sites (if needed). Material could potentially be used for beneficial use projects as well. The AOC and TSC are preferred sand borrow sources for beach nourishment and port development projects in the Hampton Roads region. You are proposing to borrow from the TSC and AOC for the following projects: the Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Virginia Beach Hurricane Protection Project, Willoughby Spit and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project, and JEB Fort Story Beach Replenishment Project (U.S. Navy).

The AOC and TSC normally require maintenance dredging every two to five years but dredging is typically located in distinct shoaled areas within the channels. These shoaled areas vary from year to year, but are often located along the toe of the channel. New dredging may also occur when Congress authorizes and appropriates funding for channel improvements. The duration of dredging, the amount of material removed from each shoal, and the frequency in which each shoal is dredged is dependent on several factors. These factors include, but are not limited to:

environmental conditions, funding, whether it is new work or maintenance dredging, location, length of time after the last dredging cycle, time of year conservation measures, availability of suitable dredge plant, emergencies, and others. It is important to note that the areas within the channel that are dredged during each maintenance cycle are typically relatively small in comparison to the total channel dimensions. The primary objective is to provide vessels with safe, navigable passage to the Port of Hampton Roads in support of commerce and national defense.

Atlantic Ocean Channel Federal Navigation Project The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 authorized the AOC. The WRDA authorized the USACE to construct the AOC, which consists of a channel 11.1 miles long, 1,300 feet wide, and -57 feet deep located 3-4 miles east of the Thimble Shoal Channel, in the Atlantic Ocean at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay off the coast of Virginia Beach, Virginia. As part of the -50-foot inbound construction effort in 2006, the channel was deepened to provide for a depth and width of -52 feet and 1,300 feet, respectively. The AOC is part of the Port of Virginia and Baltimore system of channels, and is the segment providing access for all ships calling on port facilities, naval bases, and shipyards in the Hampton Roads, York River, and Baltimore areas. All commercial tonnage entering and leaving the Ports of Virginia and Baltimore pass through this channel. The channel is currently maintained to full width and a depth of -52 feet to enable loaded colliers, container ship, and military vessels to transit the channel with ship drafts as great as -50 feet. The proposed action would deepen the AOC to a required depth of approximately -59 feet. The AOC is managed by the USACE Norfolk District.

Material is typically dredged via hopper dredge from this channel. Dredged material is placed at Dam Neck Ocean Disposal Site (DNODS). Dredged material also has been used for beneficial uses for the Virginia Beach Hurricane Protection project and the Craney Island Eastern Expansion (CIEE) Project. The sediment composition in this channel segment is largely fine sand (85%) with some silt (15%). The channel has been utilized as a sand borrow source for hurricane protection projects and port development projects, therefore maintenance of the channel has not been required.

Thimble Shoal Federal Navigation Project The TSC is located in the southern part of the Chesapeake Bay, just off the shoreline of the City of Norfolk and City of Virginia Beach, east of the Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area. The TSC was originally authorized by the River and Harbor Act of August 8, 1917. The authorized channel dimensions are 13.4 miles long, 1,000 feet wide, betwenn the 55-foot contours, to a depth of -55. Although the channel is authorized to be dredged to 55 feet, the channel is currently maintained to a required depth of -50 feet. Thimble Shoal Channel extends from the deep water to the east of Hampton Roads to the deep water at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay.

The proposed action would authorize a new depth of -61 feet, deepen the TSC from -50 feet to a required depth of approximately -56 feet, and widen the channel east of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel to approximately 1,300 feet. The Thimble Shoal Channel is managed by the Norfolk District.

As part of the proposed action, the existing 10 feet of sand cover over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel in the Thimble Shoal Channel would be reduced to approximately five feet. The materials covering the tunnel would be sand or potentially sand and rock.

Material dredging is via hopper dredging. Dredged material is placed at the DNODS. The sediments of Thimble Shoal Channel to the west of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel are predominantly clays and silts (50-75%). In contrast, sediments in the eastern portion of channel are largely fine to medium-grained sand (75-90%).

3.2 Port of Baltimore Approach Channels

Cape Henry Channel (CHC), York Spit Channel (YSC) and Rappahannock Shoals Channel (RSC) make up the Chesapeake Bay approach channels to the Port of Baltimore. All commercial tonnage entering and leaving the Port of Baltimore pass through these channels. The Norfolk District maintains these Federal navigation channels in coordination with Baltimore District.

In order to provide depths needed for safe navigation of large vessels, maintenance dredging of these Federal navigation channels must occur before shoaling causes draft restrictions and/or other safety concerns. All of these channels and placement sites are depicted in Appendix A.

The proposed project involves continued ongoing maintenance dredging of the CHC, YSC and RSC and the use of the associated dredged material placement sites. New work dredging may also occur when Congress authorizes and appropriates funding for channel improvements. The project includes the entire footprint of these channels and the shoals contained within each channel, plus the entire footprint of the associated dredged material placement sites. The CHC, YSC and RSC normally require dredging every two to five years; dredging is typically located in distinct shoaled areas within the channels and not through the entirety of the channel. These shoaled areas vary from year to year, but are often located along the toe of the channel. The duration of dredging, the amount of material removed from each shoal, and the frequency at which each shoal is dredged is dependent on several factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: environmental conditions, funding, location of the shoal, degree of shoaling, time of year conservation measures, availability of suitable dredge plant, navigation emergencies, and others.

Cape Henry Federal Navigation Project The CHC was authorized under the River and Harbor Act of 1945 and Section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 as part of the Baltimore District - USACE 50-Foot Project. The River & Harbor Act of 1945 authorized increasing the channel depth to -39 feet deep and 1,000 feet wide in the CHC and YSC in Virginia. The River and Harbor Act of 1970 authorized a uniform main channel 50 feet deep, and generally 800 (in Maryland) or 1,000 (in Virginia) feet wide through the Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry in the Port of Baltimore, a distance of 175 miles. The CHC Federal Navigation Channel is a 1,000 foot wide channel approximately 4.7 nautical miles long located between the -50 foot contours at the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay just south of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. The Norfolk District in coordination with the Baltimore District maintains the CHC.

Rappahannock Shoal Federal Navigation Project The RSC was authorized under Section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 as part of the Baltimore District - USACE 50-Foot Project. The River and Harbor Act of 1970 authorized a uniform main channel -50 feet deep, and generally 800 (in Maryland) or 1,000 (in Virginia) feet wide through the Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry in the Port of Baltimore, a distance of 175 miles, which includes the RSC. Dredging of the initial phase reduced the channel widths in the RSC from 1,000 to 800 feet wide. The RSC is -50 feet deep, 800 feet wide and approximately 10.3 nautical miles long and traverses the Rappahannock Shoal from southeast to northwest. The Norfolk District in coordination with the Baltimore District maintains the RSC.

York Spit Federal Navigation Project The YSC was authorized to a depth of -37 feet under the River and Harbor Act of 1930. After World War II, the River & Harbor Act of 1945 authorized increasing the channel depth to -39 feet deep and 1,000 feet wide in the CHC and YSC in Virginia. Finally, the YSC was authorized to -50 feet via Section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970, as part of the Baltimore District USACE 50-Foot Project, which authorized a uniform main channel -50 feet deep, and generally 800 (in Maryland) or 1,000 (in Virginia) feet wide through the Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry in the Port of Baltimore, a distance of 175 miles. Dredging of the initial phase reduced the channel widths in the YSC from 1,000 to 800 feet wide. The YSC is 800 feet wide, -52 feet deep and is approximately 18.4 nautical miles long. The YSC is located between the -50 foot contours, just north of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel and is maintained by the Norfolk District in coordination with the Baltimore District.

3.3 York River Entrance Channel Federal Navigation Project

The Norfolk District is responsible for maintenance dredging the York River Entrance Channel (YREC) Federal Navigation Project. In order to provide depths needed for safe navigation of larger vessels, maintenance dredging of this Federal navigation channel must occur on or before shoaling causes draft restrictions and/or other safety concerns. The location of YREC is depicted in Appendix A.

The proposed project does not include continued ongoing maintenance dredging of YREC and the use of the associated dredged material placement sites. During the consultation, you informed us that there is no planned federal action for YREC. The federal project is not funded and no maintenance dredging is planned at this time. Should project plans change, further coordination with us should be pursued.

The YREC was first dredged in 1951 and 1952, when the natural entrance channel into the York River was deepened by the USACE for the Department of the Navy. The original channel dimensions provided for a 39-foot deep channel at mean low water, 750 feet wide at the bottom, and approximately 11 miles long. There was no dredging of the YREC between 1952 and 1998. In 1995, the Chief of Engineers authorized dredging under Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960. The YREC project consisted of a channel 37 feet deep at mean lower low water (mllw), 750 feet wide at the bottom, and approximately 23 miles long. New work was authorized in 1995, and the channel was dredged to its current dimensions in 1999. The channel begins at the 38-foot contour in the Chesapeake Bay and ends at a point adjacent to the piers at the Yorktown U.S. Naval Weapons Station, approximately 8 miles above the river mouth.

3.4 Virginia Beach Nourishment and Hurricane Protection Project The Virginia Beach Hurricane Protection Project is conducted under authority of the WRDA of 1986, as modified by the WRDA of 1992 and 1996. The project was authorized in Section 102 of the WRDA of 1992 (Public Law [P.L.] 102-580) as amended in 1996, and is funded by the Federal Government and the city of Virginia Beach, Virginia, acting as the project's non-Federal sponsor.

The hurricane protection site is located at Cape Henry, Virginia Beach, Virginia, as generally described in the "Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Study Virginia Beach, Virginia General Reevaluation Report Main Report and Appendices," dated September 1993 and revised January 1994, and approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works on February l, l994, and as further defined by Draft plans and Specifications which are incorporated herein by reference. The authorized duration of the initial project of hurricane protection is 50 years, including initial construction and periodic nourishment. Sand to be placed at the hurricane protection site may be obtained from Federal navigation channels or the Thimble Shoals Channel Borrow Area (TSS) and the Atlantic Ocean Channel Borrow Area (AOO). The location of these borrow areas are illustrated in Appendix A.

The TSS area is a rectangle surrounding a short reach of the Thimble Shoals Channel located in the lower Chesapeake Bay between deep water in Hampton Roads and the Atlantic Ocean. It is approximately 2 miles off the Chesapeake Bay shoreline, with its western terminus approximately 5,400 feet east of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. The TSS is about 5,700 feet in length and approximately 1,200 feet wide, totaling about 1,960 acres. Depths in the area range from about 35 to 50 feet and do not include the Thimble Shoals Channel.

The AOO area is roughly triangular in shape and is located in the Atlantic Oceanoff Cape Henry, Virginia. It encompasses about 9,253 acres and extends southeasterly from a point due east of the Cape Henry lighthouse and in the direction of the continental slope. It is bounded to the east by the Atlantic Ocean Channel deepwater route east of the Virginia Beach oceanfront. This borrow site does not include any section of the Atlantic Ocean Channel deepwater route. This borrow site is located about 5 miles from the TSS borrow area.

Maintenance of the hurricane protection project will require that approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards (cy) of sand be dredged and placed on the beach during the initial maintenance, with an additional 2,000,000 cy to be dredged and placed every 3 to 4 years.

The maintenance borrow activities may be rotated among these sites over the 50-year period.

Approximately 12.5 million cy of sand may be dredged and used for beach nourishment over the 50-year period, with approximately 8.125 MCY (66%) of the volume to be removed from Atlantic Ocean Channel and Thimble Shoals Channel. The remaining 4.375 MCY is likely to be removed from the AOO and TSS. Dredging will be accomplished via hopper dredge, although there is a possibility that a hydraulic cutterhead dredge may be used in the AOO. Dredged beach-quality sand may be placed on the site by means of hydraulically pumping from the dredging site directly to the beach via a hydraulic dredge and pipeline, if the sand source is less than 2 miles from the beach; or, if the sand source is more than 2 miles from the beach, a hopper dredge may be used.

3.5 Sandbridge Beach Nourishment and Hurricane Protection

The Advanced Engineering and Design Study for Beach Erosion and Hurricane Protection at Virginia Beach, Virginia, including Sandbridge Beach, was authorized by Section 1(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-251, 93'd Congress, H.R. 10203.7 March 1974). The applicable portion of the authorizing act is as follows:

"Sec. I (a) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is hereby authorized to undertake the Phase I Design Memorandum stage of advanced engineering and design of the following multi-purpose water resources development projects, substantially in accordance with, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Chief of Engineers in the reports here in after designated."

Middle Atlantic Coastal Area

"The project for hurricane-flood protection at Virginia Beach, Virginia: House Document Numbered 92-365, at an estimated cost of $8,954,000 (1974 dollars)."

BOEM will authorize the use of sand from an OCS sand borrow area for the project under the OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. §1337(k). In 1994, OCSLA was amended to allow BOEM to convey, on a noncompetitive basis, the rights to OCS sand, gravel, or shell resources for use in a program for shore protection, beach restoration, or coastal wetlands restoration undertaken by a Federal, State, or local government agency (43 U.S.C.§ 1337(k)(2)(A)(i)). An agreement will be negotiated between BOEM, the USACE Norfolk District, and the City of Virginia Beach for the dredging and relocation of the sand.

The beach nourishment will occur along a five mile stretch of the Sandbridge Beach between the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) at the southern most extent (36.698017 N, -

75.924196 W-WSG84 datum) and the U.S. Naval Fleet Anti-Air Warfare Training Center at the northern most extent (36.760823 N, - 75.948829 W) along the beach. The borrow areas (A and B) are located about three miles offshore at Sandbridge Shoal perpendicular to the beach nourishment reach (Appendix A). A no dredging zone separates the two borrow areas to protect underground cable lines. The coordinates for these borrow areas start at the three miles state waters boundary from east to west and are approximate as follows:

Area A: 36.7396 N, - 75.8762 W; 36.7235 N, - 75.8315 W Area B: 36.7638 N, - 75.8860 W; 36.7537 N, - 75.8387 W

The proposed action would involve beach nourishment at the Sandbridge oceanfront, an area approximately 5 miles long and 725 feet wide (as illustrated in Appendix A). The specific beach area covered extends from the U.S. Naval Fleet Anti-Air Warfare Training Center at Dam Neck to the north to Back Bay NWR to the south. The project dimensions include a 50-foot wide berm at an elevation of 6 feet North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) with a foreshore slope of approximately 1:20 (one vertical value to 20 horizontal) for a distance of approximately 5 miles.

The designated borrow area is Sandbridge Shoal (Appendix A), located approximately 3 nautical miles from the shoreline, outside of Virginia's territorial sea. There are two selected borrow areas within Sandbridge Shoal, Area B to the north and Area A to the south; depths range from 30 to 65 feet. The area between the two borrow areas is restricted due to the presence of a buried Navy submarine communications cable. Beach quality sand would most likely be removed by trailing suction hopper dredge with the possibility of using a hydraulic pipeline dredge (i.e.

cutterhead).

As previously mentioned, the proposed action will utilize either a hopper style dredge or a hydraulic pipeline dredge to borrow beach quality sand from authorized sites along Sandbridge Shoals to renourish the beach at Sandbridge Beach via the placement of dredged material onto the beach.

3.6 Norfolk Harbor Channels

The Norfolk Harbor Channels are part of the larger Port of Hampton Roads complex and intially included the deep draft channels in the Elizabeth River and Hampton Roads. Portions of the Norfolk Harbor project have been authorized and modified by the Rivers and Harbors Act of July 5, 1884, 2 March 1907, 25 June 1910, 4 March 1913, 8 August 1917, 3 March 1925, 30 August 1935, 2 March 1945, 24 July 1946, 30 June 1948, 3 September 1954, 27 October 1965, the Flood Control Act of 1965, and the WRDA of 1986. On April 16, 2018, you requested informal consultation on the Elizabeth River Southern Branch Navigation Improvements project, which had previously been included as part of the Norfolk Harbor Channels complex. On June 25, 2018, we responded with a letter that concurred with your determination that the proposed action was not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species under our jurisdiction. The June 2018 consultation included the following channel sections that now comprise the Elizabeth River Southern Branch Navigation Improvements Project:

• A channel 45-feet deep over its 375 feet to 750-foot width from Lamberts Point to the N&W Railroad Bridge (Norfolk Harbor Channel - Lamberts Bend to Paradise Creek);

• A channel 40-feet deep over its 250 to 500-foot width to the U.S. Routes 460 and 13 Highway Bridge (Norfolk Harbor - Southern Branch Channel); hence a channel 35-feet deep over its 250 feet to 300 feet width to a point 0.8-mile above Interstate 64 high level bridge;

• A channel 25-feet deep over its 200 feet to 500 feet width from the junction with the southern Branch of the Elizabeth River to the N&W Railroad Bridge on the eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River (Norfolk Harbor – Eastern Branch Channel);

• A channel 18 feet deep over its 150 feet to 300 feet width and 1.72 mile length on the western Branch of the Elizabeth River (Norfolk Harbor – Western Branch Channel);

• A channel 12 feet deep, 100 feet wide, and 0.73 mile in length in Scotts Creek (Norfolk Harbor – Scotts Creek Channel);

The project considered in this consultation includes the following:

• A channel 55 feet deep over its 800 to 1,500-foot width from the 55-foot contour in Hampton Roads to Lamberts Point (Norfolk Harbor Channel - Sewells Point to Lamberts Bend);

• Sewells Point Anchorages and 50-foot Anchorages;

• A channel 55 feet deep and 800 feet wide from Norfolk Harbor Channel in Hampton Roads to Newport News (Channel to Newport News);

• Newport News Anchorages;

• Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA) consist of a 2,500 acre upland confined disposal facility for the placement of navigation related dredged material from Norfolk Harbor and adjacent waters.

The Norfolk District is responsible for maintaining these Federal navigation channels and anchorages to ensure safe passage for all vessel traffic. A specific description of the channel reaches, anchorages, and dredged material placement sites serving the greater port of Hampton Roads follows and is depicted in Appendix A.

The Norfolk Harbor Channels provide access for all ships calling on port facilities, naval bases, and shipyards in the Hampton Roads area. All commercial tonnage entering and leaving the Port of Hampton Roads passes through one or more of these channels. The Norfolk District is responsible for maintaining these Federal navigation channels to ensure safe passage for all vessel traffic utilizing the port. In order to provide depths needed for safe navigation of larger vessels, maintenance dredging of these Federal navigation channels must occur before shoaling causes draft restrictions and/or other safety concerns. The proposed project activity will involve ongoing maintenance and future new dredging of the Norfolk Harbor channels and the use of the associated dredged material placement sites. The project includes the entire footprint of these channels and the shoals contained within each channel, plus the entire footprint of the associated dredged material placement sites. Portions of these channels require maintenance dredging annually, but dredging is typically located in distinct shoaled areas within the channels. The duration of dredging, the amount of material removed from each channel reach and the frequency in which each shoal is dredged is dependent on several factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: new dredging (deepening) to authorized depths, environmental conditions and time of year windows, funding, location of the shoal, length of time after the last dredging cycle, availability of suitable dredge plant, emergencies, and others. It is important to note that the areas within the channel that are maintenance dredged during each cycle are relatively small in comparison to the total channel dimensions. However, new dredging projects – such as the proposed deepening and widening - that are initiated to deepen navigation channels to Congressionally-authorized depths involve dredging a large part of the channel to establish required channel depths. The amount of dredged material removed during a period of new deepening may exceed average maintenance dredging volumes, and may also be dependent on how Congress funds the project for the fiscal year. The primary objective of maintenance and new dredging is to provide vessels with safe, navigable passage to the Port of Hampton Roads in support of commerce and national defense.

Channel to Newport News and Anchorages The Channel to Newport News is located from Norfolk Harbor Channel in Hampton Roads to Newport News. The Channel to Newport News Federal Navigation Project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 25 June 1910 and modified by the River and Harbor Acts of 8 August 1917, 21 January 1927, 27 October 1965, and the WRDA of 1986. The project is authorized to a depth of 55 feet and 800 feet wide from Norfolk Harbor Channel in Hampton Roads to Newport News and the Newport News Anchorages, a distance of about 5.4 miles, and two deep-draft anchorage berths opposite Newport News 45 feet deep over a 1,200-foot swinging radius. Material dredged from this area is then placed at the CIDMMA. The proposed action would deepen the Newport News Channel to a required depth of approximately 55 feet.

The proposed action would deepen the Anchorage F to a required depth of 51 feet and widen the Anchorage F to 3,620 feet and its associated approach area. Material dredged from this area is then placed at the CIDMMA and could also potentially be placed at the NODS. Dredged material could also be disposed of at upland disposal sites (if needed). Material could potentially be used for beneficial use projects as well.

Norfolk Harbor Channel – Sewells Point to Lamberts Bend and Norfolk Harbor Anchorages

The Sewells Point to Lamberts Bend reach of the Norfolk Harbor Project is located in Norfolk between Sewells Point and Lamberts Bend. This segment of the project is approximately 8 miles long and varies in width between 800 feet to 1,200 feet. The reach also consists of: Anchorage F, Sewells Point East Anchorage (includes the Naval Maneuvering Area and Approach Areas), Sewells Point West Anchorage and (Approach Area), Anchorage G, and all approach areas.