FINAL PROGRAMMATIC 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT

WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY 

SHORELINE RESTORATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION 

PROGRAM 

VOLUME I OF II 

Prepared for 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Goddard Space Flight Center 

Wallops Flight Facility 

Wallops Island, VA 23337 

In cooperation with 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation, and Enforcement and 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

October 2010 

Prepared by 

URS Group, Inc. 

200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101 

Gaithersburg, MD 20878 

15301785 
This page intentionally left blank.
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM 

WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER 

WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY 

WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA 23337

Lead Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

For Further Information: Joshua A. Bundick 

 NEPA Program Manager 

 Code 250.W 

 Goddard Space Flight Center’s Wallops Flight Facility 

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

 Wallops Island, VA 23337 

 (757) 824-2319 

Date: October 2010 

Abstract: NASA has prepared a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) for the Shoreline Restoration and Infrastructure 

Protection Program (SRIPP) at Wallops Flight Facility in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act to assist in 

the decision making process for the SRIPP. The BOEMRE and 

USACE have served as Cooperating Agencies in the preparation of 

this PEIS. The purpose of the SRIPP is to reduce the potential for 

damage to, or loss of, existing NASA, U.S. Navy, and MidAtlantic Regional Spaceport assets on Wallops Island from storminduced wave impacts. The potential effects to physical, biological, 

and socioeconomic environments were studied to determine how 

the Proposed Action Alternatives and the No Action Alternative 

could affect these resources. The Proposed Action would have both 

adverse and beneficial impacts on environmental resources. 

Adverse impacts would be mitigated to the greatest extent 

practicable. 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Executive Summary 

ES-I 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) has been prepared to evaluate the 

potential environmental impacts from the proposed National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA)Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) Shoreline Restoration and Infrastructure 

Protection Program (SRIPP). The SRIPP encompasses a 50-year planning horizon and is 

intended to reduce damage to Federal and State infrastructure on Wallops Island caused by the 

combination of sea-level rise and coastal storms. 

This PEIS has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S. Code 4321-4347), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), 

NASA’s regulations for implementing NEPA (14 CFR Subpart 1216.3), and the NASA 

Procedural Requirements for Implementing NEPA and Executive Order (EO) 12114 (NASA 

Procedural Requirements 8580.1). 

The U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have served as 

Cooperating Agencies in preparing this PEIS, because they possess regulatory authority and 

specialized expertise pertaining to the Proposed Action. This PEIS has been developed to fulfill 

all three Federal agencies’ obligations under NEPA. NASA, as the WFF property owner and 

project proponent, is the Lead Agency and responsible for ensuring overall compliance with 

applicable environmental statutes, including NEPA. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION 

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to reduce the potential for damage to, or loss of, NASA, 

U.S. Navy, and Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) assets on Wallops Island from storminduced wave impacts. The Proposed Action is needed to ensure the continued ability of NASA, 

the U.S. Navy, and MARS to serve the Nation’s rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and 

commercial aerospace requirements. The SRIPP would help reduce the risk to infrastructure on 

Wallops Island from storm wave and sea-level rise damage by restoring the beach profile in front 

of the present shoreline. 

Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has 

occupied the site. The existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no 

protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Sea-level rise is 

anticipated to increase the vulnerability of the Wallops Island shoreline to waves by contributing 

to shoreline erosion. In addition, average wave heights are increasing, which is believed to be 

associated with a gradual rise in the frequency and intensification of storm events. Currently, the 

south end of the island is unprotected except for a low revetment around the MARS launch pad 

and temporary geotextile tubes that extend from the southern end of the existing seawall south to 

camera stand Z-100. 

The potential risks to infrastructure from wave impacts are two-fold: first is the interruption of 

NASA, U.S. Navy, and MARS missions supported from Wallops Island facilities due to 

temporary loss of facility functions; and second is the potential for complete loss of these unique 

facilities. If no protective measures are taken, then the assets on Wallops Island will be 

increasingly at risk from even moderate storm events. 
Executive Summary 

ES-II 

ADAPTIVE DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 

The SRIPP incorporates an adaptive design and management strategy that is defined by a range 

of alternatives explained in this PEIS with the understanding that one alternative is preferred as 

the initial action, but elements of the other alternatives may be adopted in the future if the 

monitoring program reveals them to be necessary. Alternatives presented in this PEIS are based 

on current conditions and knowledge of design and resources; however, as more information 

becomes available through monitoring, NASA would further evaluate its strategy for storm 

damage reduction measures. 

ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS 

NASA initially considered a range of alternatives to meet the purpose and need. The initial 

alternatives were screened based on five criteria: disruption to WFF operations, storm damage 

reduction, initial cost, maintenance costs, and anticipated change in sand availability for 

longshore sediment transport. The alternatives that passed the initial screening—extension of the 

seawall combined with beach fill and extension of the seawall combined with beach fill and sand 

retention structure (either groin or breakwater)—were evaluated in more detail and their 

components (i.e., location of sand retention structure, length and width of beach fill, 

renourishment frequency) were combined into 54 different potential alternatives. The secondary 

screening analysis resulted in the final three alternatives carried forward in this PEIS. 

ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL 

The combination of options that would provide the maximum level of storm damage reduction 

while remaining within the limits of available funding were chosen to be evaluated in detail as 

the three Proposed Action Alternatives discussed below. 

Project Elements Common to All Alternatives 

A number of design and construction elements would be applicable to all three of the Proposed 

Action Alternatives: adaptive management, seawall extension, and beach fill. Differences among 

the alternatives (e.g., initial and renourishment fill volumes, type of sand retention structure, etc.) 

are discussed under each individual alternative below. 

Adaptive Management Framework

This is a programmatic document but provides a detailed evaluation of potential impacts for the 

implementation of an initial project with future adaptive management and monitoring. As there is 

an inherent level of uncertainty in designing, constructing, and maintaining a long-term project 

subject to the effects of the open ocean environment, NASA may identify the need to modify its 

storm damage reduction measures in the future. Results of the adaptive management program 

would drive the specific future actions necessary to meet the SRIPP’s purpose and need 

throughout its 50-year planning horizon. If monitoring shows that the Preferred Alternative by 

itself is not adequately meeting NASA’s goals for the SRIPP, then the other Proposed Action 

Alternatives (or elements from them) would be reevaluated in the future; additional NEPA 

documentation may be prepared and appropriate permits and approvals would be obtained prior 

to implementation. 
Executive Summary 

ES-III 

Seawall Extension

Wallops Island’s existing rock seawall would be extended a maximum of 1,400 meters (m) 

(4,600 feet [ft]) south of its southernmost point. The seawall extension would be implemented in 

the first year of the SRIPP prior to the placement of the initial beach fill. At first, the seawall 

would be extended approximately 435 m (1,430 ft) south with additional extension (up to the 

maximum length) undertaken in the future as funding becomes available. 

Beach Fill

Beach fill is a necessary component of all three Proposed Action alternatives as the new beach 

would provide a surface to dissipate wave energy, counteract sea-level rise effects, and 

contribute additional sediment to the nearshore system. The beach fill would start approximately 

460 m (1,500 ft) north of the Wallops Island-Assawoman Island property boundary and extend 

north for 6.0 km (3.7 mi). The initial fill would be placed so that there would be a 1.8-m-high (6-

ft-high) berm extending a minimum of 21 m (70 ft) seaward of the existing seawall. The 

remainder of the fill would slope underwater for an additional distance seaward; the amount of 

that distance would vary along the length of the beach fill, but would extend for a maximum of 

about 52 m (170 ft), so that the total distance of the fill profile from the seawall would be up to 

approximately 73 m (240 ft). The beach fill profile would also include a 4.3-m-high (14-ft-high) 

dune at the seawall. 

Unnamed Shoal A only would be used to obtain initial fill volumes under all three alternatives. 

For renourishment fill volumes, up to one-half of the fill volume could be excavated from the 

north Wallops Island borrow site, and the remaining half, or the entire renourishment volume, 

would be dredged from either Unnamed Shoal A or Unnamed Shoal B. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

In the initial nourishment, NASA would place an estimated 2,446,000 m3 (3,199,000 yd3) of fill 

(minimum and advanced target fill combined) along the shoreline. The renourishment cycle is 

anticipated to involve approximately 616,000 m3 (806,000 yd3) of sand every 5 years. The initial 

fill, plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events, would result in approximately 

7,992,000 m3

 (10,453,000 yd3) of sand being placed on the shoreline. The absence of sand 

retention structures (groin or breakwater) would result in a larger amount of sand being available 

for erosion and longshore transport. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Beach fill would be placed along the same length of the shoreline as under Alternative One, but 

construction of a groin (described below) would result in more sand being retained along the 

Wallops Island shoreline, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and 

renourishment volumes compared to Alternative One. The initial fill volume would be an 

estimated 2,229,000 m3

 (2,916,000 yd3), and each renourishment fill volume would be 

approximately 552,000 m3

 (722,000 yd3). The initial fill, plus the total fill volume over nine 

renourishment events, would result in approximately 7,198,000 m3

 (9,414,000 yd3) of sand being 

placed on the shoreline. 

A groin would be constructed at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline and would involve 

the placement of rocks in a linear structure perpendicular to the shoreline at approximately 445 

m (1,460 ft) north of the Wallops IslandAssawoman Island border. The structure would be 
Executive Summary 

ES-IV 

approximately 130 m (430 ft) long and 15 m (50 ft) wide. Approximately two-thirds of the groin 

(80 m [265 ft]) would be installed on the beach once the fill has been placed, and the remaining 

one-third, approximately 50 m (165 ft), would extend beyond the beach into the ocean. It would 

take approximately 1 month to build. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Beach fill would be placed along the same length of the shoreline as under Alternatives One and 

Two, but construction of a breakwater instead of a groin (Alternative Two) would result in the 

most sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so the least fill would be required for 

both the initial placement and renourishment volumes compared to Alternatives One and Two. 

The initial fill volume would be 2,170,000 m3

 (2,839,000 yd3) and each renourishment fill 

volume would be 537,000 m3

 (703,000 yd3). The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine 

renourishment events would result in approximately 7,008,000 m3 (9,166,000 yd3) of sand being 

placed on the shoreline. 

A single nearshore breakwater would be constructed at the south end of the Wallops Island 

shoreline and would involve placement of rocks in a linear structure parallel to the shoreline. The 

breakwater structure would be constructed approximately 230 m (750 ft) offshore. The 

breakwater would be approximately 90 m (300 ft) long and 35 m (110 ft) wide, and would take 

approximately 1 month to build. Construction would take place in the water using a barge and 

heavy lifting equipment. 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative for this PEIS, the SRIPP would not be conducted on Wallops 

Island, but maintenance and emergency repairs to existing structures would continue. 

Maintenance activities include repairs to the existing seawall and to the geotextile tubes. 

Emergency actions may include hauling in additional rock to add to the existing seawall, hauling 

and placing sand on the beach or behind existing shoreline protection, installing sheet piling in or 

near the high tide level, or emergency geotextile tube installation. Under this alternative, the 

seawall can be expected to continue to deteriorate and would be increasingly vulnerable to 

massive failure during large storm events as waves break directly on the structure and also 

undercut the leading edge of the seawall. 

Over $1 billion in NASA, U.S. Navy, and MARS equipment, buildings, and infrastructure would 

continue to be at increasing risk from storm damage. Maintenance and emergency repairs to 

structures and the seawall would continue to be required. Shoreline retreat would continue, 

exacerbated by rising sea levels, increased wave heights, and the expected increase in the 

frequency and intensity of storm events. Operations at facilities may be disrupted during severe 

storm events from flooding and waves overtopping the seawall. The danger to the MARS launch 

complex and Uninhabited Aerial Systems airstrip on the southern portion of the island would 

increase due to the rapidly retreating shoreline in that area. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

A comparison of the potential impacts shown by resource for each alternative is provided in 

Table ES-1. 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts from Proposed Action Alte

Resource Alternative One: Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension A

Geology and Geomorphology – Shoreline 

Placement of beach fill (initial and renourishment) would create and maintain a beach approximately 21 m (70 ft) wide on Wallops Island. The addition of sediment to the longshore transport system would result in a reduction in the rate of erosion at the southern end of Wallops Island and northern end of Assawoman Island. Over the lifetime of the SRIPP, the seawall extension and beach fill would have long-term direct beneficial impacts on the Wallops Island shoreline by mitigating the current rate of shoreline retreat. Continued beach nourishment would add to this benefit. Long-term adverse impacts on geology would occur because placement of beach fill would prevent overwash, thereby causing some island narrowing. North Wallops Island sand removal would result in minor adverse impacts on sediments and would lower topography within the excavated areas. 

Placement of beach fill (initial and renourishment) would create and maintain a beach approximately 21 m (70 ft) wide on Wallops Island. The addition of sediment to the longshore transport system would result in a reduction in the rate of erosion at the southern end of Wallops Island and northern end of Assawoman Island. Over the lifetime 

of the SRIPP, the seawall extension and beach fill would have long-term direct beneficial impacts on the Wallops Island shoreline by mitigating the current rate of shoreline retreat. Continued beach nourishment would add to this benefit. Long-term adverse impacts on geology would occur because placement of beach fill would prevent overwash, thereby causing some island narrowing. Construction of a groin would help to retain sand on the Wallops Island shoreline so that erosion and sediment transport from Wallops Island would be reduced and the beach created by the SRIPP would stay in place longer than under Alternative One. North Wallops Island sand removal would result in minor adverse impacts on sediments and would lower topography within the excavated areas. 

Placemrenouribeach bon Walto the lin a redsoutherend of the SRfill wouimpactmitigatContinthis benLong-toccur bprevenisland nConstruretain sthat eroWallopbeach cplace loNorth Wresult iand woexcava

Geology, Geomorphology and Bathymetry – Offshore Shoals and Nearshore Environment 

Dredging would remove a total of approximately 3,057,500 m3 (3,998,750 yd3) 

of sand from Unnamed Shoal A for the initial beach fill. Each of the nine anticipated renourishment cycles would require 770,000 m3 (1,007,500 yd3) or a total of 

Dredging would remove a total of approximately 2,786,250 m3 (3,645,000 yd3) 

of sand from Unnamed Shoal A for the initial beach fill. Each of the nine anticipated renourishment cycles would require 690,000 m3 (915,500 yd3) or a total of approximately 

Dredgiapprox

of sand beach frenourim3 (878
Executive Summary 

ES-VI 

Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts from Proposed Action Alte

Resource Alternative One: Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension A

approximately 9,990,000 m3 (13,066,250 yd3) 

over the lifetime of the SRIPP. The renourishment material may be dredged from Unnamed Shoal A, Unnamed Shoal B, and/or the northern end of Wallops Island. Dredging would result in changes to the volume, shape, and elevation of the sediments on either shoal. Removal of shoal sediments would result in long-term adverse impacts on sitespecific and regional geology. The newly created beach profile would extend underwater for a maximum of 52 m (170 ft, resulting in a new bathymetric profile within the subaqueous lands immediately east of Wallops Island. 

8,997,500 m3 (11,767,500 yd3) over the 

lifetime of the SRIPP. The renourishment material may be dredged from Unnamed Shoal A, Unnamed Shoal B, and/or the northern end of Wallops Island. Dredging would result in changes to the volume, shape, and elevation of the sediments on either shoal. Removal of shoal sediments would result in long-term adverse impacts on sitespecific and regional geology. The newly created beach profile would extend underwater for a maximum of 52 m (170 ft), resulting in a new bathymetric profile within the subaqueous lands immediately east of Wallops Island. 

8,760,0

lifetime materiaA, Unnof Walchangethe sedshoal sadverse geologThe neunderwresultinthe subWallop

Shoreline Change Placement of beach fill (initial and 

renourishment) would create a beach berm approximately 21 m (70 ft) wide on Wallops Island, resulting in long-term beneficial direct impacts. The addition of sediment to the longshore transport system would offset some ongoing erosion that is occurring at the northern end of Assawoman Island. Dredging of the offshore shoals would result in minimal change to local wave conditions and no impact to the Assateague Island shoreline. Sediment would continue to accrete along the northern end of Wallops Island. 

Placement of beach fill (initial and renourishment) would create a beach berm approximately 21 m (70 ft) wide on Wallops Island, resulting in long-term beneficial direct impacts. The groin would be specifically designed to let some sand pass through the structure; according to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) modeling, the combination of the groin with beach fill would result in accretion of sand on the north end of Assawoman Island. The greatest amount of erosion and accretion would occur immediately adjacent to the groin and would exponentially decrease with distance from the groin. Renourishing the beach would reduce the potential for downdrift erosion by providing continual sand on the Wallops Island shoreline, some of which would be available to the longshore sediment transport system. 

PlacemrenouriapproxIsland, impactThe bredesignestructucombinwould end of beach wdowndon the which sedimeDredgiin miniand no 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts from Proposed Action Alte

Resource Alternative One: Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension A

Dredging of the offshore shoals would result in minimal change to local wave conditions and no impact to the Assateague Island shoreline. Sediment would continue to accrete along the northern end of Wallops Island. 

shorelialong t

Water Resources Elevated turbidity in marine waters at the 

offshore shoals from dredging and in the nearshore environment from sand placement. 

Elevated turbidity in marine waters at the offshore shoals from dredging and in the nearshore environment from sand placement. 

Elevateoffshornearsho

Air Quality Emissions from construction and dredging 

activities are not anticipated to cause longterm adverse impacts on air quality or climate change. 

Emissions from construction and dredging activities are not anticipated to cause longterm adverse impacts on air quality or climate change. 

Emissiactivititerm adchange

Noise Temporary, localized impacts during 

construction, dredging, and fill, but no adverse impacts. Temporary, localized impacts on marine mammals associated with increased noise from vessel activities (dredging). 

Temporary, localized impacts during construction, dredging, and fill, but no adverse impacts. Temporary, localized impacts on marine mammals associated with increased noise from vessel activities (dredging). 

Tempoconstruimpactmarine noise f

Hazardous Materials Beneficial impact by restoring the shoreline 

and increasing the distance between breaking waves and hazardous materials critical storage areas and accumulation points. 

Beneficial impact by restoring the shoreline and increasing the distance between breaking 

waves and hazardous materials critical storage areas and accumulation points. 

Beneficand incwaves areas a

Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) 

MEC are not anticipated to be encountered in the area of seawall construction or beach fill. Shoreline erosion would increase to the south of the seawall extension in the first one to two years of the SRIPP; MEC may migrate to the ocean if further beach erosion occurs in this area. The beach fill (starting in year two) 

MEC are not anticipated to be encountered in the area of seawall construction or beach fill. 

Shoreline erosion would increase to the south of the seawall extension in the first one to two years of the SRIPP; MEC may migrate to the ocean if further beach erosion occurs in this area. The beach fill (starting in year 

MEC athe are

Shoreliof the syears oocean iarea. T
Executive Summary 

ES-VIII 

Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts from Proposed Action Alte

Resource Alternative One: Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension A

would reduce the potential of MEC migration into the ocean. There is a potential that MEC would be encountered during excavation of the north Wallops Island borrow site. NASA would implement an MEC Avoidance Plan, conduct surveys, and remove MEC as necessary. 

two) would reduce the potential of MEC migration into the ocean. There is a potential that MEC would be encountered during excavation of the north Wallops Island borrow site. NASA would implement an MEC Avoidance Plan, conduct surveys, and remove MEC as necessary. 

would into the would the norwould conducnecessa

Biological Resources – Birds 

Temporary noise disturbances from the construction machinery used for seawall extension, movement of beach sand, excavation of the north Wallops Island borrow site, and the dredges are expected to adversely affect birds. Adverse effects may also occur from disturbance of beach habitat during the placement of sand on Wallops Island shoreline (initial fill and renourishment cycles) and excavation at north Wallops Island for renourishment. Disruption of feeding at offshore shoals during dredging and changes to shoal morphology that could impact foraging, but the impacts are not anticipated to be significant within a regional context given the hundreds of shoals and potential forage areas available to the birds within the midAtlantic region. The newly created beach could create suitable shorebird nesting habitat. 

Temporary noise disturbances from the construction machinery used for seawall extension and groin, movement of beach sand, excavation of the north Wallops Island borrow site, and the dredges are expected to adversely affect birds. Adverse effects may also occur from disturbance of beach habitat during the placement of sand on Wallops Island shoreline (initial fill and renourishment cycles) and excavation at north Wallops Island for renourishment. Disruption of feeding at offshore shoals during dredging and changes to shoal morphology that could impact foraging, but the impacts are not anticipated to be significant within a regional context given the hundreds of shoals and potential forage areas available to the birds within the midAtlantic region. The newly created beach could create suitable shorebird nesting habitat. 

Tempoconstruextensisand, eborrow adversealso ocduring Island cycles) for renoffshorto shoaforaginbe signthe hunareas aAtlanticould c

Biological Resources – Benthic Resources 

Direct adverse impacts on bottom communities within dredging area. Benthic communities and habitat would be removed during dredging. Assuming the entire proposed borrow area of Shoal A would be dredged (uniform dredge depth of approximately 0.6 m [2 ft]) for the initial 

Direct adverse impacts on bottom communities within dredging area. Benthic communities and habitat would be removed during dredging. Assuming the entire proposed borrow area of Shoal A would be dredged (uniform dredge depth of approximately 0.6 m [2 ft]) for the initial 

Direct commucommuduring proposdredgeapprox
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts from Proposed Action Alte

Resource Alternative One: Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension A

beach fill, approximately 518 hectares (ha) (1,280 acres [ac]) of benthic habitat would be removed. During each of nine renourishment cycles, approximately 140 ha (347 ac) of benthic habitat on Shoal A or Shoal B would be adversely impacted with a uniform dredging depth of approximately 0.6 m (2 ft). Placement of the initial fill would bury existing intertidal benthic community along an approximate 4,300 m (14,000 ft) length of the seawall. The mean tidal range is approximately 1.1 m (3.6 ft); therefore approximately 0.5 ha (1.2 ac) of hard-bottom, intertidal habitat would be permanently buried. In addition, approximately 91 ha (225 ac) of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall would be buried during the initial fill placement. A new beach would be formed in front the seawall and a beach benthic community would become established. 

beach fill, approximately 518 ha (1,280 ac) of benthic habitat would be removed. During each of nine renourishment cycles, approximately 116 ha (287 ac) of benthic habitat on Shoal A or Shoal B would be adversely impacted with a uniform dredging 

depth of approximately 0.6 m (2 ft). Placement of the initial fill would bury existing intertidal benthic community along an approximate 4,300 m (14,000 ft) length of the seawall. The mean tidal range is approximately 1.1 m (3.6 ft); therefore approximately 0.5 ha (1.2 ac) of hardbottom, intertidal habitat would be permanently buried. Approximately 91 ha (225 ac) of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall would also be buried during the initial fill placement. A new beach would be formed in front the seawall and a beach benthic community would become established. In addition, the construction of the groin would bury 0.08 ha (0.19 ac) of sandy, subtidal benthic habitat and replace it with hard substrate. 

beach fbenthic each of approxhabitat adversedepth oPlacemexisting approxseawalapproxapproxintertidburied. subtidaseawalfill placin froncommuIn addiwould subtidahard su

Biological Resources – Fisheries 

Direct site-specific adverse effects on Essential Fish Habitat within: (1) the dredged area due to removal of benthic habitat and changes in shoal bathymetry and (2) the fill placement area due to burial of existing benthic habitat. However, the impacts would not be significant within a regional context. There would also be minor direct impacts to fisheries outside the dredging and fill footprints due to turbidity as a result of the 

Direct site-specific adverse effects on Essential Fish Habitat within: (1) the dredged area due to removal of benthic habitat and changes in shoal bathymetry and (2) the fill placement area due to burial of existing benthic habitat. However, the impacts would not be significant within a regional context. There would also be minor direct impacts to fisheries outside the dredging and fill footprints due to turbidity as a result of the 

Direct Essentiarea duchangeplacembenthic not be There wfisheriefootpri
Executive Summary 

ES-X 

Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts from Proposed Action Alte

Resource Alternative One: Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension A

dredging and fill placement operations. dredging and fill placement operations. 

The groin would provide hard bottom habitat within the nearshore area. The introduction of hard substrate would provide diverse habitat and prey to the nearshore fish assemblage. 

dredginThe brehabitat introdusimilar habitat assemb

Biological Resources – Marine Mammals 

Potential temporary, localized adverse impacts associated with (1) physical 

disturbance to habitats during dredging and fill, (2) vessel strike, and (3) increased noise from vessel activities (dredging). 

Potential temporary, localized adverse impacts associated with (1) physical disturbance to habitats during dredging and fill, (2) vessel strike, and (3) increased noise from vessel activities (dredging). 

Potentiassociahabitatstrike, activiti

Biological Resources – Threatened & Endangered Species 

May affect, not likely to adversely affect vegetation, whales, sea turtles (except for loggerhead), and the Red Knot. May affect, likely to adversely affect loggerhead sea turtle, Piping Plover. No adverse affect to other bird species. 

May affect, not likely to adversely affect vegetation, whales, sea turtles (except for loggerhead), and the Red Knot. May affect, likely to adversely affect loggerhead sea turtle, Piping Plover. No adverse affect to other bird species. 

May afvegetatloggerhlikely tPiping species

Socioeconomics Beneficial impacts from reducing damages to 

infrastructure, reducing losses of work days and jobs, and from temporary constructionrelated job creation. Temporary minor adverse effects on surf clams and fisheries at dredge site from smothering and elevated turbidity, temporary impacts on commercial and recreational fishing resources during the placement of beach fill material on Wallops Island due to elevated turbidity levels in the nearshore environment and disruption of the benthos, which would cause fish to avoid the disturbed areas. No long-term adverse impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries. No disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income persons. 

Beneficial impacts from reducing damages to infrastructure, reducing losses of work days and jobs, and from temporary constructionrelated job creation. Temporary minor adverse effects on surf clams and fisheries at dredge site from smothering and elevated turbidity, temporary impacts on commercial and recreational fishing resources during the placement of beach fill material on Wallops Island due to elevated turbidity levels in the nearshore environment and disruption of the benthos, which would cause fish to avoid the disturbed areas No long-term adverse impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries. No disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income persons. 

Beneficinfrastrand jobrelated effects site frotemporrecreatplacemIsland nearshobenthodisturbon comdispropincome 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts from Proposed Action Alte

Resource Alternative One: Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension A

Cultural Resources No archaeological (below ground or 

underwater) resources or above-ground historic properties are present within the project area; therefore no archeological resources or above-ground historic properties would be impacted. 

No archaeological (below ground or underwater) resources or above-ground historic properties are present within the project area; therefore no archeological 

resources or above-ground historic properties would be impacted. 

No arcunderwhistoric project 

resourcwould 

Transportation Temporary increase in upland and maritime 

traffic, no adverse impacts. 

Temporary increase in upland and maritime 

traffic, no adverse impacts. 

Tempo

traffic, 

Cumulative Impacts Dredging operations would contribute 

incrementally to the overall removal of sand resources from shoals located on the inner continental shelf in the Mid-Atlantic region offshore of Maryland and Virginia. The SRIPP would contribute incrementally to the overall beneficial impacts of shoreline restoration efforts within the region by adding sand to the nearshore sediment transport system. Incremental contribution to cumulative water resource impacts would be negligible. The cumulative reduction in benthic invertebrate fauna would indirectly affect fish that forage on these benthic species; however, nearby shoals would provide alternate foraging grounds for marine species and mitigate adverse cumulative impacts. Negligible cumulative impacts on air quality, marine mammals. Adverse and beneficial impacts on birds and sea turtles; NASA would implement mitigation measures required by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) through SRIPP Section 7 consultation. Beneficial impacts on socioeconomics. 

Dredging operations would contribute incrementally to the overall removal of sand resources from shoals located on the inner continental shelf in the Mid-Atlantic region offshore of Maryland and Virginia. The SRIPP would contribute incrementally to the overall beneficial impacts of shoreline restoration efforts within the region by adding sand to the nearshore sediment transport system. Incremental contribution to cumulative water resource impacts would be negligible. The cumulative reduction in benthic invertebrate fauna would indirectly affect fish that forage on these benthic species; however, nearby shoals would provide alternate foraging grounds for marine species and mitigate adverse cumulative impacts. Negligible cumulative impacts on air quality, marine mammals. Adverse and beneficial impacts on birds and sea turtles; NASA would implement mitigation measures required by USFWS and NMFS through SRIPP Section 7 consultation. Beneficial impacts on socioeconomics. 

DredgiincremresourccontineoffshorSRIPP overall restorasand to systemcumulanegligibenthic affect fhowevealternaand miNegligmarine impactimplemUSFWconsultsocioec
Executive Summary 

ES-XII 

This page intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... ES-I 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... ix 

CHAPTER ONE: MISSION, PURPOSE AND NEED, BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................. 1

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................1

1.2 Background ..................................................................................................2

1.2.1 Wallops Flight Facility Mission ..................................................... 2

1.2.2 Environmental Management System .............................................. 2

1.2.3 Site Location ................................................................................... 2

1.2.4 Facilities, Tenants, and On-Site Organizations at Wallops 

Island ............................................................................................... 5

1.2.5 Shoreline Erosion and Past Erosion Reduction Measures at 

Wallops Island ................................................................................ 9

1.2.6 The Coastal Sand Transport System ............................................. 14

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...............................................14

1.3.1 Purpose .......................................................................................... 14

1.3.2 Need .............................................................................................. 17

1.4 Adaptive Design and Management Strategy ..............................................18

1.5 Scope of this Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement .................18

CHAPTER TWO: DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................... 19

2.1 Overview of Proposed Action ....................................................................19

2.2 Description of Range of Alternatives Considered .....................................20

2.2.1 Relocating At-Risk Infrastructure ................................................. 21

2.2.2 Seawall Extension Only ................................................................ 26

2.2.3 Sand Dunes with Various Cores ................................................... 26

2.2.4 Beach Fill Only ............................................................................. 26

2.2.5 Beach Fill and Seawall Extension ................................................. 29

2.2.6 Beach Fill, Seawall Extension and Sand Retention Structures ..... 29

2.2.7 No Action ...................................................................................... 33

2.3 Initial Screening of the Alternatives ..........................................................33

2.3.1 Screening Criteria ......................................................................... 33

2.3.2 Screening Results .......................................................................... 34

2.3.3 Alternatives Eliminated After Initial Screening ........................... 35

2.4 Secondary Screening of Alternatives .........................................................37

2.4.1 Detailed Options within Alternatives Carried Forward ................ 37

2.4.2 Secondary Screening Results ........................................................ 38

2.4.3 Sources Considered for Beach Fill Material ................................. 44

2.5 Proposed Action Alternatives ....................................................................59

2.5.1 Project Elements Common to All Alternatives ............................. 59

2.5.2 Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, 

Seawall Extension ......................................................................... 68

2.5.3 Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension ....... 69

2.5.4 Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall 

Extension....................................................................................... 69

2.5.5 Summary of Dredge and Fill Volumes for Each of the 

Alternatives ................................................................................... 70
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ii 

2.5.6 Delineation of Shoal Study Areas ................................................. 73

2.5.7 Dredging and Sand Placement Operation ..................................... 73

2.6 Summary and Comparison of Alternatives ................................................79

2.6.1 Implementation Schedule.............................................................. 79

2.6.2 Consideration of Costs and Benefits ............................................. 80

2.6.3 Comparison of Costs of Dredging from Shoal A versus Shoal B 82

2.6.4 Comparison of Impacts ................................................................. 82

2.7 Summary of Mitigation Measures for Proposed Action Alternatives .......91

CHAPTER THREE: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................... 93

3.1 Physical Environment ................................................................................93

3.1.1 Meteorology .................................................................................. 94

3.1.2 Climate Change ............................................................................. 95

3.1.3 Bathymetry .................................................................................... 97

3.1.4 Geology and Geomorphology ..................................................... 109

3.1.5 Physical Oceanography and Coastal Processes .......................... 116

3.1.6 Water Resources ......................................................................... 122

3.1.7 Floodplains .................................................................................. 131

3.1.8 Coastal Zone Management ......................................................... 132

3.1.9 Air Quality .................................................................................. 133

3.1.10 Noise ........................................................................................... 138

3.1.11 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste ............................... 141

3.1.12 Munitions and Explosives of Concern ........................................ 142

3.2 Biological Environment ...........................................................................147

3.2.1 Vegetation ................................................................................... 147

3.2.2 Wildlife ....................................................................................... 151

3.2.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation .................................................. 158

3.2.4 Plankton ...................................................................................... 159

3.2.5 Benthos ....................................................................................... 160

3.2.6 Invertebrate Nekton .................................................................... 170

3.2.7 Finfish ......................................................................................... 170

3.2.8 Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................. 172

3.2.9 Marine Mammals ........................................................................ 174

3.2.10 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................... 181

3.3 Social and Economic Environment ..........................................................194

3.3.1 Land Use ..................................................................................... 195

3.3.2 Recreation ................................................................................... 195

3.3.3 Fisheries ...................................................................................... 195

3.3.4 Population ................................................................................... 197

3.3.5 Employment and Income ............................................................ 197

3.3.6 Health and Safety ........................................................................ 199

3.3.7 Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 199

3.3.8 Environmental Justice ................................................................. 208

3.3.9 Transportation ............................................................................. 209

CHAPTER FOUR: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................... 215

4.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................215

4.2 Physical Environment ..............................................................................215
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

iii 

4.2.1 Bathymetry .................................................................................. 215

4.2.2 Geology and Geomorphology ..................................................... 217

4.2.3 Physical Oceanography and Coastal Processes .......................... 232

4.2.4 Water Resources ......................................................................... 242

4.2.5 Floodplains .................................................................................. 247

4.2.6 Coastal Zone Management ......................................................... 248

4.2.7 Air Quality .................................................................................. 249

4.2.8 Noise ........................................................................................... 261

4.2.9 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management .......... 262

4.3 Biological Environment ...........................................................................264

4.3.1 Vegetation ................................................................................... 264

4.3.2 Wildlife ....................................................................................... 266

4.3.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation .................................................. 272

4.3.4 Plankton ...................................................................................... 272

4.3.5 Benthos ....................................................................................... 273

4.3.6 Invertebrate Nekton .................................................................... 278

4.3.7 Finfish ......................................................................................... 279

4.3.8 Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................. 281

4.3.9 Marine Mammals ........................................................................ 284

4.3.10 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................... 290

4.4 Social and Economic Environment ..........................................................302

4.4.1 Land Use ..................................................................................... 302

4.4.2 Infrastructure and Facilities ........................................................ 302

4.4.3 Recreation ................................................................................... 303

4.4.4 Fisheries ...................................................................................... 303

4.4.5 Population, Employment and Income ......................................... 305

4.4.6 Health and Safety ........................................................................ 306

4.4.7 Environmental Justice ................................................................. 307

4.4.8 Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 307

4.4.9 Transportation ............................................................................. 311

4.5 Relationship Between Short-Term Use of The HuMan Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ...................314

4.6 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ..........................315

4.7 Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................316

4.7.1 Actions Affecting Resources of Concern ................................... 316

4.7.2 Potential Cumulative Effects ...................................................... 334

4.8 Permits, Licenses, and Approvals ............................................................364

CHAPTER FIVE: MITIGATION AND MONITORING ................................................................................ 365

5.1 Mitigation .................................................................................................365

5.1.1 Physical Environment ................................................................. 365

5.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................... 367

5.1.3 Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................. 371

5.1.4 Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 371

5.2 Monitoring ...............................................................................................372

5.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................... 372

5.2.2 Beach Profile ............................................................................... 373
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

iv 

5.2.3 Offshore Shoals ........................................................................... 378

CHAPTER SIX: LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................... 379

CHAPTER SEVEN: AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONSULTED ............................ 383

7.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................383

7.2 Scoping Process .......................................................................................383

7.3 Fisheries Survey .......................................................................................384

7.4 Web Site ...................................................................................................385

7.5 Draft PEIS ................................................................................................385

7.6 Final PEIS ................................................................................................387

7.7 Record of Decision ..................................................................................387

7.8 Summary ..................................................................................................387

CHAPTER EIGHT: REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 397

CHAPTER NINE: INDEX ........................................................................................................................... 423

Appendices 

Appendix A Storm Damage Reduction Project Design for Wallops Island, VA 

Appendix B SRIPP Benthic Video Survey Technical Memorandum 

Appendix C Biological Assessment 

Appendix D U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion 

Appendix E National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion 

Appendix F SRIPP Cultural Resource Remote Sensing Survey of Two Proposed Offshore 

Sand Borrow Locations in Federal Waters 

Appendix G SRIPP Proposed Groin, Breakwater, and Shoreline Cultural Resources Surveys, 

Accomack County, VA 

Appendix H Federal Consistency Determination and Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality Response 

Appendix I Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 

Appendix J Essential Fish Habitat Consultation 

Appendix K Section 106 Consultation 

Appendix L Comments Received on Draft PEIS 

Appendix M Response to Comments Received on Draft PEIS 
List of Tables and Figures 

 v 

Figures 

Figure 1: Vicinity Map................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2: Wallops Island Existing Facilities .................................................................................. 7

Figure 3: Wallops Island Viewed from the South ....................................................................... 11

Figure 4: Aerial of Geotextile Tubes and Old Groin Placement ................................................. 15

Figure 5: Current WFF Layout and Impacts to Public ................................................................ 23

Figure 6: Hypothetical WFF Layout and Impacts to Public ........................................................ 27

Figure 7: Example Groin Placement and Effect on the Shoreline ............................................... 30

Figure 8: Example Breakwater Placement and Effect on the Shoreline ...................................... 31

Figure 9: Secondary Alternative Screening Process Flow ........................................................... 43

Figure 10: Offshore Disposal Site for Chincoteague Inlet Dredged Material ............................. 44

Figure 11: Nearshore Sediment Sample Locations East of Wallops Island ................................ 47

Figure 12: Vibracore Sampling and Shoal Locations .................................................................. 49

Figure 13: North Wallops Island Borrow Site ............................................................................. 55

Figure 14: Seawall Extension and Beach Fill Overview ............................................................. 61

Figure 15: Cross-Section View of the Seawall and Dune ............................................................ 63

Figure 16: Fill Material Conceptual Diagrams (Profiles for Initial Nourishment and 

Renourishment) ............................................................................................................ 65

Figure 17: Proposed Groin, Breakwater and Seawall Extension ................................................. 71

Figure 18: Dredging Areas of Shoal A and B .............................................................................. 77

Figure 19: Northeast Continental Shelf Subregions .................................................................... 94

Figure 20: Bathymetry of Chincoteague Shoals and Chincoteague Bight .................................. 98

Figure 21: Offshore Bathymetry .................................................................................................. 99

Figure 22: Profile 1 - View of Bathymetry from Assateague Island East to Shoal A ............... 101

Figure 23: Profile 2 - View of Bathymetry from Assateague Island East to Shoal B ............... 103

Figure 24: Plan View Bathymetry of Shoals A and B ............................................................... 105

Figure 25: Oblique View of Shoal Bathymetry ......................................................................... 107

Figure 26: Wallops Island Shoreline Changes between 1849 and 2005 .................................... 112

Figure 27: Growth of Fishing Point ........................................................................................... 114

Figure 28: Average Yearly Gross Sediment Transport Rates along Wallops Island ...................... 118

Figure 29: Net Sediment Transport Rates along Wallops Island ............................................... 119

Figure 30: Wallops Island Sediment Budget ............................................................................. 120

Figure 31: Surface Waters ......................................................................................................... 123

Figure 32: Wetlands ................................................................................................................... 127

Figure 33: Wetlands Identified along Seawall July 2009 & July 2010 ..................................... 129

Figure 34: MEC Locations......................................................................................................... 145

Figure 35: Vegetation Types ...................................................................................................... 149

Figure 36: North Wallops Island Vegetation Communities ...................................................... 153

Figure 37: Benthic Video Survey Station Locations ................................................................. 165

Figure 38: Protected Species in the Vicinity of Wallops Island ................................................ 185

Figure 39: Wallops Mainland and Wallops Island Historic Archaeological Site 

Sensitivity ................................................................................................................... 201

Figure 40: Wallops Mainland and Wallops Island Prehistoric Archaeological Site 

Sensitivity ................................................................................................................... 203

Figure 41: Minority Persons by Census Block in Accomack County, Virginia ........................ 211

Figure 42: Shoreline Positions in Response to Seawall Extension without Beach Fill ............. 222
List of Tables and Figures 

vi 

Figure 43: Shoreline Positions over Time for Alternative One ................................................. 223

Figure 44: Unnamed Shoal A: Plane and Contour Dredge Method Profiles ............................. 226

Figure 45: Unnamed Shoal B: Plane and Contour Dredge Method Profiles ............................. 227

Figure 46: Shoreline Positions over Time for Alternative Two ................................................ 229

Figure 47: Shoreline Positions over Time for Alternative Three .............................................. 230

Figure 48: Net Sediment Transport Rates over Time for Alternative One ................................ 235

Figure 49: Shoreline Position in Year 5 for Alternative One .................................................... 236

Figure 50: Net Sediment Transport Rates over Time for Alternative Two ............................... 238

Figure 51: Shoreline Position in Year 5 for Alternative Two .................................................... 239

Figure 52: Net Sediment Transport Rates over Time for Alternative Three ............................. 240

Figure 53: Shoreline Position in Year 5 for Alternative Three .................................................. 241

Figure 54: Historical Impacts and Wetlands at Wallops Island between 1938 and 1994 .......... 323

Figure 55: Onshore Present and Future Activities and Projects ................................................ 325

Figure 56: Offshore Present and Future Activities and Projects................................................ 329

Figure 57: Watersheds in the Vicinity of WFF .......................................................................... 339

Figure 58: Proposed Mainland Wetland Compensation Areas .................................................. 345

Figure 59: Proposed Wallops Island Wetland Compensation Areas ......................................... 346

Photos 

Photo 1: 1991 aerial photo of Wallops Island showing 2005 extent of shoreline erosion ............. 9

Photo 2: 1983 view looking north along Wallops Island showing wood groins (in poor 

condition) – the southernmost groins in this photo are approximately 100 m 

(330 ft) long ................................................................................................................. 10

Photo 3: Damage to the south end of Wallops Island caused by the ........................................... 13

Photo 4: Experimental “Beach Prism” sand retention units moved out of alignment 

during an April 1988 storm on Wallops Island ............................................................ 32

Photo 5: “Beach Beam” units partially sunken into seabed during an April 1988 storm on 

Wallops Island .............................................................................................................. 32

Photo 6: Schematic of a self-propelled trailer suction hopper dredge ......................................... 74

Photo 7: Example of a pan excavator .......................................................................................... 79

Photo 8: Groin field located at north central part of Wallops Island showing sediment 

transport direction to the north – photo taken March 20, 1994 .................................. 120

Photo 9: Groin field located along central Wallops Island showing sediment transport 

direction to the south – photo taken in March 1969................................................... 121

Photo 10: Close-up of seawall on Wallops Island ..................................................................... 162

Photo 11: Ripple marks characteristic of Station #20 from Unnamed Shoal B at a depth 

of approximately 14 m (45 ft). (Photo contains the date and time of collection 

in upper left and easting and northing coordinates in upper right) ............................ 167

Photo 12: Ripple marks characteristic of Station #39 from Unnamed Shoal B at a depth 

of approximately 17 m (56 ft) .................................................................................... 167

Photo 13: Shell hash and absence of bedforms characteristic of Station #2 from 

Unnamed Shoal A at a depth of approximately 17 m (55 ft) ..................................... 168

Photo 14: Shell hash and absence of bedforms characteristic of Station #17 from 

Unnamed Shoal A at a depth of approximately 19 m (64 ft) ..................................... 168
List of Tables and Figures 

 vii 

Photo 15: Sand dollars (Echinarachinus parma) from Station #14 from Unnamed Shoal 

B at a depth of approximately 15 m (48 ft) ................................................................ 169

Photo 16: Sea robin (Prionotus spp.) in lower right of photo from Station #39 from 

Unnamed Shoal B at a depth of approximately 17 m (56 ft) ..................................... 169

Photo 17: Gunboat Point Range on North Wallops Island ........................................................ 318

Photo 18: Newly constructed causeway in 1959 ....................................................................... 319

Photo 19: 1965 photograph showing large rectangular fill area on south end of Wallops 

Island .......................................................................................................................... 320

Tables 

Table 1: Initial Screening Analysis of the Alternatives ............................................................... 35

Table 2: Summary of Options for Components Carried Forward ............................................... 37

Table 3: Analysis of the 54 Potential Alternatives ...................................................................... 39

Table 4: Grain Size in Samples Taken from Blackfish Bank, Unnamed Shoal A, and 

Unnamed Shoal B ........................................................................................................ 51

Table 5: Grain Size in Samples Collected from North Wallops Island ....................................... 57

Table 6: Summary of Borrow Site Options Carried Forward for Analysis ................................. 58

Table 7: Fill Volumes for the Alternatives .................................................................................. 70

Table 8: Dredge Volumes for Alternatives .................................................................................. 70

Table 9: Implementation Schedule .............................................................................................. 80

Table 10: Approximate Cost Reduction by Dredging Sand from Shoal A versus Shoal B ......... 82

Table 11: Summary of Impacts from the Proposed Action Alternatives ..................................... 83

Table 12: Summary of Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Action Alternatives ................... 91

Table 13: Characteristics of Unnamed Shoals A and B Relative to Cross-Shore Sediment 

Transport .................................................................................................................... 122

Table 14: National Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................................. 134

Table 15: Calendar Year 2008 Air Emissions at Wallops Island/Mainland .............................. 135

Table 16: Calendar Year 2008 Greenhouse Gas Air Emissions at Wallops 

Island/Mainland ......................................................................................................... 137

Table 17: Calendar Year 2008 Greenhouse Gas Emissions at Wallops Island/Mainland in 

Metric Tonnes per Year (Tons per Year) ................................................................... 138

Table 18: Typical Noise Levels of Familiar Noise Sources and Public Responses .................. 139

Table 19: Accomack County Noise Guidelines by Land Use ................................................... 140

Table 20: Potential MEC Locations within Project Area .......................................................... 143

Table 21: Organisms Collected by Slacum et al. (2006) in Trawls Collected on Shoals 

Offshore of Maryland ................................................................................................. 163

Table 22: NMFS Managed Species that May Occur in Waters Surrounding Wallops 

Island, VA and Proposed Offshore Borrow Sites ...................................................... 173

Table 23: Marine Mammals Likely to Occur Offshore of Wallops Island ................................ 174

Table 24: Protected Species that May Occur in the SRIPP Project Area .................................. 183

Table 25: Occupational Distribution (percent) .......................................................................... 198

Table 26: Income and Poverty ................................................................................................... 198

Table 27: Environmental Justice Concerns – by Census Tract, Accomack County, VA .......... 209

Table 28: Erosion Volumes South of Existing Seawall ............................................................. 217

Table 29: Average Shoreline Change Rate at Assawoman Inlet ............................................... 220
List of Tables and Figures 

viii 

Table 30: Erosion Volumes South of Existing Seawall ............................................................. 221

Table 31: Offshore Borrow Site Impacts ................................................................................... 231

Table 32: Federal Consistency Determination ........................................................................... 248

Table 33: Emissions from Construction Activities Associated with Seawall Extension ........... 250

Table 34: Alternative One Emissions from Dredging and Initial Beach Fill ............................ 252

Table 35: Alternative One Emissions from Dredging and Renourishment Fill ......................... 252

Table 36: Emissions from North Wallops Island Renourishment Activities ............................. 253

Table 37: Alternative One Emissions Summary for Initial Beach Fill ...................................... 254

Table 38: Alternative One Emissions Summary for Renourishment Beach Fill ....................... 254

Table 39: Alternative One Construction Emissions for Wallops Mainland/Island ................... 254

Table 40: Emissions from Groin Construction Activities .......................................................... 255

Table 41: Alternative Two Emissions from Dredging and Initial Beach Fill ............................ 256

Table 42: Alternative Two Emissions from Dredging and Renourishment Fill ........................ 257

Table 43: Alternative Two Emissions Summary for Initial Beach Fill ..................................... 257

Table 44: Alternative Two Emissions Summary for Renourishment Beach Fill ...................... 258

Table 45: Emissions from Breakwater Construction Activities ................................................ 259

Table 46: Alternative Three Emissions from Dredging and Initial Beach Fill .......................... 259

Table 47: Alternative Three Emissions from Dredging and Renourishment Fill ...................... 260

Table 48: Alternative Three Emissions Summary for Initial Beach Fill ................................... 260

Table 49: Alternative Three Emissions Summary for Renourishment Beach Fill .................... 261

Table 50: Marine Mammals Hearing Groups ............................................................................ 287

Table 51: Threatened and Endangered Species Not Affected by SRIPP ................................... 290

Table 52: Determination of Effects to Federally Protected Species .......................................... 301

Table 53: Summary of Hectares (Acres) Affected by Various Actions at Wallops Island 

1938 to 2010+ ............................................................................................................ 322

Table 54: Volume of Potential Suitable Sand Resources for Shoreline Restoration in 

Maryland and Virginia ............................................................................................... 336

Table 55: Area of Wetlands Affected from Recent Past Projects on Wallops Island and 

Mainland .................................................................................................................... 342

Table 56: Estimated Area of Wetlands Affected for Current Proposed Projects on 

Wallops Island and Mainland..................................................................................... 343

Table 57: Areas Identified for Wetland Compensation ............................................................. 345

Table 58: WFF Cumulative Project Criteria Pollutant Emissions in Tons ................................ 348

Table 59: Emissions Reduction Resulting from Central Boiler Plant Decentralization ............ 349

Table 60: WFF Cumulative Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................. 349

Table 61: Cumulative Sea Turtle Takes by Month and Species between 1980 and 2009, 

USACE Norfolk District ............................................................................................ 359

Table 62: Responses to Scoping by Comment Topic ................................................................ 384

Table 63: Comments by Category Received on Draft PEIS ...................................................... 386

Table 64: Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted for the SRIPP PEIS ................ 389
 Acronyms and Abbreviations 

 ix 

°C Degrees Celsius 

°F Degrees Fahrenheit 

 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

amsl Above Mean Sea Level 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

AST Aboveground Storage Tank 

 

BA Biological Assessment 

BMAP Beach Morphology Analysis Package 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BO Biological Opinion 

BOEMRE Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement 

 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAD Computer-Assisted Design 

CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4 Methane 

CMA Coastal Management Area 

CNWR Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent 

COLREGS Collision Regulations 

CRA Cultural Resources Assessment 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZM Coastal Zone Management 

 

dB Decibel 

dBA Decibel Weighted to the A-scale 

DFO Distance Focused Overpressure 

DGPS Digital Global Positioning System 

DMM Discarded Military Munitions 

 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EG&G EG&G Technical Services 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EJIP Environmental Justice Implementation Plan 

ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle 

EMS Environmental Management System 

EO Executive Order 

EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Acronyms and Abbreviations 

x 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map 

FMP Fisheries Management Plan 

FR Federal Register 

 

GB Georges Bank 

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

GOM Gulf of Maine 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center 

GWP Global Warming Potential 

 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

 

ICP Integrated Contingency Plan 

 

JPA Joint Permit Application 

 

LHA Launch Hazard Area 

LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging 

 

MAB Mid-Atlantic Bight 

MARS Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MEC Munitions and Explosives of Concern 

MHWL Mean High Water Level 

MLW Mean Low Water 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MMS Minerals Management Service 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

MSL Mean Sea Level 

 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics 

NARWC North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 
 Acronyms and Abbreviations 

 xi 

N2O Nitrous Oxide 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NPS National Park Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSR New Source Review 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTL Notice to Lessee 

 

O3 Ozone 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

 

Pb Lead 

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

PLDA Pre-Launch Danger Area 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM10 Particulate Matter Less Than or Equal to 10 micrometers 

PM2.5 Particulate Matter Less Than or Equal to 2.5 micrometers 

POV Personally Owned Vehicle 

ppm Parts per Million 

ppt Parts per Thousand 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

PTE Potential to Emit 

 

RHA Rivers and Harbors of Act of 1899 

RNA Regulated Navigation Area 

 

SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

SCSC Surface Combat Systems Center 

SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

SNE Southern New England 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SRIPP Shoreline Restoration and Infrastructure Protection Program 

 

TSS Traffic Separation Scheme 

 

UAS Uninhabited Aerial Systems 

URS URS Group, Inc. 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S.C. U.S. Code 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

UST Underground Storage Tank 
Acronyms and Abbreviations 

xii 

UXO Unexploded Ordnance 

 

VAC Virginia Administrative Code 

VACAPES 

OPAREA 

Virginia Capes Operating Area 

VDCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 

VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

VDGIF Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 

VDHR Virginia Department of Historic Resources 

VEC Virginia Employment Commission 

VIMS Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

VMRC Virginia Marine Resources Commission 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

 

WFF Wallops Flight Facility 
Common Metric/British System Equivalents 

 xiii 

Linear 

1 centimeter (cm) = 0.3937 inch (in) 1 inch = 2.54 cm 

1 centimeter = 0.0328 foot (ft) 1 foot = 30.48 cm 

1 meter (m) = 3.2808 feet 1 ft = 0.3048 m 

1 meter = 0.0006 mile (mi) 1 mi = 1609.3440 m 

1 kilometer (km) = 0.6214 mile 1 mi = 1.6093 km 

1 kilometer = 0.53996 nautical mile (nmi) 1 nmi = 1.8520 km 

1 mi = 0.87 nmi 1 nmi = 1.15 mi 

Area

1 square centimeter (cm2

) = 0.1550 square inch (in2) 1 in2 = 6.4516 cm2

1 square meter (m2) = 10.7639 square feet (ft2) 1 ft2 = 0.09290 m2

1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.3861 square mile (mi2) 1 mi2 = 2.5900 km2

1 hectare (ha) = 2.4710 acres (ac) 1 ac = 0.4047 ha 

1 hectare (ha) = 10,000 square meters (m2) 1 ft2 = 0.000022957 ac 

Volume 

1 cubic centimeter (cm3) = 0.0610 cubic inch (in3) 1 in3 = 16.3871 cm3

1 cubic meter (m3) = 35.3147 cubic feet (ft3) 1 ft3 = 0.0283 m3

1 cubic meter (m3

) = 1.308 cubic yards (yd3) 1 yd3 = 0.76455 m3

1 liter (l) = 1.0567 quarts (qt) 1 qt = 0.9463264 l 

1 liter = 0.2642 gallon (gal) 1 gal = 3.7845 l 

1 kiloliter (kl) = 264.2 gal 1 gal = 0.0038 kl 

Mass 

1 gram (g) = 0.0353 ounce (oz) 1 oz = 28.3495 g 

1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2046 pounds (lb) 1 lb = 0.4536 kg 

1 metric tonne (mt) = 1.1023 tons 1 ton = 0.9072 mt 
Common Metric/British System Equivalents 

xiv 

This page intentionally left blank.
Mission, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

 1 

CHAPTER ONE: MISSION, PURPOSE AND NEED, BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) has been prepared to evaluate the 

potential environmental impacts from the proposed Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) Shoreline 

Restoration and Infrastructure Protection Program (SRIPP). The SRIPP encompasses a 50-year 

planning horizon and is intended to reduce damage to Federal and State infrastructure on 

Wallops Island caused by the combination of sea-level rise and coastal storms. 

In May 2007, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) released for public 

comment a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) for Goddard Space Flight 

Center’s (GSFC’s) WFF SRIPP. Since that time, NASA’s Proposed Action has changed (the 

proposed borrow sites moved from State to Federal waters, and extension of the seawall was 

added along with more details on placement of sand-retention structures), and as a result, NASA 

has prepared this PEIS for the Proposed Action currently under consideration. 

This PEIS has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 4321–4347), the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508), 

NASA’s regulations for implementing NEPA (14 CFR Subpart 1216.3), and the NASA 

Procedural Requirements for Implementing NEPA and Executive Order (EO) 12114 (NASA 

Procedural Requirements 8580.1). 

The availability of the Draft PEIS for public comment was published in the Federal Register on 

February 26, 2010 (75 FR 8997) and the public comment period closed on April 19, 2010. A 

public meeting to discuss the Draft PEIS was held on March 16, 2010. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE) (formerly the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and renamed the 

BOEMRE under Secretarial Order 3302, issued June 18, 2010) and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) have served as Cooperating Agencies in preparing this PEIS because they 

both possess regulatory authority and specialized expertise pertaining to the Proposed Action. 

This PEIS has been developed to fulfill all three Federal agencies’ obligations under NEPA. 

NASA, as the WFF property owner and project proponent, is the Lead Agency and responsible 

for ensuring overall compliance with applicable environmental statutes, including NEPA. 

NASA would require authorizations from both the USACE and the BOEMRE for the SRIPP. 

Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the USACE has jurisdiction over the disposal 

of dredged and fill material in Waters of the U.S. In addition, under Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors of Act of 1899 (RHA), the USACE has jurisdiction over the placement of structures and 

work, such as dredging, conducted in navigable waters of the U.S. The USACE Norfolk District 

is designing the SRIPP and would serve in a construction management capacity during project 

implementation, including hiring construction contractors. The BOEMRE has jurisdiction over 

mineral resources on the Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Public Law 103-426, enacted 

October 31, 1994, gave BOEMRE the authority to convey, on a noncompetitive basis, the rights 

to OCS sand, gravel, or shell resources for shore protection, beach or wetlands restoration 

projects, or for use in construction projects funded in whole or part or authorized by the Federal 

government. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) pursuant to section 8(k)(D) of the OCS 
Mission, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

2 

Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1337(k)(2) would be negotiated among BOEMRE, USACE and NASA 

to allow NASA to dredge sand from the OCS. 

In developing this PEIS, NASA consulted multiple stakeholders and agencies and engaged an 

Independent Technical Review team of scientists to provide input regarding development of the 

alternatives, description of the affected environment, and assessment of environmental impacts 

from implementation of the SRIPP. The Independent Technical Review team comments on the 

Draft PEIS are provided in Appendix L. 

This PEIS will be reviewed for adequacy at any time that major changes to the Proposed Action 

are under consideration or substantial changes to the environmental conditions in the project area 

occur. As such, the document may be supplemented in the future to assess new proposals or to 

address changes in existing conditions, impacts, and mitigation measures. Additionally, as this 

PEIS considers the effects of the SRIPP over a 50-year time frame, some project details (e.g., 

renourishment frequencies, volumes, and sources) are only generally known at the current time. 

Tiered NEPA documents would be prepared in the future for implementation of certain aspects 

of the SRIPP once project details become more refined. 

1.2 BACKGROUND 

1.2.1 Wallops Flight Facility Mission 

During its early history, the mission of the GSFC’s WFF was primarily to serve as a test site for 

aerospace technology experiments. Over the last several decades, the WFF mission has evolved 

toward a focus of supporting scientific research through carrier systems (i.e., airplanes, balloons, 

rockets, and uninhabited aerial systems [UAS]) and mission services. WFF is a NASA facility 

under the management of GSFC. NASA is the land owner with multiple tenants, including the 

U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Each tenant partially relies on 

NASA for institutional and programmatic services, but also has its own missions. WFF is a fully 

capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. In 

addition, WFF personnel provide mobile range capabilities, range instrumentation engineering, 

range safety, flight hardware engineering, and mission operations support to a variety of civil, 

defense, and academic customers. 

1.2.2 Environmental Management System 

NASA is committed to carrying out its research and projects at WFF in an environmentally 

sustainable manner. The Wallops Environmental Office (Code 250) ensures that the facility 

obtains the appropriate environmental permits, prepares documentation for compliance with 

NEPA and other environmental regulations and EOs, conducts employee and supervisor training, 

and implements the facility’s Environmental Management System (EMS). WFF’s EMS is a 

coherent, integrated approach to environmental management. WFF manages environmental risks 

through the application of the WFF EMS, which covers such topics as pollution prevention, 

energy and water management, maintenance of natural (green) infrastructure, and sustainable 

building practices. 

1.2.3 Site Location 

WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County, VA, on the Delmarva 

Peninsula, and is comprised of the Main Base, Wallops Mainland, and Wallops Island (Figure 1). 

Mission, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

4 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Mission, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

 5 

Wallops Island is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the 

south (which is presently filled in), the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. 

1.2.4 Facilities, Tenants, and On-Site Organizations at Wallops Island 

The facilities on Wallops Island are shown on Figure 2 and described below. 

1.2.4.1 Tenants and On-Site Organizations 

NASA has several tenants and customers that use the WFF range, its facilities, and airspace. Two 

of these tenants, the U.S. Navy and MARS, have facilities on Wallops Island that are at risk from 

storm damages, which would be reduced by the Proposed Action. The activities of these tenants 

are described below. 

U.S. Navy Surface Combat Systems Center 

The U.S. Navy Surface Combat Systems Center (SCSC) is WFF’s largest partner. The SCSC’s 

mission is to “provide live integrated warfare systems in a maritime environment for fleet 

operations, testing, evaluation, training, research and development,” and its vision is to be “the 

premier maritime proving ground for fielding and sustainment of joint, combined, and coalition 

capabilities in support of national interests.” There are no alternative land-based sites for 

performing many of the mission roles assigned to SCSC. SCSC provides a maritime test 

environment, operational team, and combat systems of high fidelity to conduct realistic test 

events in support of Lifetime Support Engineering activities and the upgrade of tactical computer 

programs. SCSC provides key services for performing systems developmental and operational 

tests and for research & development of potential system upgrades in all areas of detection, 

control, and engagement. The SCSC Wallops Island location provides the best value to the U.S. 

Navy for testing and support of deployed surface combat systems, advanced systems under 

development, and warfare systems integration (such as systems planned for deployment aboard 

U.S. Navy ship programs). 

Wallops Island is home to the unique replica of an AEGIS cruiser and its destroyer combat 

systems, as well as the experimental radar deck of the DDG 1000 class destroyer. These systems 

are used to train naval officers and enlisted personnel in the operation and maintenance of 

sophisticated equipment used by the fleet onboard their AEGIS cruisers and destroyers. The 

systems are also used to test concepts and solve operational problems. 

Other technical missions include lifetime support engineering, in-service engineering, systems 

level operations, and maintenance training. The SCSC supports the AEGIS Training Unit by 

providing equipment on which replacement crew training is held. The U.S. Navy Ship Self 

Defense System Facility on Wallops Island conducts research, development, testing, and 

evaluation elements of shipboard systems, integration, and demonstrations of new shipboard 

systems. WFF also provides missile launch support for the U.S. Navy. Drone vehicles are used 

for target tracking and are engaged by both the AEGIS facility and operational naval forces. 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport 

The Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority is responsible for the development and 

operation of MARS, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-licensed commercial spaceport 

on Wallops Island. MARS currently provides launch support services and facilities to NASA, the 

U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the U.S. Air Force, 
Mission, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

6 

and commercial and academic users. MARS is a full-service spaceport, offering two FAA 

licensed launch pads as well as access to three suborbital rail launchers, vehicle/payload storage, 

processing and launch facilities, a Federal launch range and experienced space technicians and 

engineers. 

MARS’ mission is to develop and operate a multi-user spaceport at WFF that provides low-cost, 

safe, reliable, “schedule friendly” space access for commercial, government, and academic users 

(MARS, 2008). MARS operates the orbital Launch Complex 0, which includes launch pads 0-A 

and 0-B, and provides facilities and services for commercial launches of payloads into space. 

NASA and MARS are currently constructing new facilities on Wallops Island to support 

launching of orbital rockets from Pad 0-A that will carry payloads to the International Space 

Station beginning in calendar year 2011. These facilities include: a Liquid Fueling Facility, 

launch ramp, and rocket mount at Pad 0-A; a Horizontal Integration Facility that will support the 

pre-flight processing, horizontal integration, and preparation of launch vehicles and payloads; a 

Payload Fueling Facility; a Payload Processing Facility; and transportation infrastructure 

improvements. 

1.2.4.2 Location of Facilities 

Multiple constraints to siting at WFF limit the development of new facilities and infrastructure. 

These constraints include current land use (potential for conflict with known or reasonably 

foreseeable mission-related uses), interference with communications and radar, established 

hazard arcs surrounding some buildings and launch areas, and sensitive resources such as 

wetlands and cultural resources. 

Of approximately 50 NASA buildings on Wallops Island, two can be considered administrative 

in nature; these buildings house a small number of employees, all of whom are associated with 

the day-to-day upkeep and coordination of Wallops Island’s launch support assets. The U.S. 

Navy’s facilities on Wallops Island, although not directly associated with launch operations, 

were originally sited immediately on the ocean as they must routinely interact with ships at sea 

and train sailors in a real-time maritime environment. 

The primary function of most buildings on Wallops Island is to enable operations leading up to, 

during, and following the execution of a flight. The launch pad is the core of the launch range 

infrastructure and is characteristically the most difficult to site because it is the location at which 

the most hazardous operations take place. Launch support structures are generally built as close 

to the launch pad as possible, because 1) the systems they house (e.g., high speed cameras, noise 

level monitors, etc.) must be close to the pad to effectively collect data and 2) to provide the 

shortest travel distance once the launch vehicle and spacecraft are ready to be transported to the 

pad for final pre-launch preparations. 

The facilities on Wallops Island are grouped geographically and are described below. 

North Wallops Island: Solid-propellant rocket motors, which are both a fire and explosive 

hazard, are stored on the north end of Wallops Island, so in the event of a mishap, it would have 

minimal impact on the public or employees on Wallops Island. Spacecraft fueling and processing 

facilities, which are the primary locations for handling toxic and flammable propellants, are 

proposed for this remote area for the same reason. 

Mission, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

8 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Mission, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

 9 

Central Wallops Island: Central Wallops Island contains the U.S. Navy’s ship training facilities, 

storage and assembly buildings, and the launch blockhouses. This mid-island area typically 

contains the least hazardous of operations, and is the most densely populated by employees 

supporting the U.S. Navy’s SCSC. 

South Wallops Island: The south end of Wallops Island contains WFF’s launch pads, additional 

hazardous materials storage areas, and the facility’s UAS runway. Currently, there are three 

sounding rocket pads operated by NASA and two orbital pads operated by MARS. These pads 

are located on south Wallops Island to minimize potential impacts to Chincoteague, Accomack 

County’s most populated town and home to its busiest commercial fishing route (Chincoteague 

Inlet and Channel). 

1.2.5 Shoreline Erosion and Past Erosion Reduction Measures at Wallops Island 

Wallops Island was subject to the effects of shoreline retreat well before NASA’s presence was 

established on the island in the 1940s. Between 1857 and 1994, the southern part of Wallops 

Island retreated approximately 400 m (1,300 ft). The ocean has encroached substantially toward 

launch pads, infrastructure, and test and training facilities belonging to NASA, the U.S. Navy, 

and MARS (see Figure 3). Photo 1 below shows the extent of shoreline retreat from 1991 to 

2005. Assawoman Island to the south has been impacted even more, with a shoreline retreat rate 

between 4.9 and 5.2 m (16 and 17 ft) per year. 

Photo 1: 1991 aerial photo of Wallops Island showing 2005 extent of shoreline erosion 
Mission, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

10 

Since the 1960s, NASA has made several attempts to keep sand on the Wallops Island beach and 

prevent shoreline retreat. Various measures such as wooden groins, construction of a stone 

seawall, temporary geotextile tubes (long cylinders of durable textile material that are filled with 

sand – see Figure 4), and others have been installed along the shoreline to slow the transportation 

of sand off the beach and help protect onshore assets from wave action. 

Photo 2 shows the wooden groins NASA installed in the early 1960s and 1970s. These groins 

were almost completely gone by the mid-1980s; their failure has been linked to the lack of a 

beach fill at the time of construction, along with the lack of a regular monitoring and 

maintenance program and renourishment plan. 

Photo 2: 1983 view looking north along Wallops Island showing wood groins (in poor 

condition) – the southernmost groins in this photo are approximately 100 m (330 ft) long 

In 1992, NASA obtained permits to construct an approximate 4,840-m (15,900-ft) rock seawall 

along the center of the island where the majority of infrastructure is located (see Figure 3). The 

seawall was thought to be a solution to the high rate of shoreline retreat and currently provides 

protection from storm surge. The seawall has provided substantial protection to the island’s 

infrastructure. Although this structure has halted the shoreline retreat, wave action continually 

scours and undercuts the seafloor at the base of the seawall and has left the seawall vulnerable to 

storm damage. The seawall has deteriorated due to settling and dislodgement of armor stone. In 

addition, the structure is highly permeable due to large voids; these voids allow scouring on the 

landward side, and additional sand loss. Because of shoreline retreat, an approximately 3.7-

kilometer (km) (2.3-mile [mi]) portion of the seawall currently fronts directly on the ocean with 

waves continually breaking on it. 

Mission, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

12 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Mission, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

 13 

 The structures placed on Wallops Island in the past, including the seawall, have reduced the 

effect of overwash processes. Overwash is the flow of water and sediment over a beach crest that 

does not directly return to the ocean. Overwash maintains beach and dune systems, is a form of 

coastal flooding that can move sediment landward, and is a precursor to barrier breaching. It is a 

regional and recurring natural process responsible for large-scale coastal change in low-profile 

coastal areas, and is an integral part of the sediment budget in such areas (USACE, 2004). When 

coastal structures prevent overwash, beach sediment in front of them can be transported offshore 

during storms causing the island to narrow; however, if overwash is allowed to occur, the net 

volume of sand is often maintained and the island migrates landward (Donnelly et al., 2006). 

In 2007, NASA installed geotextile tubes (Figure 4) along the shoreline as an emergency 

measure to slow down the transport of sand off the beach and help protect onshore assets from 

wave action. Despite these efforts, the ocean has continued to encroach substantially toward the 

infrastructure on Wallops Island. In mid-November 2009, Hurricane Ida combined with a coastal 

storm to produce a nor’easter (commonly referred to as “Nor’Ida”) with winds peaking at 95 km 

per hour (59 mi per hour) at Wallops Island (NOAA, 2009c). The storm caused island flooding 

and substantial damage to the geotextile tubes (Photo 3). Following the Nor’Ida storm, NASA 

installed an additional 730 m (2,400 ft) of geotextile tubes to replace a portion of those that were 

damaged until a more long-term solution can be implemented. 

Photo 3: Damage to the south end of Wallops Island caused by the 

November 2009 Nor’easter 
Mission, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

14 

Reducing storm damage has always been a formidable component of maintaining facilities on 

Wallops Island. Moreover, looking toward the future, as sea-level rises and climate change 

increases the magnitude of storms (IPCC, 2007), the vulnerability of the Wallops Island 

shoreline to storm waves and erosion will continue to be a challenge for NASA and its partners. 

1.2.6 The Coastal Sand Transport System 

Wallops Island is part of a 200-km-long (125-mi-long) chain of coastal barrier islands that 

stretches from Fenwick Island, on the Maryland-Delaware border, to Fisherman’s Island at the 

mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. Beach sand is driven alternately in either direction along the shore 

as well as offshore or onshore by the combined action of ocean waves, longshore currents, and 

tidal currents along this system. Evidence from the shape of the shorelines and other landform 

features in the region indicates that there is a clearly defined overall net direction to this sand 

transport that is from the north to the south. However, due to Wallops Island’s location directly 

south of Fishing Point, sand transport within the SRIPP project area is generally from south to 

north. 

The numerous tidal inlets along the Maryland and Virginia coastal island chain locally disrupt 

this coastal sand transport system but, in general, the sand works its way across these 

interruptions in the north-to-south direction. At any given time, the rate of longshore sand 

transport can be much higher or lower and either to the north or south depending on whether 

storm or calm conditions prevail. The sum of these short-term transports is called the gross rate 

and it is about an order of magnitude greater than the net southward rate. 

The longshore transport of sand in this coastal system also varies considerably with location due 

to changes in shoreline orientation, proximity of a tidal inlet, and the amount of local sand 

storage in dunes and nearshore sand bars. Areas of chronic beach erosion generally correspond to 

places where there is a relative shortage of longshore sediment coming into the zone compared to 

that which is transported out. This process makes it essential to understand the details of the local 

and regional sand transport patterns to design effective beach erosion control measures. 

Although the geomorphological features and numerous local studies indicate that the regional 

sand transport is to the south (Shepard and Wanless, 1971) the patterns on Wallops Island and 

adjoining shores is more complicated. A more detailed description of the patterns of sand 

transport on the island is provided in Section 3.1.5.4 (Longshore Sediment Transport). 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

1.3.1 Purpose 

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to reduce the potential for damage to, or loss of, NASA, 

U.S. Navy, and MARS assets on Wallops Island from wave impacts associated with storm 

events. 

Mission, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

16 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Mission, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

 17 

The BOEMRE and the USACE, as cooperating Federal agencies, are each undertaking a 

“connected action” (40 CFR 1508.25) that is related, but unique from NASA’s proposed action, 

the construction of the project. The purpose of BOEMRE’s proposed action is to authorize use of 

OCS sand resources in beach nourishment and coastal restoration projects undertaken by 

Federal, State or local government agencies, and/or in other federally authorized construction 

projects. The purpose of USACE’s proposed action is to authorize the discharge of fill material 

into waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the CWA and to authorize work in U.S. navigable 

waters under Section 10 of the RHA. 

1.3.2 Need 

The Proposed Action is needed to ensure the continued ability of NASA, the U.S. Navy, and 

MARS to serve the Nation’s rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial 

aerospace requirements. WFF and MARS are located within the only research range in the 

United States that is wholly controlled by NASA, and as a result, WFF is the only research range 

in the world that is solely under NASA control and focused on NASA’s schedule, budget, and 

mission objectives. Under Title II of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-

8), the U.S. Congress stated that “WFF is an important national asset that can be better utilized 

by focusing on emerging technologies that meet national needs and NASA priorities.” 

Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has 

occupied the site. The existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no 

protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Currently, the 

south end of the island is unprotected except for a low revetment around the MARS launch pad 

and temporary geotextile tubes that extend from the southern end of the existing seawall south to 

camera stand Z-100 (shown in Photo 1). 

At the present time, assets on Wallops Island are valued at over $1 billion. The NASA facilities 

at greatest risk are the south UAS Runway and the Launch Control Center (building W-20), both 

located within 30 m (100 ft) of the shoreline, and all three sounding rocket launch pads, which 

are approximately 75 m (250 ft) from the shoreline (Figure 3). U.S. Navy assets at greatest risk 

include the AEGIS and Ship Self Defense System Facilities, also shown on Figure 3. MARS 

Launch Pads 0-A and 0-B are located within 75 m (250 ft) of the shoreline, and are also at a high 

level of risk (Figure 3). 

The potential risks to infrastructure from wave impacts (that will only be exacerbated by sealevel rise) are two-fold: first is the interruption of NASA, U.S. Navy, and MARS missions 

supported from Wallops Island facilities due to temporary loss of facility functions; and second 

is the potential for complete loss of these unique facilities. If no protective measures are taken, 

the assets on Wallops Island will be increasingly at risk from even moderate storm events. 

According to a study by Komar and Allan (2008), wave heights have gradually increased over a 

30-year period and are expected to continue to increase. This is believed to be associated with 

the rise in frequency and intensification of storm events. 

The BOEMRE and USACE proposed actions are needed to fulfill each agency’s jurisdictional 

responsibilities under the OCS Lands Act and the CWA and RHA, respectively. 
Mission, Purpose and Need, Background Information 

18 

1.4 ADAPTIVE DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 

In spite of considerable recent advancements in the fields of coastal engineering and coastal 

geomorphology, the ability to predict changes in coastal morphology over long time intervals 

(decades) and large scales (tens of kilometers/miles) remains limited. A major portion of this 

uncertainty comes from the variability of weather patterns during both ordinary and storm 

conditions. Consequently, it is prudent to recognize these limitations by providing a project 

design that can be modified over time so that it can continue to successfully accomplish its goal 

as unpredicted changes occur. This, in turn, requires an active long-term management strategy 

that utilizes a suitable monitoring program to detect developments as they approach a 

problematic state. With adaptive design, alternative measures that have been previously planned 

can be adapted or constructed at the time that they become necessary. 

The SRIPP incorporates an adaptive design and management strategy that is defined by a range 

of alternatives explained in this PEIS with the understanding that one alternative is preferred as 

the initial action, but elements of the other alternatives may be adopted in the future if the 

monitoring program reveals them to be necessary. Alternatives presented in this PEIS are based 

on current conditions and knowledge of design and resources; however, as more information 

becomes available through monitoring, NASA would further evaluate its strategy for storm 

damage reduction measures. 

1.5 SCOPE OF THIS PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Both CEQ and NASA NEPA regulations allow the preparation of NEPA documents for broad 

actions, such as agency programs and sets of related or similar actions. Broad actions can often 

be grouped by geographic location; relevant similarities; and state of technical development. 

These NEPA documents are referred to as “Programmatic,” and are often broad in scope, and 

may be followed by more site- or action-specific documents as appropriate. This approach, 

referred to as “tiering,” can be compared to a funnel, with the broader, Programmatic NEPA 

document at the top, with the more focused documents below it. 

This PEIS covers a 50-year planning horizon. Despite the programmatic nature of this document, 

NASA has included detailed information on the three Proposed Action Alternatives that it is 

considering for the SRIPP. Given the severity of shoreline erosion at Wallops Island and WFF’s 

vulnerability to storms, it is imperative that a storm damage reduction project be implemented as 

soon as possible. As a result, this PEIS includes such detail as structure dimensions and locations 

so that the selected alternative could be implemented and permitted without the need for 

additional NEPA documentation. In addition to structure dimensions and locations, this 

information includes beach fill volumes, dredging locations, and dredging operations. Proposed 

sand retention structures have been modeled and potential impacts evaluated at specific locations 

within the project area based on current conditions at Wallops Island. Utilizing an adaptive 

management approach, NASA would evaluate future actions that may include variations of the 

alternatives evaluated in this PEIS. 

Future tiered NEPA documents may be prepared for specific actions (i.e., renourishment cycles) 

related to the SRIPP. Additionally, due to the variability and unpredictability of the open ocean 

environment, and through its monitoring efforts, NASA may identify additional storm damage 

reduction measures that are not analyzed in this PEIS. As such, NASA would supplement this 

PEIS in the future to consider the effects of these alternatives prior to their implementation. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 19 

CHAPTER TWO: DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter presents the range of alternatives that were considered to meet the purpose and need 

of the project. 

Several studies have been conducted at Wallops Island to evaluate the effectiveness of previous 

shoreline protection efforts, to model sediment transport conditions, to conduct site assessments 

of existing conditions, and to recommend methods for shoreline restoration. The studies include: 

 1986 Wallops Island Shore Protection Study (Moffatt & Nichol) 

 1987 Shore Protection Alternatives (Moffatt & Nichol) 

 1989 Study of Wallops Island Seawall Repair Alternatives Phase B (Moffatt & Nichol) 

 1992 Wallops Island Shoreline Evolution Modeling Study (Moffatt & Nichol) 

 1998 Wallops Island Seawall Study (Moffatt & Nichol) 

 1999 USACE Engineering Research and Development Center and USACE, Norfolk 

District investigation 

 2006 Beach Erosion Mitigation and Sediment Management Alternatives at Wallops 

Island, VA (USACE) 

 2007–2009 USACE, Norfolk District, evaluation of potential SRIPP alternatives 

 2010 Storm Damage Reduction Project Design Report for Wallops Island, Virginia 

(USACE Research and Development Center and USACE Norfolk District; Appendix A 

of this PEIS) 

The 2006 report evaluated four levels of shore protection scenarios: 1) no project, 2) no new 

project but continued minor maintenance to existing seawall, 3) project with restricted initial 

construction budget (primarily beach fill), and 4) optimum project (sand retention structures 

combined with beach fill). 

Based on the recommendations in the 2006 report, the USACE further evaluated existing 

conditions at Wallops Island and provided a range of alternatives considered technically and 

economically feasible. This range of initial alternatives was screened to determine which would 

be carried forward. The alternatives that passed the initial screening—extension of the seawall, 

beach fill only, or beach fill combined with sand retention structures (groin or breakwater)—

were then evaluated by USACE in more detail. A variety of detailed options for implementing 

beach fill and sand retention structures were then combined, resulting in 54 different potential 

alternatives, all of which included extension of the seawall. From these 54 alternatives, NASA 

and the USACE conducted a secondary screening analysis that resulted in the final three 

Proposed Action Alternatives carried forward for a full evaluation in this PEIS. 

2.1 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ACTION 

NASA’s Proposed Action is intended to use a multi-tiered approach to reduce damages to 

Wallops Island facilities from ongoing beach erosion and storm waves incurred during normal 

coastal storms and nor’easters. NASA would initiate a 50-year program with an initial 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

20 

construction phase and subsequent renourishment/maintenance cycles that would be determined 

through monitoring and adaptive management. 

The goal of the Proposed Action is to move the zone of breaking waves well away from 

vulnerable infrastructure. This plan is not intended to protect against inundation and other 

impacts during major hurricanes and exceptional nor’easters, when water levels can rise several 

meters/feet. The SRIPP is also not intended to protect infrastructure from flooding, which occurs 

both from the estuaries west of Wallops Island and from waves overtopping the existing beach 

and seawall. Since it began its operations on Wallops Island in the mid-1940s, NASA and its 

tenants have implemented flood damage reduction measures such as elevating critical structures 

above Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood levels (3.6 m [11 ft] above mean 

sea level [amsl]) and not storing equipment or materials on first floors that are not elevated or 

otherwise protected. Under all of the alternatives considered in this PEIS, NASA would continue 

to implement such mitigation measures as necessary to provide storm damage reduction from 

flooding. 

A project’s design life is most commonly selected on the basis of project costs and cost 

effectiveness. The Handbook of Coastal Engineering (Herbich, 2000), which was utilized by the 

USACE in the design methodology of the SRIPP, was the basis for establishing the 50-year 

project design life. The 50-year project life cycle is employed by the USACE when designing 

projects that protect infrastructure against wave-induced damages. The life cycle analysis 

requires that projects be analyzed in terms of cost of repair, periodic replacements, and 

rehabilitation (Herbich, 2000). Large coastal engineering projects are often designed based on an 

optimized approach in which a balance is obtained between initial construction costs and the 

maintenance costs associated with storm-induced damages. 

Because the SRIPP encompasses a 50-year planning horizon, effectiveness of storm damage 

reduction measures would be evaluated on a regular basis through a monitoring program. 

Monitoring would assess shoreline changes and the level of storm damage reduction provided by 

the SRIPP. A monitoring program of the shoreline would include both beach and nearshore 

surveys to assess shoreline changes. Pre- and post-dredging surveys would be conducted at the 

borrow site(s) to assess morphological changes of the shoals. The monitoring results would be 

reviewed and the project planning modified as needed for the SRIPP to remain effective in 

reducing storm damages to Wallops Island infrastructure. In addition, the monitoring plan itself 

would be modified as needed (i.e., frequency of surveys) to provide adequate information to 

make informed decisions. 

NASA, as with all Federal agencies, is subject to appropriations from Congress, so there is no 

guarantee that the project would be continually funded over the 50-year planning horizon. 

However, for its 2012 construction of facilities budget, the SRIPP was NASA’s highest priority 

project. Given this commitment, and the growing need for WFF to assume a larger role in 

enabling NASA’s mission, the agency would continue to advocate for long-term project funding. 

If funding for future SRIPP actions was not available, NASA would re-evaluate existing 

conditions and determine appropriate actions at that time. 

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The Proposed Action is to implement a 50-year program to allow NASA and its partners to 

continue to safely utilize Wallops Island and complete their missions with a reduced threat of 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 21 

storm-related loss of facilities. NASA considered a range of alternatives to meet the purpose and 

need; each of the alternatives listed below is discussed in this section. 

 Relocating At-Risk Infrastructure 

 Seawall Extension Only 

 Sand Dunes With Various Cores 

 Beach Fill Only 

 Beach Fill and Seawall Extension 

 Beach Fill, Seawall Extension, and Sand Retention Structures 

 No Action 

2.2.1 Relocating At-Risk Infrastructure 

This alternative would involve moving critical infrastructure on Wallops Island (including 

launch pads) farther inland to a nearby location less susceptible to storm damage. This 

alternative included an evaluation of the existing conditions including an inventory and 

assessment of the functions of Wallops Island facilities, safety considerations, interrelationship 

among Wallops Island, Wallops Mainland, and Main Base facilities, and multiple mission 

support with the existing facilities layout. Then NASA evaluated the same criteria based on a 

hypothetical move of Wallops Island’s orbital launch pads to Wallops Mainland, approximately 

3.5 kilometers (km) (2.2 miles [mi]) west of their current location. The analysis is described 

below. 

2.2.1.1 Existing Conditions 

Reason for Location of Facilities at Wallops Island 

WFF’s geographic location has been a critical factor in its continued ability to safely and 

successfully conduct science, technology, and educational flight projects aboard rockets, 

balloons, and UAS, using the Atlantic Ocean for operations on almost a daily basis. WFF’s 

location immediately on the Atlantic Ocean, its controlled airspace above it, and its direct access 

to the Department of Defense-managed Virginia Capes (VACAPES) Operating Area (OPAREA) 

provide a unique ability for WFF to perform all aspects of its mission (e.g., testing unproven 

flight vehicles, handling explosive and toxic materials, etc.) that could not be done elsewhere. 

As Wallops Island is the WFF landmass farthest away from the general public, it is also the 

safest part of WFF for hazardous operations. NASA’s primary concern is limiting the risk of 

harm to private property, its employees, and the general public resulting from hazardous 

operations. Regarding public safety, one concept prevails: the farther the hazardous activity is 

from the general public, the smaller the risk of harm. NASA’s safety policy is that such activities 

must be conducted as far away from the public as possible. 

Safety Considerations 

When a rocket is being prepared for launch, it possesses certain hazards based upon the types 

and quantities of explosive charges and propellants onboard. To ensure employee and public 

safety, an off-limits area is established as a radius around the pad. Only specially trained, 

mission-essential personnel are allowed within this off-limits area once established. This area is 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

22 

commonly referred to as the Pre-Launch Danger Area (PLDA), and can range from several 

hundred feet for small weather rockets to more than 380 meters (m) (1,250 feet [ft]) for larger 

orbital rockets. A PLDA can be in effect as long as the hazard exists on the launch pad, but is 

typically established for several weeks preceding the launch. 

Several hours prior to launch, a Launch Hazard Area (LHA) is established. The purpose of the 

LHA is to protect the general public from direct harm from the launch (i.e., debris from a rocket 

flying off course). These areas are sized based on the types and quantities of propellant onboard, 

rocket reliability, flight trajectory, and types of debris expected if the flight were terminated. The 

LHAs are considerably larger than PLDAs (Figure 5). LHAs can range in size from 380 m 

(1,250 ft) for small sounding rockets up to more than 3,050 m (10,000 ft) for larger orbital 

rockets. LHAs must be clear of people prior to launch; this is part of the go/no-go criteria during 

a launch countdown. The LHA typically requires evacuation several hours prior to launch until 

liftoff. Recent orbital launches have had several postponements when conditions do not permit a 

launch at the originally scheduled time. Postponed launches would require hazard area clearance 

at the next launch window until either the launch is completed or completely rescheduled. 

In addition to the hazards presented by explosion or debris, other safety considerations include 

distance focused overpressure (DFO) and toxic materials dispersion. DFO is a term that refers to 

acoustical energy transferred through the atmosphere that would result from a rocket explosion, 

the primary hazard being injuries inflicted by shattered windows. Toxics include a variety of 

hazardous materials that could be transported through the atmosphere from either a normal or 

terminated flight, and may include rocket exhaust products such as hydrogen chloride and carbon 

monoxide (CO), or propellants such as hydrazines and oxides of nitrogen. The effects of DFO 

and toxic materials cannot be contained within a certain pre-defined hazard area as they are 

dictated by atmospheric conditions. As such, the effects of these hazards are analyzed real-time 

during launch countdown using industry accepted computer models. As the extent of potential 

hazards could change with the weather, the areas requiring clearance are also subject to change. 

To ensure maximum operational flexibility while also upholding NASA’s rigorous safety 

standards during variable weather conditions, one concept prevails: the farther the hazardous 

activity is from the general public, the smaller the risk of harm. It is standing NASA safety 

policy that such activities must be conducted as absolutely far away from the public as possible. 

Figure 5 shows the current conditions and safety buffers including the PLDA, referred to as the 

“Pre-Launch Evacuation” on the figure. Under current conditions, assuming an LHA of 3,050 m 

(10,000 ft), two addresses would require evacuation prior to launching a large orbital rocket, 

such as Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Minotaur V. Approximately 75 hectares (ha) (186 acres 

[ac]) of private lands are within the LHA, and 2,710 ha (6,700 ac) of uninhabited wetland buffer 

remains between Wallops Island and mainland residences. 

Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

24 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 25 

Interrelationship among Facilities 

In addition to safety considerations, facilities on Wallops Island have been sited to properly 

interface with facilities on WFF’s Mainland and Main Base landmasses, and to support the 

necessary steps in preparing and launching a rocket. For example, Wallops Mainland 

infrastructure consists primarily of radar and telemetry systems that are sited specifically to be 

able to track and process information from rockets launched from Wallops Island. Main Base 

assets that support Wallops Island operations include the range control center and additional 

radar and telemetry systems. The location of Wallops Island infrastructure is directly linked to 

the placement of these range support assets; movement of Wallops Island infrastructure would 

result in the need to move these facilities as well. 

Multiple Mission Support 

The geographic locations of the facilities on Wallops Island allow them to support multiple 

launch operations at once. For example, hazardous storage facilities are located such that their 

location does not preclude fueling or processing and assembly. Fueling facilities are located such 

that operations on Wallops Island may continue while a fueling operation is taking place. Rocket 

launch pads are sited far enough apart to allow simultaneous pre-launch work to occur on 

multiple pads. To meet the required safety offsets, these facilities must be appropriately distant 

from one another. To meet both safety and mission needs, the assets on Wallops Island must 

remain in their same general configuration. When evaluating suitable launch sites to the west of 

Wallops Island, NASA considered these needs as firm requirements for continued ability to 

successfully carry out its mission. 

Toxics Dispersion Hazards 

NASA recently conducted a toxic dispersion hazards analysis for its Launch Range Expansion 

EA (NASA, 2009a)—this analysis is applicable to a facility relocation assessment because it can 

portray the potential effects of moving a current Wallops Island-based fueling facility to a 

different location. The WFF Range Safety Office predicted hazard areas ranging from 0.38 km 

(0.24 mi) to 1.47 km (0.91 mi) for a small release of toxics and up to 2.1 km (1.3 mi) to 5.1 km 

(3.2 mi) for a large release of toxics. Assuming a small release occurred within existing 

spacecraft fueling facilities on the north end Wallops Island, no addresses would be affected. 

Under worst-case existing conditions, a large release could affect up to 67 addresses. 

2.2.1.2 Hypothetical Facility Relocation 

Figure 6 shows a hypothetical scenario with the launch pads and support facilities moved to 

Wallops Mainland. To maintain the same general size and layout of the current facilities, 166 

addresses would be displaced. Of these addresses, 26 would be within a hazardous storage and 

operational buffer. Eighty-seven addresses would be within a 3,050 m (10,000 ft) LHA and 

would require evacuation as part of go/no go criteria for a Minotaur V-type launch. 1,815 ha 

(4,480 ac) of private land would also be within the LHA, and 645 addresses would be within an 

area of equivalent size as the current unpopulated natural wetland buffer between Wallops Island 

and Mainland. 

If the same small release of toxics described above under existing conditions occurred at a 

hypothetical fueling facility on Wallops Mainland, 24 addresses could be affected. Additionally, 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

26 

a large release at the hypothetical location could result in up to 770 addresses potentially 

requiring evacuation or shelter if it occurred on Wallops Mainland. 

2.2.2 Seawall Extension Only 

Under this alternative, the seawall extension would be constructed on the beach parallel to the 

shoreline in the approximate location of the geotextile tubes shown on Figure 3. The new seawall 

would be constructed landward of the shoreline and would extend a minimum of 400 m (1,300 

ft) up to a maximum of 1,400 m (4,600 ft) south of the existing seawall. The southern end of the 

1,400 m (4,600 ft) extension would be at camera stand Z-100 (see Figure 4 for location of Z100). The seawall extension would be constructed in this location because the infrastructure on 

this part of Wallops Island is relatively close to the shoreline and there are no long-term storm 

damage reduction measures currently in place. 

The seawall extension would consist of the placement of 4.5- to 6.4-metric-tonne (mt) (5- to 7-

ton) rocks and would be constructed on a 1 to 1.5 slope. It would be placed in the beach, and the 

top of the seawall would be approximately 5 m (14 ft) above the normal high-tide water level 

after completion, depending on the extent of existing shoreline retreat at that time. The seawall 

would be designed to survive a 100-year storm event. 

2.2.3 Sand Dunes with Various Cores 

Under this alternative, NASA would create vegetated sand dunes with one of the following 

cores: rock core, semi-rigid geotextiles filled with rock or sand, or geotextile tubes filled with 

sand. The core would help stabilize and strengthen the dunes during larger than normal storm 

events. The sand dunes would be constructed parallel to the shoreline in the area of the existing 

seawall, and would utilize the existing seawall as a core material. Additionally, the sand dunes 

with various cores would be constructed on the beach parallel to the shoreline in the approximate 

location of geotextile tubes in Figure 3. The constructed dunes would extend 1,400 m (4,600 ft) 

from the southern end of the existing seawall. 

2.2.4 Beach Fill Only 

Beach fill (also referred to as beach nourishment) would involve removing sand from either 

upland, nearshore, or offshore borrow sites and placing the material onto the beach. Beaches 

serve as a natural function of the floodplain, allowing flood tides to spread over a large area to 

provide water storage and reduce wind and wave velocity impact to areas beyond the beach. 

Currently, there is no beach in front of the existing seawall along 4.6 km (2.9 mi) of the Wallops 

Island shoreline. Creating a beach would provide a shallow water surface for storm waves to 

break upon, thus reducing wave energy at the seawall (USACE, 2010a). 

Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

28 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 29 

Initial nourishment would occur, followed by periodic renourishment of sand as the beach 

erodes. The timing of the renourishment cycles would vary depending on the frequency and 

magnitude of storm events. The beach fill would be designed to withstand a 30-year storm event. 

During storm events, a portion of the new beach would provide a surface to dissipate wave 

energy as well as add sediment to the nearshore system. This design would allow the existing 

beach and shoreline to remain relatively protected in larger storm events while the new beach fill 

is sacrificed. The beach fill would start approximately 460 m (1,500 ft) north of the Wallops 

Island-Assawoman Island property boundary (near camera stand Z-100 shown on Figure 4) and 

extend north for 6.0 km (3.7 mi). 

2.2.5 Beach Fill and Seawall Extension 

This alternative would be a combination of the beach fill and seawall extension alternatives 

described above. This alternative would provide a multi-tiered defense against storm damage. 

The beach fill would provide the majority of protection against smaller, more common storms. 

The rock seawall would provide wave damage reduction against the largest storms expected over 

the lifetime of the project. The seawall would reduce potential wave heights; however, flooding 

would still result in minor damages to infrastructure from both water overtopping the seawall and 

from the marsh/wetland areas on west side of Wallops Island. 

2.2.6 Beach Fill, Seawall Extension and Sand Retention Structures 

This alternative would be a combination of the beach fill and seawall extension alternative 

described above, with the addition of sand retention structures. Beach fill could be combined 

with one or more sand retention structures. The USACE 2006 report concluded that the optimal 

“engineering solution that would mitigate the ongoing erosion and loss of sand from Wallops 

Island and protect against the disruption to operations and potential damage to infrastructure 

caused by ordinary storms and northeasters” is implementation of beach fill along with sand 

retention structures. The 2006 report stated, “The purpose of the sand-retention structures is to 

provide additional reduction of damages from storm waves and reduce the volumes of sand 

needed for maintenance renourishing compared to placing fill alone” (USACE, 2006). Sand 

retention structure options are described below. 

Groins 

Groins are structures built from the shoreline out into the ocean and perpendicular to the beach. 

A groin functions by slowing the littoral currents to a point where suspended sediment drops out 

of the water column and accumulates on the updrift side of the structure (Figure 7). Groin 

structures would be semi-permanent in nature and could be removed if necessary. 

The installation of groins can temporarily interrupt longshore transport patterns, and may lead to 

some shoreline erosion on the downdrift beach. The extent of the erosion depends on the 

geometry of the groin field and the local longshore transport rates. Eventually, the groin field 

will saturate with sand and the previous transport rates will be recovered and the downdrift beach 

will stop eroding. Renourishing the beach in conjunction with a groin or groin field can reduce 

the potential for downdrift erosion. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

30 

Source: USACE, 2006 

Figure 7: Example Groin Placement and Effect on the Shoreline 

Breakwaters 

Breakwaters are typically constructed parallel to the shoreline and placed a short distance 

offshore. Breakwaters can either stand alone or be constructed in a series. Nearshore breakwaters 

reduce the amount of wave energy reaching a protected area. The reduction in wave energy 

would produce sediment deposition and a shoreline bulge, known as a salient, in the sheltered 

area behind each breakwater (Figure 8). A reduced amount of longshore sediment transport 

would occur along the coast behind these breakwaters (Basco, 2006). The breakwaters would be 

permanent structures because future removal would be impractical and cost prohibitive. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 31 

Source: USACE, 2006 

Figure 8: Example Breakwater Placement and Effect on the Shoreline 

Beach Prisms/Beach Beams 

This option involves placing pre-cast concrete triangular beach prisms or triangular open-lattice 

beach berms along the Wallops Island shoreline. In 1988, NASA and the U.S. Navy installed two 

proprietary structures designed to serve as sills to retain sand on the shore. These were the 

“Beach Prism,” a precast concrete triangular prism, and the “Beach Beam,” a concrete triangularshape open lattice, shown in Photos 4 and 5, respectively. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

32 

Photo 4: Experimental “Beach Prism” sand retention units moved out of alignment during 

an April 1988 storm on Wallops Island 

Photo 5: “Beach Beam” units partially sunken into seabed during an April 1988 storm on 

Wallops Island 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 33 

2.2.7 No Action 

CEQ regulations require that an agency “include the alternative of no action” as one of the 

alternatives it considers (40 CFR 1502.14[d]). The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline 

against which the impacts of the Proposed Action are compared. Under the No Action 

Alternative for this PEIS, the SRIPP would not be conducted on Wallops Island, but maintenance 

and emergency repairs to existing structures would continue. Maintenance activities include 

repairs to the existing seawall and geotextile tubes. Emergency actions may include hauling in 

additional rock to add to the existing seawall, hauling and placing sand on the beach or behind 

existing shoreline protection, installing sheet piling in or near the high tide level, or emergency 

geotextile tube installation. Under this alternative, the seawall can be expected to continue to 

deteriorate and would be increasingly vulnerable to massive failure during large storm events as 

waves break directly on the structure and also undercut the leading edge of the seawall. 

Over $1 billion in NASA, U.S. Navy, and MARS equipment, buildings, and infrastructure would 

continue to be at increasing risk from storm damage. Maintenance and emergency repairs to 

structures and the seawall would continue to be required. Shoreline retreat would continue. 

Operations at facilities may be disrupted during severe storm events from waves overtopping the 

seawall and flooding. The danger to the MARS launch complex and UAS airstrip on the southern 

portion of the island would increase due to the rapidly retreating shoreline in that area. 

2.3 INITIAL SCREENING OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

2.3.1 Screening Criteria 

Below are the five criteria used to screen the initial alternatives carried forward as reasonable 

and feasible: 

Disruption to WFF Operations 

This factor evaluates the potential disruption to operations at WFF due to implementation of the 

alternative. Disruption to WFF operations is categorized as follows: 

 Low – little to no interruptions in daily activities and/or missions at Wallops Island 

facilities 

 Moderate – minor disruptions during emergency repairs or construction; may cause brief 

(hours to days) delays or interruptions in daily activities and/or missions at Wallops 

Island facilities 

 High – would cause severe (several days to weeks or longer) interruptions in daily 

activities and/or missions at Wallops Island facilities; may cause unacceptable delays in 

missions 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

34 

Storm Damage Reduction 

The anticipated level of storm damage reduction is a measure of the protection to critical 

infrastructure provided by the alternative from storm-generated waves. Categories for anticipated 

level of storm damage reduction are identified as: 

 Low – provides protection from 10-year storm event or smaller

 Moderate – provides protection between 10-year and 50-year storm event 

 High – provides protection above the 50-year storm event 

Note that the beach-fill-only alternatives are designed to provide storm damage reduction up to a 

30-year storm event, and the beach fill with the seawall is designed to provide storm damage 

reduction up to a 100-year storm event. 

Initial Cost 

The anticipated level of storm damage reduction drove the alternative designs and their 

respective costs; the higher the anticipated level of storm damage reduction, typically the greater 

the cost. Costs of the initial construction of the alternatives developed by the USACE can be 

categorized as follows: 

 Low – less than $30 million 

 Moderate – between $30 million and $40 million 

 High – greater than $40 million 

Maintenance Costs 

This criterion involves the cost driven by the annual maintenance requirements of each 

alternative. Maintenance could include frequent renourishment of sand or replacement of rock 

for the sand retention structures or seawall as needed to retain an adequate level of storm damage 

reduction. 

 Low – less than $500,000 

 Moderate – between $500,000 and $1,000,000 

 High – greater than $1,000,000 

Anticipated Change in Sand Availability for Longshore Transport 

This criterion includes an evaluation of the effect of the alternative on longshore sediment 

transport as well as impacts on the overall sand supply made available to the system. 

 Negative – would reduce sand available to longshore sediment transport system 

 Neutral – would not alter current longshore sediment transport rates 

 Positive – would increase sand available to longshore sediment transport system 

2.3.2 Screening Results 

Table 1 below shows the results of the screening analysis for the alternatives carried forward. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 35 

Table 1: Initial Screening Analysis of the Alternatives 

Alternative 

Disruption to 

WFF 

Operations 

Initial 

Cost 

Annual 

Maintenance 

Costs 

Anticipated 

Level of Storm 

Damage 

Reduction 

Anticipated 

Change in 

Sand 

Availability 

for 

Longshore 

Transport 

Relocation of At-Risk 

Infrastructure High High Low High Neutral 

Seawall Extension Moderate Moderate Low Low Negative 

Sand Dunes with 

Various Cores Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Positive 

Beach Fill Moderate Moderate 

to High 

Moderate to 

High 

Moderate to 

High Positive 

Beach Fill and 

Seawall Extension Moderate Moderate to High 

Moderate to 

High High Positive 

Beach Fill, Seawall 

Extension and Sand 

Retention Structures 

Moderate Moderate 

to High 

Moderate to 

High High Positive 

No Action High Low Low Low Negative 

2.3.3 Alternatives Eliminated After Initial Screening 

Based on the results of the screening analysis, the following alternatives were dismissed from 

further consideration. The following discussion explains why each alternative was dismissed. 

2.3.3.1 Relocating At-Risk Infrastructure 

Figure 6 shows the residences that would be affected if the Wallops Island launch range and the 

spacecraft fueling facility were moved to Wallops Mainland. While this alternative would reduce 

the risk to critical infrastructure from storm events, the public would be exposed to greater safety 

risks, which is absolutely unacceptable to NASA and its partners. In addition, relocating Wallops 

Island facilities would severely restrict NASA’s ability to conduct its mission. 

The LHA typically requires evacuation several hours prior to launch until liftoff. Recent orbital 

launches have had several attempts where conditions do not permit a launch at that time; 

rescheduled launches would require hazard area clearance at the next launch window until either 

the launch is completed or rescheduled again. Requiring large numbers of people to evacuate 

their homes for an unpredictable amount of time is not only impractical and unacceptably 

disruptive to WFF neighbors, it would severely restrict WFF’s continued ability to conduct its 

low cost, fast turnaround operations. Therefore relocation of launch pads and support facilities to 

a western location on Wallops Mainland was dismissed as not feasible. 

Based upon the potential impacts to both WFF and the general public under the hypothetical 

scenarios of moving Wallops Island facilities inland, Wallops Main Base was dismissed as a 

possible launch site as it would likely require evacuation of all of the Town of Chincoteague, 

would completely shut down the Route 175 causeway to Chincoteague Island, and would likely 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

36 

require a complete evacuation of the WFF Main Base, which currently serves in a variety of 

launch support roles during an active launch countdown. Moving Wallops Island facilities to 

Wallops Main Base could result in potential impacts that would substantially alter WFF’s ability 

to conducts its pre-launch operations and would place the general public at an unacceptable level 

of risk. For these reasons, use of Wallops Main Base as a launch site was dismissed as not 

feasible. 

NASA also examined the possibility of acquiring mainland property west of Wallops Island from 

private landowners for the purpose of relocating Wallops Island facilities. However, this 

alternative would face the same potential impacts as relocating the infrastructure to Wallops 

Mainland—creating unacceptable public safety risks and/or severely constraining mission 

operations. Therefore, privately owned lands west of Wallops Island were dismissed from further 

consideration. 

To determine if suitable easterly sites are available along the Eastern Shores of Maryland and 

Virginia, NASA investigated the potential for upland sites with the same approximate longitude 

of Wallops Island within the region. All properties at least as distant from populated areas on the 

Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia include Virginia’s 11 other barrier islands, all of which 

are publicly or privately owned for conservation purposes, and would require substantial 

infrastructure development while still being susceptible to the same storm damage risks that 

Wallops Island has faced throughout its history. 

For the reasons stated above, NASA determined that alternatives to move at-risk infrastructure 

are not feasible and these alternatives are not evaluated further in this PEIS. 

2.3.3.2 Seawall Extension Only 

The existing seawall is being undermined by wave action and has partially fallen into the ocean; 

this erosion process of the sediment underneath the seawall will continue if sand is not placed in 

front of the seawall. Because the Seawall Extension Only alternative does not include beach fill, 

it would not provide adequate long-term storm damage reduction to the shoreline on Wallops 

Island. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from further consideration. 

2.3.3.3 Sand Dunes with Various Cores Only 

The construction of sand dunes with various cores without beach fill would not involve adding 

sand to the beach and thus would not provide adequate storm damage reduction. Construction of 

sand dunes without beach in front of them would expose the dunes to wave action and they 

would be undermined by erosion processes, as evidenced by the existing seawall. Because the 

Sand Dunes with Various Cores Only alternative does not include beach fill, it would not provide 

adequate long-term storm damage reduction on Wallops Island. Therefore, this alternative does 

not meet the purpose and need of the SRIPP to protect critical infrastructure on Wallops Island 

and was dismissed from further consideration. 

2.3.3.4 Types of Sand Retention Structures 

The use of beach prisms or beach beams as a type of sand retention structure was dismissed from 

further consideration because, although these structures would provide some damage reduction 

during normal storm events, they both tend to be knocked over and sink during larger than 

normal storm events. After the installation of beach beams and beach prisms at WFF in 1988, the 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 37 

shore was monitored by Moffatt & Nichol, Inc., who concluded, “The Beach Beams and Beach 

Prisms have been only marginally successful. Therefore, their continued use to protect critically 

needed facilities at Wallops Island is not advised” (Moffatt & Nichol, 1989). Because this 

alternative is likely to fail during even modest storm events, conditions under this alternative 

would be no different from the existing conditions on the island and critical infrastructure would 

remain at risk; therefore, this alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the project and 

was dismissed from further consideration. 

2.3.3.5 Beach Fill Only 

This alternative would provide additional damage reduction to the shoreline in front of the 

existing seawall, reducing the potential for damages to the critical infrastructure on Wallops 

Island. However, the absence of a seawall extension to the south would leave other valuable 

infrastructure at risk from 100-year storm events. Therefore, the beach fill only alternative 

without extension of the seawall did not pass the initial screening and was dismissed from further 

consideration.

2.4 SECONDARY SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES 

The alternatives that passed the initial screening—extension of the seawall combined with beach 

fill or extension of the seawall combined with beach fill and sand retention structure (either groin 

or breakwater)—were evaluated by USACE in more detail. 

2.4.1 Detailed Options within Alternatives Carried Forward 

A variety of detailed options for implementing beach fill, the groin, and the breakwater was 

evaluated to determine which combination would provide the maximum level of storm damage 

reduction within available funding (Table 2). 

Table 2: Summary of Options for Components Carried Forward 

Component Options 

Width of berm1 on beach 9 m (30 ft), 21 m (70 ft), 30 m (100 ft) 

Length of beach fill Reduced (3.0 km [1.9 mi]) or Long (6.0 km [3.7 mi]) 

Location of Breakwater No Breakwater, South Wallops Island, South Wallops Island with 

Groin at North End 

Location of Groin No Groin, North Wallops Island with Breakwater at South End, South 

Wallops Island, or Both North and South Wallops Island 

Renourishment Frequency 3-year cycle, 5-year cycle, 7-year cycle 

Seawall Extension Common to all Alternative Combinations 

1

Berm refers to the portion of the beach fill that is the minimum amount needed to provide defense from storm 

damage. 

The above options for implementing beach fill and sand retention structures were combined and 

resulted in 54 different potential alternatives. At this point, the USACE determined that all 

alternatives should include an approximately 460-m (1,500-ft) extension of the seawall to 

provide an adequate level of storm damage reduction to the most critical assets on the south end 

of Wallops Island. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

38 

An estimate of the initial and renourishment fill requirements was calculated for each of the 

alternatives. A reduced fill refers to the placement of fill along only 3.0 km (1.9 mi) of the 

southern portion of project. A long fill refers to the placement of fill along the entire length of 

the project (6.0 km [3.7 mi]). In addition, a planning-level cost estimate was generated for each 

of the 54 combinations (Table 3). The alternatives presented in Table 3 were developed before 

detailed design information was available; therefore, fill volumes presented in the table do not 

correspond with exact fill volumes presented under the Proposed Action Alternatives evaluated 

in detail in this PEIS. 

2.4.2 Secondary Screening Results 

Secondary screening was conducted on the 54 alternatives in Table 3 as described on Figure 9 

below. Screening criteria included level of storm damage reduction, initial cost, and maintenance 

cost. After secondary screening was conducted, the following components were eliminated from 

further analysis because they did not provide an acceptable level of storm damage reduction: 

9-m (30-ft) beach berm (total width of the aboveground beach fill) and reduced beach fill 

(Alternatives 1-30, 37–39, and 46–48 from Table 3). Additionally, after secondary screening was 

conducted the following components were eliminated from further analysis because of costs: 

30-m (100-ft) beach berm, multiple sand retention structures, and the 3-year and 7-year 

renourishment cycles (Alternatives 31, 33–36, 40, 42–45, and 49–54 from Table 3). The seawall 

extension remained a component of each alternative. 

Figure 9 below shows the results of the secondary screening analysis for the 54 combinations of 

alternatives. This screening analysis resulted in the final three alternatives (Alternatives 32, 41, 

and 50 from Table 3) carried forward for detailed analysis in this PEIS. 
Description and Compari

Table 3: Analysis of the 54 Potential Alternatives 

Alternative No. of Groins 

No. 

of 

Breakwaters 

Total 

Initial Fill 

(yd3 ) 

Total 

Initial Fill

(m3) 

Total Initial 

Cost1

Total 

Renourishment 

Volume 

Per Cycle (yds) 

Total 

Renourishment 

Volume 

Per Cycle (m3) 

1 B030S_HS00_Y3 0 0 1,416,770 1,083,198 $21,668,000 389,366 297,692 2 B030S_HS00_Y5 0 0 1,755,807 1,342,411 $25,059,000 813,163 621,708 3 B030S_HS00_Y7 0 0 2,094,845 1,601,624 $28,449,000 1,208,707 924,123 4 B070S_HS00_Y3 0 0 2,010,601 1,537,215 $27,606,000 474,126 362,495 5 B070S_HS00_Y5 0 0 2,377,891 1,818,028 $31,279,000 897,922 686,511 6 B070S_HS00_Y7 0 0 2,745,181 2,098,841 $34,952,000 1,321,719 1,010,527 7 B100S_HS00_Y3 0 0 2,072,491 1,584,533 $28,225,000 445,873 340,894 8 B100S_HS00_Y5 0 0 2,637,553 2,016,554 $33,876,000 897,922 686,511 9 B100S_HS00_Y7 0 0 3,174,362 2,426,974 $39,244,000 1,349,972 1,032,128 

10 B030S_HS11_Y3 2 0 1,218,998 931,991 $21,190,000 276,354 211,288 11 B030S_HS11_Y5 2 0 1,445,023 1,104,799 $23,451,000 558,885 427,298 12 B030S_HS11_Y7 2 0 1,671,048 1,277,608 $25,711,000 841,416 643,309 13 B070S_HS11_Y3 2 0 1,756,323 1,342,805 $26,563,000 304,607 232,889 14 B070S_HS11_Y5 2 0 2,038,854 1,558,816 $29,388,000 615,391 470,500 15 B070S_HS11_Y7 2 0 2,321,385 1,774,826 $32,214,000 926,176 708,112 16 B100S_HS11_Y3 2 0 1,874,719 1,433,326 $27,747,000 219,848 168,086 17 B100S_HS11_Y5 2 0 2,270,262 1,735,740 $31,703,000 643,644 492,101 18 B100S_HS11_Y7 2 0 2,637,553 2,016,554 $35,376,000 1,039,188 794,516 19 B030S_HS12_Y3 1 1 1,190,745 910,390 $27,158,000 248,101 189,687 20 B030S_HS12_Y5 1 1 1,388,517 1,061,597 $29,136,000 445,873 340,894 21 B030S_HS12_Y7 1 1 1,586,289 1,212,805 $31,113,000 700,151 535,304 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

40 

Alternative No. of Groins 

No. 

of 

Breakwaters 

Total 

Initial Fill 

(yd3 ) 

Total 

Initial Fill

(m3) 

Total Initial 

Cost1

Total 

Renourishment 

Volume 

Per Cycle (yds) 

Total 

Renourishment 

Volume 

Per Cycle (m3) 

22 B070S_HS12_Y3 1 1 1,699,816 1,299,603 $32,248,000 248,101 189,687 23 B070S_HS12_Y5 1 1 1,954,094 1,494,012 $34,791,000 530,632 405,697 24 B070S_HS12_Y7 1 1 2,208,372 1,688,422 $37,334,000 756,657 578,506 25 B100S_HS12_Y3 1 1 1,846,466 1,411,725 $33,715,000 191,595 146,485 26 B100S_HS12_Y5 1 1 2,213,756 1,692,538 $37,388,000 587,138 448,899 27 B100S_HS12_Y7 1 1 2,524,540 1,930,149 $40,496,000 841,416 643,309 28 B030L_HS00_Y3 0 0 1,715,675 1,311,728 $24,657,000 242,684 185,545 29 B030L_HS00_Y5 0 0 2,064,684 1,578,564 $28,147,000 514,136 393,085 30 B030L_HS00_Y7 0 0 2,374,914 1,815,752 $31,250,000 785,587 600,624 31 B070L_HS00_Y3 0 0 2,466,265 1,885,595 $32,162,000 359,021 274,491 32 B070L_HS00_Y52 0 0 2,854,053 2,182,080 $36,040,000 397,799 304,139 33 B070L_HS00_Y7 0 0 3,241,841 2,478,565 $39,918,000 397,799 304,139 34 B100L_HS00_Y3 0 0 2,865,001 2,190,450 $36,150,000 397,799 304,139 35 B100L_HS00_Y5 0 0 3,252,789 2,486,936 $40,028,000 630,472 482,030 36 B100L_HS00_Y7 0 0 3,640,577 2,783,421 $43,906,000 824,366 630,273 37 B030L_HS01_Y3 1 0 1,560,560 1,193,134 $23,856,000 203,906 155,897 38 B030L_HS01_Y5 1 0 1,793,232 1,371,024 $26,183,000 397,799 304,139 39 B030L_HS01_Y7 1 0 1,987,126 1,519,267 $28,122,000 552,915 422,734 40 B070L_HS01_Y3 1 0 2,311,150 1,767,001 $31,361,000 281,463 215,194 41 B070L_HS01_Y52 1 0 2,582,601 1,974,540 $34,076,000 320,242 244,843 42 B070L_HS01_Y7 1 0 2,815,274 2,152,431 $36,402,000 320,242 244,843 43 B100L_HS01_Y3 1 0 2,671,107 2,042,208 $34,961,000 320,242 320,242 44 B100L_HS01_Y5 1 0 2,942,559 2,249,748 $37,675,000 475,357 363,437 
Description and Compari

Alternative No. of Groins 

No. 

of 

Breakwaters 

Total 

Initial Fill 

(yd3 ) 

Total 

Initial Fill

(m3) 

Total Initial 

Cost1

Total 

Renourishment 

Volume 

Per Cycle (yds) 

Total 

Renourishment 

Volume 

Per Cycle (m3) 

45 B100L_HS01_Y7 1 0 3,175,231 2,427,638 $40,002,000 591,693 542,382 46 B030L_HS02_Y3 0 1 1,521,781 1,163,485 $29,718,000 203,906 155,897 47 B030L_HS02_Y5 0 1 1,754,454 1,341,376 $32,045,000 359,021 274,491 48 B030L_HS02_Y7 0 1 1,909,569 1,459,970 $33,596,000 475,357 363,437 49 B070L_HS02_Y3 0 1 2,272,371 1,737,352 $37,223,000 242,684 185,545 50 B070L_HS02_Y52 0 1 2,505,044 1,915,244 $39,550,000 281,463 215,194 51 B070L_HS02_Y7 0 1 2,737,716 2,093,134 $41,877,000 281,463 215,194 52 B100L_HS02_Y3 0 1 2,632,328 2,012,559 $40,823,000 281,463 215,194 53 B100L_HS02_Y5 0 1 2,865,001 2,190,450 $43,150,000 397,799 304,139 54 B100L_HS02_Y7 0 1 3,097,674 2,368,342 $45,477,000 514,136 393,085 

1Total initial cost for all alternatives also includes $6,500,000 for construction of a 460 m (1,500 ft) seawall extension 2Rows where text is shown as bold italics are the alternatives that were carried forward in the SRIPP analysis. Alternatives Coding Legend: 

B Berm Width 

### 30, 70, or 100 feet of dry beach width following construction and period of equilibrium (the final result follow

redistribution of outer end of berm). 

S or L Short or Long project. Both projects start from the southern camera stand at a point referred to as Z 100. 

HS## 

Hard Structure followed by two digits, the first indicating the type of structure at the North end of the projectindicating the type of structure at the South end of the project. 0-No Structure 1-Groin 2-Breakwater 

Y# Renourishment Interval followed by a digit indicating the number of years (3, 5, or 7) between renourishmen
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

42 

This page intentionally left blank.
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 43 

Figure 9: Secondary Alternative Screening Process Flow 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

44 

2.4.3 Sources Considered for Beach Fill Material 

2.4.3.1 Navigation Projects 

Chincoteague Inlet 

Chincoteague Inlet was considered as a possible sediment source because it is periodically 

dredged by the USACE Norfolk District under the Federal Navigation Project and is 

immediately to the north of Wallops Island. The sediment in the inlet contains a significant 

proportion of fine-grained material (silts and clays) and is not the ideal grain size suited for 

beach fill (USACE, 2006). Because fine-grained material is more vulnerable to storm waves and 

thus suspension and transport, sediment dredged from Chincoteague Inlet would require a higher 

overfill ratio to accommodate the higher rate of loss of the fine-grained material compared to 

sand. 

The USACE Norfolk District has been dredging Chincoteague Inlet since the mid-1990s, placing 

the material in the offshore disposal site that is approximately 1,220 m (4,000 ft) offshore of 

Wallops Island (Figure 10). The disposal site covers an area approximately 305 m (1,000 ft) by 

915 m (3,000 ft). The volume of sediment dredged from Chincoteague Inlet varies annually—in 

March 2006, 53,520 m3 (70,000 yd3) was removed; in July 2007, 25,360 m3 (33,170 yd3) was 

removed; in March 2008, 48,810 m3 (63,841 yd3) was removed, and in December 2008, 29,830 

m3 (39,018 yd3) was removed. 

Figure 10: Offshore Disposal Site for Chincoteague Inlet Dredged Material 

In 2002, the USACE partnered with NASA to place dredged material from the inlet channel 

along the Wallops Island shoreline to observe the behavior of the material once placed along the 

shoreline and determine if this placement scenario could be a viable long-term solution. 

Comparison of the after-placement survey and the monitoring survey generally showed that the 

material had moved away from the seawall face and joined nearshore bars and generally diffused 

throughout the area. The cost per yard for the dredging and sand placement operations was 

$22.60—this is a very high cost compared to typical dredging and sediment disposal costs for 

Chincoteague Inlet which ranged from approximately $5 to $9 for the USACE projects between 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 45 

1995 and 2006 (USACE, 2010a). Because the mobilization and demobilization costs to dredge 

the relatively small amounts of sediment (compared to the amounts required for the SRIPP) and 

place them on the beach result in a high cost of the dredged material per yard, the process has not 

been repeated during more recent inlet dredging events and this area was removed from 

consideration as a borrow site. 

In addition to an inadequate grain size, the nearshore environment off of the northern portion of 

Wallops Island, immediately south of and including Chincoteague Inlet contains known historic 

World War II target ranges from the shoreline up to 8 km (5 mi) offshore. These historic ranges 

contain munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) that are buried in the sea bottom. 

Magnetometer surveys could be used to delineate the extent of the MEC and allow dredging in 

the area to occur but this would result in additional costs to the dredge program and the safety 

risks associated with these areas would be high. Because of the hazard potential, the areas with 

potential for MEC were removed from consideration for beach nourishment borrow sites. 

Virginia Inside Passage 

The Virginia Inside Passage, a waterway along the coast of Virginia between the mainland and 

the barrier islands, was considered as a possible sediment source because it is periodically 

dredged by the USACE and is adjacent to the west side of Wallops Island. The sediment in the 

Virginia Inside Passage contains a significant proportion of fine-grained material (silts and clays) 

and is not suitable for beach fill (Stamper, USACE, personal comm.). In addition, in order to 

obtain volumes required for SRIPP fill, the Virginia Inside Passage channels would have to be 

dredged deeper than the current dredge depths of 2.5 m (8 ft). The USACE noted that dredging 

these channels any deeper is a problem due to their proximity to the marsh islands and nearby 

oyster grounds. The deeper the channel is dredged, the farther out the side slopes would extend 

into marsh areas, causing slumping of the marsh into the dredge cut (Stamper, USACE, personal 

comm.). Therefore, this area was removed from consideration as a potential borrow site. 

2.4.3.2 Nearshore Borrow Sites East of Wallops Island 

The USACE collected sediment samples from the nearshore environment east of Wallops Island 

(out to 5.5 km [3.5 mi] from the shoreline) during a hydrographic survey in November 2006 

(Figure 11) (USACE, 2010a). During the survey, 25 transects were spaced 300 m (1,000 ft) apart 

from the shoreline out to a water depth of approximately 9 m (30 ft). Grab samples of the 

sediment surface were collected at 1.5-m (5-ft) depth intervals. The USACE conducted grain size 

analyses on the samples to determine if the sediments in the sampling area contained suitable 

material for beach fill. 

The results of the sampling showed a median grain size of 0.20 mm, which is finer than sand that 

would be ideally suited for beach fill. Although using finer-grain size is an option and would 

slow shoreline erosion, critical infrastructure would remain at risk, especially during storm 

events because the finer-grained beach would be susceptible to severe erosion during small to 

moderate storm events. To compensate for the additional loss due to erosion renourishment 

would be much more frequent (potentially every 1 to 2 years) or would require additional 

overfill. While the transport costs from the closer, nearshore environment are lower than that of 

borrow sites further offshore, the larger required volumes and more frequent renourishment 

requirements would be cost prohibitive. Therefore, this area was removed from consideration as 

a borrow site. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

46 

2.4.3.3 Offshore Borrow Sites 

Because the nearshore seafloor east of Wallops Island contains sediment that is finer than would 

be ideally suited for beach fill, the USACE conducted additional sampling to identify potential 

borrow sites farther offshore. 

May 2007 USACE Sampling 

In May 2007, the USACE conducted sediment sampling offshore of Wallops Island to identify 

any areas that might contain suitable beach quality materials (Figure 12). The sampling initially 

concentrated on areas directly offshore and the attached finger shoals that are located southeast 

of Wallops Island. The samples taken immediately offshore of Wallops Island were found to be 

marginally unsuitable to unsuitable for beach fill (USACE, 2010a). There was substantial scatter 

in the median grain size of these sediments, but most had a median grain size of less than 0.20 

mm. This May 2007 survey also investigated Porpoise Banks, located southeast of Wallops 

Island. Six borings drilled in this area indicated that it lacks suitable borrow material. 

From the May 2007 sampling, the USACE identified three potential shoals within the 

geographical range where transportation costs to Wallops Island would not be prohibitive that 

contained adequate volume and suitable grain size: Blackfish Bank Shoal, Unnamed Shoal A, 

and Unnamed Shoal B (Figure 12). 

December 2007 USACE Sampling 

In December 2007, the USACE concentrated additional vibracore sampling on the three potential 

shoals to be used as SRIPP borrow sites. Analysis of the samples indicated that Blackfish Bank 

Shoal contains approximately 19 million m3 (25 million yd3) of beach quality material, Unnamed 

Shoal A contains at least 52 million m3 (68 million yd3), and Unnamed Shoal B contains at least 

100 million m3 (132 million yd3) of suitable material. These volumes are substantially in excess 

of the estimated 7.6 million m3

 (10 million yd3) of fill material needed over the lifetime of the 

project. 

A grain size analysis was conducted on the sediments in the samples. The samples were typically 

divided into three sections (upper, mid, and lower), with mean grain size calculated for each 

layer as well as the composite of all three layers. Table 4 below lists the grain sizes of Blackfish 

Bank Shoal and Unnamed Shoals A and B in millimeters from the December 2007 vibracore 

samples. Because dredging could extend to a depth of approximately 1.8 m (6 ft), the results of 

vibracore sample analysis to approximately 1.8 m (6 ft) are provided (grain size for all depths of 

the project cores is provided in Appendix A). These data indicate that the Blackfish Bank 

composite mean sediment diameter is 0.35 mm; the range of mean grain size values for the top 

two layers (which are shown in Table 4) is from 0.14 mm to 0.31 mm. 

Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

48 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

50 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 51 

The sediment on Unnamed Shoals A and B is generally well-sorted, medium sand with a median 

composite grain size of 0.29 mm (USACE, 2010a). It is anticipated that the dredging would 

occur within the top two sample layers, the depth of which varies between the samples and is 

shown in Table 4. The mean grain size in the top layer of Unnamed Shoal A is 0.42 mm, while 

the top layer of Unnamed Shoal B has a mean grain size of 0.34 mm. The range of mean grain 

sizes within the top two layers of Unnamed Shoal A is between 0.24 mm and 0.78 mm and on 

Unnamed Shoal B is between 0.17 mm and 0.47 mm. The sampling results indicate that the top 

layer of sand is generally coarser than lower layers, though there were samples where the top 

layer was finer than the bottom layer. 

Table 4: Grain Size in Samples Taken from Blackfish Bank, Unnamed Shoal A, and 

Unnamed Shoal B 

Vibracore 

Sample Number1

Sample Depth 

m (ft) 

Mean Grain Size 

(mm) 

Blackfish Bank 

WIVC-59 0–1 (0–3.2) 0.22 

1–1.4 (32.–4.6) 0.20 

WIVC-60 0–0.2 (0–0.8) 0.31 

0.2–1.4 (0.8–4.5) 0.14 

WIVC-61 0–1.5 (0–5) 0.22 

1.5–2.9 (5–9.5) 0.22 

WIVC-62 0–0.7 (0–2.3) 0.17 

0.7–3 (2.3–10) 0.17 

WIVC-63 0–1.5 (0–5) 0.20 

1.5–2.2 (5–7.3) 0.19 

WIVC-64 0–1.8 (0–6) 0.21 

1.8–3.5 (6–11.6) 0.18 

Unnamed Shoal A 

07-WIVC-30 0–1.2 (0–4.1) 0.60 

1.2–2.9 (4.1–9.5) 0.49 

WIVC-54 0–1.5 (0–5) 0.69 

1.5–3.5 (5–11.4) 0.78 

WIVC-55 0–1.7 (0–5.6) 0.37 

1.7–2.7 (5.6–9) 0.45 

07-WIVC-29 0–1.1 (0–3.7) 0.38 

1.1–2.2 (3.7–7.2) 0.38 

WIVC-58 0–1.2 (0–4) 0.30 

1.2–2.4 (4–8) 0.28 

WIVC-56 0–1.9 (0–6.1) 0.35 

1.9–3 (6.1–10) 0.25 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

52 

Vibracore 

Sample Number1

Sample Depth 

m (ft) 

Mean Grain Size 

(mm) 

WIVC-57 0–1.2 (0–4) 0.24 

1.2–2.4 (4–8) 0.24 

WIVC-65 0–0.6 (0–2) 0.40 

0.6–1.5 (2–5) 0.34 

WIVC-66 0–0.5 (0–1.8) 0.47 

0.5–2.6 (1.8–5) 0.24 

Unnamed Shoal B 

WIVC-67 0–1.5 (0–5) 0.32 

1.5–3 (5–10) 0.47 

WIVC-68 0–1.5 (0–5) 0.37 

1.5–2.8 (5–9.3) 0.43 

WIVC-69 0–1.5 (0–5) 0.43 

1.5–3 (5–10) 0.27 

WIVC-70 0–1.5 (0–5) 0.27 

1.5–2.8 (5–9.2) 0.29 

WIVC-71 0–0.4 (0–1.3) 0.31 

0.4–1.5 (1.3–5) 0.17 

WIVC-72 0–0.8 (0–2.6) 0.35 

0.8–1.5 (2.6–5) 0.25 1

See Figure 12 for map of vibracore sampling locations. Grain size data 

for all depths of the sample cores are provided in Appendix A. 

Source: Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, Inc., 2008 

Blackfish Bank Shoal 

Blackfish Bank Shoal is located approximately 8 km (5 mi) east of Assateague Island and 

approximately 11 km (7 mi) northeast of the Wallops Island shoreline. The USACE determined 

that Blackfish Bank Shoal would provide suitable grain size and adequate quantities of sediment 

for the SRIPP. 

This shoal is a popular commercial and recreational fishing location, partly due to an artificial 

reef on the southern portion of the shoal that was developed through the efforts of the Town of 

Chincoteague and the Chincoteague Island Charterboat Association. The artificial reef, which is 

regulated by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) Artificial Reef Program and 

constructed primarily of subway cars, covers approximately 1.75 square kilometers (km2) (0.7 

square miles [mi2

]) and provides habitat for fish and invertebrates. 

In the spring of 2009, NASA conducted a survey of commercial and recreational fishermen to 

determine the level of use of Blackfish Bank Shoal, Unnamed Shoal A, and the Wallops Island 

shoreline. At the time of the survey, Unnamed Shoal B had not been selected as a potential 

borrow site and therefore was not included in the survey. The survey was designed to assess 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 53 

commercial and recreational fishermen’s perceptions of potential impacts on the fishing industry 

from dredging activities that may occur at either shoal. The majority of respondents were 

concerned that project activities would destroy the artificial reef at Blackfish Bank, thereby 

removing important fishing grounds. 

Comments received during the PEIS scoping period in May 2009 also indicated public concern 

regarding the potential dredging of Blackfish Bank Shoal and the resulting changes to the wave 

energy on Assateague Island. Some comments focused on the removal of the crest of the 

Blackfish Bank Shoal that could result in increased wave energy on Assateague Island and 

increased beach erosion. Other comments stated that Blackfish Bank should be left intact to 

minimize the potential impacts of dredging on Assateague Island National Seashore marine life. 

To determine the potential effects of dredging Blackfish Bank Shoal, Unnamed Shoal A, and 

Unnamed Shoal B on Assateague Island’s shoreline, the USACE used a model based on sitespecific wave characteristics and longshore sediment transport methodology. The USACE 

modeling methodology and results for dredging Unnamed Shoals A and B are explained in more 

detail in Section 4.2.2.1 of this PEIS and in Appendix A. Results of the USACE modeling 

showed that changes in longshore sediment transport as a result of dredging Blackfish Bank 

Shoal could be distinguished from naturally occurring sediment transport, and therefore the 

dredging may result in shoreline changes to the Assateague Island shoreline that would be 

attributable to the SRIPP. The model results showed a few locations along the Assateague 

shoreline that could exhibit shoreline changes in response to dredging Blackfish Bank Shoal; 

however, the primary area that would be impacted would be the Tom’s Cove Isthmus area 

because it is naturally vulnerable to shoreline change. 

Because of the potentially adverse impacts on the Assateague Island shoreline and the public 

concern regarding negative impacts on commercial and recreational fishing communities, 

Blackfish Bank Shoal was removed from consideration as a borrow site option. 

Unnamed Shoal A 

The southwest end of Unnamed Shoal A is located approximately 11 km (7 mi) east of 

Assateague Island and approximately 18 km (11 mi) northeast of Wallops Island. The total 

predicted volume of Unnamed Shoal A is approximately 52 million m3 (68 million yd3). This 

shoal covers an area of approximately 700 ha (1,800 ac). 

This shoal is carried forward for detailed analysis because sediment analyses and a review of 

bathymetric data conducted by the USACE indicate that this borrow site would provide adequate 

volumes and appropriately sized sediment for nourishment of the beach throughout the SRIPP’s 

50-year design life. The USACE modeling methodology and results for dredging Unnamed 

Shoal A are explained in more detail in Section 4.2.2.1 of this PEIS and in Appendix A. 

Unnamed Shoal B 

Unnamed Shoal B is located approximately 16 km (10 mi) east of Assateague Island. The 

southwest end of Unnamed Shoal B is located approximately 19 km (12 mi) east of Assateague 

Island and approximately 21 km (13 mi) northeast of Wallops Island. The total predicted volume 

of Unnamed Shoal B is approximately 100 million m3

 (132 million yd3). This shoal covers an 

area of approximately 1,600 ha (3,900 ac). 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

54 

This shoal is carried forward for detailed analysis because sediment sampling analyses and a 

review of bathymetric data conducted by the USACE indicate that this borrow site would 

provide adequate volumes and appropriately sized sediment for nourishment of the beach 

throughout the SRIPP’s 50-year design life. The USACE modeling methodology and results for 

dredging Unnamed Shoal B are explained in more detail in Section 4.2.2.1 of this PEIS and in 

Appendix A. 

2.4.3.4 Upland Sand Sources 

North Wallops Island Beach Borrow Site – Renourishment Only 

One option for renourishment is to remove sand from a portion of the existing beach on the 

northern end of Wallops Island (Figure 13). In addition to the existing sand on the beach, 

sediment that is expected to accumulate at the north end of Wallops Island after the initial beach 

fill would extend the existing beach seaward. This future accumulation area could also be used as 

fill material for renourishment. 

The exact limits of the borrow area are undefined at this time as they will undoubtedly vary 

between SRIPP initial and renourishment events in response to: the volumes and patterns of 

accretion, the varying suitability of the sediment, Chincoteague Inlet dynamics, changes in 

vegetative cover, and biological factors. However, approximate limits of the potential borrow 

site area, shown on Figure 13, were identified based on a vegetation mapping survey conducted 

in October 2009 (see Section 3.2.1.1 Vegetation for more detail on the survey). 

On October 6, 2009, the USACE performed sediment sampling of the beach at the northern end 

of Wallops Island (USACE, 2009a). Sixteen samples were collected to a depth of 1.8 m (6 ft). 

Grain size analysis was conducted on the surface layer of all samples, and then at either a depth 

of 0.6 m (2 ft) or 1.2 m (4 ft) for alternating numbered samples (Table 5). Figure 13 shows the 

sample locations. The sediments generally consisted of tan to gray, poorly graded fine to medium 

sand with trace shell fragments and silt (USACE, 2009a). The median grain sizes of all samples 

were between 0.18 and 0.27 mm. 

Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

56 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 57 

Table 5: Grain Size in Samples Collected from North Wallops Island 

Sample 

Number 

Depth1 

m (ft) 

Median Grain 

Size (mm) 

NB-01 

0 0.22 

0.6 (2) 0.21 

NB-02 

0 0.19 

1.2 (4) 0.21 

NB-03 

0 0.20 

0.6 (2) 0.20 

NB-04 

0 0.19 

1.2 (4) 0.19 

NB-05 

0 0.19 

0.6 (2) 0.19 

NB-06 

0 0.19 

1.2 (4) 0.19 

NB-07 

0 0.20 

0.6 (2) 0.19 

NB-08 

0 0.21 

1.2 (4) 0.20 

NB-09 

0 0.18 

0.6 (2) 0.19 

NB-10 

0 0.19 

1.2 (4) 0.22 

NB-11 

0 0.19 

0.6 (2) 0.19 

NB-12 

0 0.19 

1.2 (4) 0.22 

NB-13 

0 0.19 

0.6 (2) 0.19 

NB-14 

0 0.27 

1.2 (4) 0.23 

NB-15 

0 0.19 

0.6 (2) 0.20 

NB-16 

0 0.21 

1.2 (4) 0.23 

1

Grain size analysis was done at the surface and 0.6 m [2 ft]) 

for odd numbered samples, and at the surface and 1.2 m [4 ft]) 

for even numbered samples; these data presented in this table 

represent the complete data set 

Source: USACE, 2009b 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

58 

USACE modeling has shown that on average, approximately 30,600 m3 (40,000 yd3) of sediment 

per year accumulates at the northern end of Wallops Island by longshore transport from the 

south. Once the beach fill is placed, that volume is expected to increase to 76,500 to 115,000 m3

(100,000 to 150,000 yd3

) per year under all three of the SRIPP Proposed Action Alternatives 

(USACE, 2010a). A portion of the renourishment volume under each alternative could come 

from this beach source. Although the area currently does not contain sediment of an optimal 

grain size for use as beach fill material, the northern end of Wallops Island would offer potential 

renourishment material without the mobilization and operational costs associated with offshore 

dredging. Sediment transported alongshore to the north from a previous fill cycle would be of the 

proper grain size and could be effectively recycled, or “backpassed” by excavating it and placing 

it in eroding areas in the southern project area. 

Based on current vegetation and wildlife habitat constraints (such as avoiding areas of most 

dense vegetation and highest Piping Plover and sea turtle nesting activity), the total potential area 

for sand removal is approximately 60 ha (150 ac) (Figure 13). Excavation depth is expected to be 

limited to about 1 m (3.5 ft) below the ground surface due to tidal fluctuations and the high 

permeability of the soil (USACE, 2009b). Based on target depth of sediment removal, the area to 

be excavated would vary. For example, excavating to a depth of 1 m (3.5 ft) would require a 23 

ha (57 ac) area to provide a renourishment volume of 230,000 m3

 (300,000 yd3). 

2.4.3.5 Summary of Preferred Borrow Sites 

Several borrow sites were dismissed because they did not meet the criteria for a useable source 

of sand. Based on the evaluation described above, the following three borrow sites are 

considered potential sand sources for the beach fill under the Proposed Action Alternatives: 

Unnamed Shoal A, Unnamed Shoal B, and the north Wallops Island beach (renourishment only). 

The minimum, maximum, and mean grain sizes for each of these three potential borrow sites are 

shown in Table 6. The data in Table 6 is based on the vibracore sampling by the USACE in 2007 

(Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, 2008) and subsurface sampling of the beach on the northern end 

of Wallops Island in October 2009 (USACE, 2009a) described above. 

Table 6: Summary of Borrow Site Options Carried Forward for Analysis 

Borrow Site 

Option Source 

Minimum 

Grain 

Size 

(mm) 

Maximum 

Grain Size 

(mm) 

Mean 

Composite 

Grain Size 

(mm) 

Approximate Travel 

Distance1 from 

Pump-Out Station 

(km [mi]) 

Unnamed Shoal A Offshore 0.24 0.78 0.42 22 (14) 

Unnamed Shoal B Offshore 0.27 0.43 0.34 31 (19) 

North Wallops 

Island 

Upland 

(beach) 

0.11 0.30 0.20 0.8 (0.5) 

1

One-way distance that the dredge vessel would travel from the shoal to the pump-out station (not a straight line 

from the shoal to Wallops Island) 

Sources: Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, 2008 and USACE, 2009b 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 59 

2.5 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

The combinations of options that would provide the maximum level of storm damage reduction 

while remaining within the limits of available funding were evaluated in detail as the three 

Proposed Action Alternatives discussed below. Each Proposed Action Alternative described in 

this section includes an initial phase of beach fill with a corresponding estimate of renourishment 

beach fill that would be required over the 50-year duration of the SRIPP. Each of these three 

alternatives would require a Cooperating Agency action, which for USACE would be the 

issuance of permits under the CWA and RHA, and for BOEMRE would be the execution of a 

non-competitive lease/MOA with NASA and USACE for use of OCS sand resources for the 

beach fill material. 

2.5.1 Project Elements Common to All Alternatives 

A number of design and construction elements would be applicable to all three alternatives and 

are described in this section. Differences among the alternatives (e.g., initial and renourishment 

fill volumes, type of sand retention structure, etc.) are discussed in detail in each individual 

alternative’s respective section. 

2.5.1.1 Adaptive Management Framework 

As there is an inherent level of uncertainty in designing, constructing, and maintaining a longterm project subject to the effects of the open ocean environment, NASA may identify the need 

to modify its storm damage reduction measures in the future. As such, all Proposed Action 

Alternatives include the adaptive management strategy described in Section 1.4 of this PEIS. At 

this time, the Preferred Alternative is expected to accomplish the SRIPP purpose and need while 

minimizing adverse impacts on the environment compared to the other two feasible alternatives. 

However, should the monitoring program show that the Preferred Alternative by itself is not 

adequately meeting NASA’s goals for the SRIPP, the other Proposed Action Alternatives (or 

elements from them) could be reevaluated in the future. 

NASA’s knowledge of the physical processes in the project area has increased through the 

preparation of this PEIS and results of future monitoring will add to this understanding. As 

described in further detail in Section 5.2 of this PEIS, NASA will rely on the analysis of data 

from its ongoing monitoring program to guide its decision-making process. In doing so, a variety 

of project components could be optimized. These components might include adjusting 

renourishment frequencies and volumes, developing ways to address erosional “hot spots” 

without dredge mobilization, and the possible addition of a sand retention structure either north 

or south of the beach fill. 

Should NASA identify any such additional elements that are not specifically considered in this 

PEIS, supplemental NEPA documentation would be prepared to determine environmental 

impacts, engage stakeholders, and consider relevant costs and benefits. Appropriate permits and 

approvals would be obtained prior to implementation. 

2.5.1.2 Seawall Extension 

All three Proposed Action Alternatives include a southerly seawall extension that would serve a 

critical role as a second line of defense against storms where water levels (and breaking waves) 

were no longer halted by the beach. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

60 

The seawall extension would be constructed on the beach parallel to the shoreline in the 

approximate location of existing geotextile tubes (Figure 14), and would be implemented in the 

first year of the SRIPP prior to the placement of the initial beach fill. The new seawall would be 

constructed landward of the shoreline and would extend a minimum of 435 m (1,430 ft) up to a 

maximum of 1,400 m (4,600 ft) south of the existing seawall. To provide storm damage 

reduction to the most critical infrastructure on south Wallops Island (launch pad 0-B), the 

seawall would be initially extended approximately 435 m (1,430 ft) and would include a 61-m 

(200-ft) flankwall that tapers southwest past pad 0-B (Figure 15). The southern end of the 1,400-

m (4,600-ft) extension would be at camera stand Z-100, which is located approximately 460 m 

(1,500 feet) north of the Wallops Island-Assawoman Island property boundary. The seawall 

would be extended south to its full length in future years as funding allows. 

The seawall would consist of 4.5- to 6.4-mt (5- to 7-ton) rocks and would be placed on the beach 

(some rock slightly below the beach surface, the majority of the rock sitting on top of the beach 

surface). The top of the seawall would be approximately 5 m (14 ft) above the normal high tide 

water level, depending on the extent of existing shoreline retreat (see cross section on Figure 15). 

Due to the size of the rocks needed for seawall construction, it is anticipated that they would be 

transported to the WFF area by rail, offloaded, and trucked over the road to the desired 

destination on Wallops Island for placement. 

2.5.1.3 Beach Fill 

Beach Fill Design 

Beach fill is a necessary component of all three Proposed Action Alternatives as the new beach 

would provide a surface to dissipate wave energy, counteract sea-level rise effects, and 

contribute additional sediment to the nearshore system. The beach fill would start approximately 

460 m (1,500 ft) north of the Wallops Island-Assawoman Island property boundary (near camera 

stand Z-100 shown on Figure 14) and extend north for 6.0 km (3.7 mi). 

The initial fill would be placed so that there would be a 1.8-m-high (6-ft-high) berm extending a 

minimum of 21 m (70 ft) seaward of the existing seawall. The remainder of the fill would slope 

underwater for an additional distance seaward; the amount of that distance would vary along the 

length of the beach fill, but would extend for a maximum of about 52 m (170 ft), so that the total 

distance of the fill profile from the seawall would be up to approximately 73 m (240 ft). The 

beach fill profile would also include a 4.3-m-high (14-ft-high) dune at the seawall (shown in 

yellow on Figure 16). The front sloping face of the dune would rest against the seawall. Sections 

of sand fence approximately 3 m (10 ft) long would be installed at approximate 45 degree angles 

to the shoreline along the entire length of the seaward side of the new dune (Figure 15). The 

sections of sand fence would be spaced approximately 2 m (7 ft) apart to allow wildlife passage 

from the dune to the ocean. 

Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

62 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

64 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

66 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 67 

The beach fill would be composed of two primary components: the anticipated minimum amount 

(minimum target fill) needed to provide defense from storm damage, plus an additional 

sacrificial amount (the advanced fill) that is expected to be removed by longshore transport 

between renourishment events. This approach strives to ensure that the minimum amount of fill 

remaining at the project site, just before renourishment, would still provide adequate storm 

damage reduction (USACE, 2002; Gravens, et al., 2006). The volumes needed for the minimum 

target fill were based upon SBEACH (Storm-Induced BEAch CHange) modeling, and the 

amount of advanced fill was determined by GENESIS modeling, both conducted by the USACE 

(Appendix A). A larger volume of advanced fill material would be placed at the updrift end of 

the project, with little or no advanced fill placed at the downdrift end of the project area. 

Figure 16 shows a conceptual representation of the components of the initial and renourishment 

fill profiles. The initial fill includes a seawall deficit volume, a berm volume, a dune volume, an 

overfill volume, and an advanced nourishment volume (Figure 16). The renourishment fill 

includes the advanced fill volume and a sea-level rise volume. The sea-level rise fill volume was 

accounted for by including an additional amount of material at each renourishment event that 

would raise the entire beach profile by an amount equal to the projected amount of sea-level rise, 

as estimated by King et al. (USACE, 2010a) in the USACE analysis and design. 

The placement of sand on the shoreline for the initial beach fill would occur within the first 3 

years of the SRIPP (USACE, 2010a). No beach fill work is planned for Year 1. In Year 2, 

placement activities would likely move south to north and would be initiated to restore the 

underwater area in front of the seawall to its equilibrium condition (USACE, 2010a). The 

remainder of the initial fill volume would be placed in Year 3 (USACE, 2010a). The existing 

seawall has halted the shoreline retreat along its length; however, this has come at the cost of 

sediment being removed below the waterline in front of the seawall, steepening the underwater 

profile from the seawall seaward and leaving a sediment deficit especially in the middle portions 

of the existing wall. The “equilibrium condition” is the natural state of the underwater beach 

profile. Through modeling, the USACE determined that the volume of sand placed on the 

Wallops Island shoreline in Year 2 of would restore this profile close to its natural, or 

equilibrium, condition. 

Effects of Grain Size on Beach Fill Design 

A sediment grain diameter of 0.29 mm was chosen to represent the fill material for modeling 

each Proposed Action Alternative. This value is considered conservative because most of the 

offshore borrow site samples have median grain sizes larger than this, particularly at Unnamed 

Shoal A, the preferred borrow site. However, there are relatively few sample cores available to 

characterize this sediment. As such, it should be noted that an overestimate of grain size would 

have a substantial effect on the underwater volume of fill material needed for the initial 

placement. To illustrate this, King et al. (USACE, 2010a) calculated such volumes. If the actual 

grain size of sand placed on the beach was 0.28 mm, an additional volume of over 45,900 m3

(60,000 yd3) would be needed; encountering finer sediments of 0.25 mm (which is much less 

likely than encountering grain sizes in the 0.28 – 0.29 mm range) would require approximately 

221,700 m3

 (290,000 yd3) of additional material. The statistical likelihood of the true median 

grain diameter of the material on the two potential shoals being less than 0.29 mm decreases 

rapidly with smaller grain size. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

68 

There would be fewer impacts to the above water portion of the profile compared to the 

underwater portion. Impacts would be mostly limited to the portion of the profile between mean 

sea level (MSL) and the berm crest (the foreshore slope). This portion of the beach profile is 

exposed to wave action during the higher times of the tide cycle and can be expected to reach an 

equilibrium slope based upon grain size in a manner similar to the underwater portion of the 

profile (steeper slopes for larger grain sizes). The native beach material at Wallops Island is 

about 0.20 mm, and the foreshore slope is naturally adjusted for that grain size. The beach fill 

design modeling was based on the measured slopes from the beach on Wallops Island. The grain 

size of the fill material is expected to be larger than 0.20 mm, and thus following nourishment 

the foreshore slope would likely be steeper than at present. A steeper foreshore slope would 

require less fill material between the berm crest and the depth of closure than is called for in the 

present design, and therefore the present beach fill design is considered conservative. 

Additionally, any of several other reasons (including, but not limited to: model limitations, 

estimate of the depth of closure, or an unusually stormy wave climate in the years following 

placement) could lead to an underestimation of the volume of material needed for the initial fill. 

To help compensate for this potential, an additional amount of material (95,600 m3 [125,000 

yd3], the overfill volume) is specifically included in the total initial fill volume. However, if the 

total initial fill volume used is less than the volume needed, the most likely result would be that 

the first renourishment event would need to occur sooner than the expected 5-year time frame. 

Otherwise, the design level of storm damage protection provided by the SRIPP in the time period 

preceding renourishment would be compromised. On the other hand, if the total initial fill 

volume used is in excess of that required, the first renourishment event could be appropriately 

postponed. 

Sources of Beach Fill Material 

Unnamed Shoal A only would be used to obtain initial fill volumes under all three alternatives. 

For renourishment fill volumes, up to one-half of the fill volume could be excavated from the 

north Wallops Island borrow site, and the remaining half—or the entire renourishment volume—

would be dredged from either Unnamed Shoal A or Unnamed Shoal B. 

Subsequent beach renourishment cycles would vary throughout the 50-year life of the Proposed 

Action. Storm frequency and severity would dictate the magnitude and rate of recurrence of 

beach renourishment. The timing and volume of material placed during renourishment events 

would be based upon an analysis of the monitoring data. For the purpose of this PEIS, the 

renourishment cycle is expected to be every 5 years. 

2.5.2 Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension 

In the initial nourishment, NASA would place an estimated 2,446,000 m3 (3,199,000 yd3) of fill 

(minimum and advanced target fill combined) along the shoreline. The renourishment cycle is 

anticipated to involve approximately 616,000 m3

 (806,000 yd3) of sand every 5 years. The initial 

fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 

7,992,000 m3

 (10,453,000 yd3) of sand being placed on the shoreline. 

The absence of sand retention structures would result in a larger amount of sand being available 

for erosion and longshore transport. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 69 

2.5.3 Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension 

Beach fill would be placed along the same length of the shoreline as described under Alternative 

One, but because less initial nourishment and renourishment fill would be required, the beach 

profile would not extend as far into the ocean (Figure 17). 

Construction of a groin (described below) would result in more sand being retained along the 

Wallops Island shoreline, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and 

renourishment volumes compared to Alternative One. The initial fill volume would be an 

estimated 2,229,000 m3 (2,916,000 yd3), and each renourishment fill volume would be 

approximately 552,000 m3 (722,000 yd3). The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine 

renourishment events would result in approximately 7,198,000 m3

 (9,414,000 yd3) of sand being 

placed on the shoreline. 

In addition, a groin would be constructed at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline (Figure 

17). Groin construction would occur in the third year of the SRIPP, after seawall construction in 

Year 1 and the first phase of beach fill in Year 2. Construction would involve the placement of 

rocks in a linear structure perpendicular to the shoreline at approximately 445 m (1,460 ft) north 

of the Wallops Island-Assawoman Island border (Figure 17). The rocks would be similar in size 

to those used for the seawall. 

The groin would be constructed of 4.5 to 6.4 mt (5 to 7 tons) of rocks placed perpendicular to the 

shore. The structure would be approximately 130 m (430 ft) long and 15 m (50 ft) wide, and 

would take approximately 1 month to build. Approximately two-thirds of the groin (80 m [265 

ft]) would be installed on the beach once the fill has been placed, and the remaining one-third, 

approximately 50 m (165 ft), would extend beyond the beach into the ocean. As with the rocks 

needed for the seawall extension, the rocks for constructing the groin would be transported to the 

WFF area by rail, offloaded, and trucked to the handling or placement site on Wallops Island. 

2.5.4 Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension 

Beach fill would be placed along the same length of the shoreline as described under 

Alternatives One and Two, but because the least volume of initial nourishment and 

renourishment fill would be required, the beach profile would not extend as far into the ocean as 

Alternatives One and Two (Figure 17). 

Construction of the breakwater (described below) would result in the most sand being retained 

along the Wallops Island beach, so the least amount of fill would be required for both the initial 

nourishment and renourishment volumes compared to Alternatives One and Two. The initial fill 

volume would be 2,170,000 m3

 (2,839,000 yd3), and each renourishment fill volume would be 

537,000 m3

 (703,000 yd3). The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment 

events would result in approximately 7,008,000 m3 (9,166,000 yd3) of sand being placed on the 

shoreline. 

In addition, a nearshore breakwater structure would be constructed at the south end of the 

Wallops Island shoreline in the third year of the SRIPP, after seawall construction in Year 1 and 

the first phase of beach fill in Year 2 (Figure 17). A single breakwater would be constructed 

approximately 230 m (750 ft) offshore in order to avoid tombolo formation. A tombolo forms as 

sand deposited in the sheltered area behind the breakwater connects the breakwater to the beach. 

A tombolo would block longshore sediment transport and cause erosion on the downdrift side of 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

70 

the feature. Eventually, sand transport may resume along the seaward face of the breakwater, but 

the water may be too deep for large amounts of transport to occur. 

The breakwater would be constructed of 4.5 to 6.4 mt (5 to 7 tons) of rocks placed parallel to the 

shore and would measure approximately 90 m (300 ft) long and 35 m (110 ft) wide (Figure 17). 

Similar to the seawall extension and groin, the rocks for constructing the breakwater would be 

transported to the WFF area by rail, offloaded, and then trucked to the handling or placement site 

on Wallops Island. Construction, estimated to last approximately 1 month, would take place in 

the water using a barge and heavy lifting equipment. 

2.5.5 Summary of Dredge and Fill Volumes for Each of the Alternatives 

Table 7 below shows the estimated volumes of sand that would be placed on the Wallops Island 

beach during the project lifecycle for each alternative considered. 

Table 7: Fill Volumes for the Alternatives 

Volume Type Alternative One 

m3 (yd3) 

Alternative Two 

m3 (yd3) 

Alternative Three 

m3 (yd3) 

Initial Fill 2,446,000 (3,199,000) 2,229,000 (2,916,000) 2,170,000 (2,839,000) 

Renourishment 616,000 (806,000) 552,000 (722,000) 537,000 (703,000) 

Number of 

Renourishment Events 9 9 9 

Project Lifetime 7,992,000 (10,453,000) 7,198,000 (9,414,000) 7,008,000 (9,166,000) 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Because of overflow from the hopper dredge at the offshore borrow sites during dredging, pumpout, and placement, a larger volume of material would need to be dredged to meet the targeted 

fill volume. Based on information from other shoreline restoration projects, sediment losses 

during dredging and placement operations may be up to 25 percent (Wikel, personal comm.). 

Using a conservative 25-percent loss factor for the SRIPP, estimated dredge volumes for the 

offshore borrow sites in order to meet the targeted fill volumes are shown in Table 8. 

Table 8: Dredge Volumes for Alternatives 

Dredge Event Alternative One 

m3 (yd3) 

Alternative Two 

m3 (yd3) 

Alternative Three 

m3 (yd3) 

Initial Fill 3,057,500 (3,998,750) 2,786,250 (3,645,000) 2,712,500 (3,548,750) 

Renourishment 770,000 (1,007,500) 690,000 (915,000) 671,250 (878,750) 

Project Lifetime 9,990,000 (13,066,250) 8,997,500 (11,767,500) 8,760,000 (11,457,500) 

Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

72 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 73 

2.5.6 Delineation of Shoal Study Areas 

NASA delineated a study area on each of the two offshore shoals A and B based upon early 

planning estimates of the area needed to obtain the necessary borrow volumes. The borrow areas 

were sized based on a comparison with the USACE Atlantic Coast of Maryland Project for the 

Short-Term Restoration of Assateague (USACE, 2008). For this exercise, assuming an 

approximate 1.8-m (6-ft) dredging depth, the amount of shoal area required to obtain the 

necessary beach fill material for Alternative One would be approximately 5.2 km2 (2 mi2), or 520 

ha (1,280 ac). Because this area would likely be the largest dredge or borrow area on each of the 

proposed shoals, it was established as the study area for resources such as benthic (bottom) 

habitats and submerged cultural resources. If the need arose to consider dredging outside of this 

study area, additional studies would be conducted and supplemental NEPA analyses prepared as 

appropriate. 

2.5.7 Dredging and Sand Placement Operation 

2.5.7.1 Offshore Dredging Method 

Trailer suction hopper dredges are the most likely dredges to be used for the SRIPP. These 

dredges are self-propelled, seagoing vessels and are equipped with propulsion machinery, a 

sediment container (i.e., hopper), dredge pumps, and other specialized equipment required to 

perform the essential function of excavating sediments from the sea floor. Hopper dredges have 

enough horsepower for required free-running speed and dredging against strong currents, and 

have excellent maneuverability. 

The hopper dredge fills its hoppers by employing large pumps to create suction in pipes that are 

lowered into the water to remove sediment from the shoal bottom (the process very closely 

resembles that of a typical vacuum cleaner, Photo 6). The hopper dredges likely to be used 

typically remove material from the bottom of the sea floor in layers up to 0.3 m (1 ft) in depth 

(Williams, personal comm.). 

Centrifugal pumps within the hull, sometimes mounted on the drag arm, create a region of low 

pressure or centrifugal force around the drag heads. This low pressure forces water and sediment 

up the drag arm and into the hopper. The closer the drag head is to the sediment, the more 

efficient the dredging. 

Once the dredge hopper is filled, the dredge would transport the material to a pump-out buoy or 

station that would be placed at a water depth of approximately 9 m (30 ft), which would be 

approximately 3 km (2 mi) offshore of the placement area (Figure 14). The pathway from 

Unnamed Shoals A and B to the pump-out buoy is not a straight line, but a dogleg shape with a 

turning point, for the purpose of avoiding Chincoteague Shoal and Blackfish Bank. The distance 

from the turning point to the pump-out buoy is approximately 5 km (8 mi). The one-way distance 

from Unnamed Shoal A to the theoretical pump-out buoy is approximately 22 km (14 mi), and 

the corresponding transit distance from Unnamed Shoal B to the theoretical pump-out buoy is 

approximately 31 km (19 mi). Booster pumps may be needed to aid the offloading of sand from 

the pump-out buoy to the shoreline. 

Based on previous offshore dredging operations along the east coast, it is assumed that dredgers 

with a hopper capacity of approximately 3,000 m3

 (4,000 yd3) would be used; however, because 

this volume is a slurry and not all sand, the actual volume of sand that each dredge would 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

74 

transport during each trip would be approximately 2,300 m3 (3,000 yd3). The dredges would 

operate for 12- to 24-hour stretches. 

Photo 6: Schematic of a self-propelled trailer suction hopper dredge 

Source: MMS 2004-076 

2.5.7.2 Offshore Dredging Plan 

During the planning process for the SRIPP, NASA and USACE evaluated two BOEMREsponsored studies that served as the basis for the SRIPP dredging plan. The studies are: Analysis 

of Potential Biological and Physical Impacts of Dredging on Offshore Ridge and Shoal Feature 

(CSA International, Inc. et al., 2009), and Investigation of Dredging Guidelines to Maintain and 

Protect the Integrity of Offshore Ridge and Shoal Regimes (Dibajnia and Nairn, in press). The 

two studies focused on shoals north of the SRIPP project area; however, the authors of the papers 

stated that their recommendations are generally applicable to shoals off the coast of Delaware, 

Maryland, and Virginia. 

The primary recommendations NASA considered in developing the dredging plan are listed 

below. 

From CSA International, Inc. et al., (2009): 

 Extract sand from a depocenter, or leading or downdrift margin of a shoal, to avoid 

interrupting natural shoal migration and potentially reduce the time required for site 

refilling. 

 Avoid dredging in erosional areas that source downdrift depocenters, which also may be 

slow to refill after dredging. 

 Employ shallow dredging over large areas rather than excavating small but deep pits. 

 Dredge in a striped pattern to leave sediment sources adjacent to and interspersed 

throughout target areas, leading to a more uniformly distributed infilling process. 

 Excavate material from shoal crests and higher areas of the leading edge rather than 

lower areas on the shoals because of greater sediment mobility, which potentially results 

in more rapid sediment reworking and site infilling. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 75 

From Dibajnia and Nairn, in press: 

 Dredge only those shoals located in less than 30 m depth as they have the potential to regrow after dredging. Shoals with a Base Depth of greater than 30 m should not be 

dredged if it is determined to be important to maintain the pre-dredge shoal height from 

an ecological perspective. 

 Avoid dredging shoals with Relative Shoal Height (defined as Height/Base Depth) of less 

than 0.5 if shoal recovery to its pre-dredge height is desired from an ecological 

perspective. Shoals with Relative Shoal Height of less than 0.5 are not likely to recover 

after dredging. 

 Target shoals that are approaching their maximum Relative Shoal Height (defined as 

[Base Depth-5]/Base Depth) because a fully grown shoal (in height) can potentially regrow and rebuild itself to the same height upon being dredged. 

 Avoid dredging sand from the entire length of the shoal. Longitudinal dredging (i.e., 

dredging all along the longer axis) is not preferred because it affects wave focusing 

processes and the shoal does recover to the same pre-dredge height. 

 Dredge from shoal flanks below the -10-m contour over the southwest half of the shoal 

because it is expected to have little effect on shoal integrity and little change is 

anticipated for the dredged area. This dredging option is practical if it can provide sand 

suitable for nourishment. 

Initial Fill 

To identify accretional areas per the above recommendations, NASA performed a GIS analysis 

on the change in shoal topography between 1934 and 1978/1982 using NOAA National Ocean 

Service Office of Coast Survey data. Based on this analysis, accretional areas were found to be 

generally on the seaward or east flank of the shoals. The southern portion of the landward sides 

of Shoals A and B were found to be eroding over the long term. 

To further refine dredging plans, NASA and USACE then delineated the limits of three sub-areas 

for consideration within the (5.2 km2

) (2 mi2) study blocks on Shoals A and B (Figure 18). The 

preferred areas for dredging (labeled as A-1 and B-1 on each respective shoal) were identified 

first. The width of these preferred areas was established by overlaying the vibracore sample data 

(to identify suitable [coarsest] fill material) on the abovementioned shoal topographic change 

maps (to avoid erosional areas). The sub-area length was then established by estimating the 

distance needed for an oceangoing dredge to fill its hopper in “up and back” cycles, thus 

maximizing efficiency; this distance was calculated to be approximately 3.2 km (2 mi), less than 

the entire longitudinal length of either shoal. Once the preferred areas were delineated, the 

remaining sub-areas (A/B 2 and 3) within the larger study area were established. Sub-area A-1 

was chosen over B-1 as the preferred initial dredge site due to its proximity to the Wallops Island 

Beach (and resulting lower estimated project cost). 

Consistent with the recommendations of the BOEMRE studies, dredging would occur in areas 

that are accreting to the extent practicable, with erosional areas avoided to the extent practicable. 

Additionally, the dredge depth needed to obtain the required fill volume would not be excessive 

at approximately 2 m (6.6 ft). However, due to the inherent inaccuracies in open ocean hopper 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

76 

dredging as a result of variable sea conditions (the variation is estimated to be about 0.6 m [2 ft]), 

actual dredged depths could likely be closer to 3 m (9.8 ft) in some areas. 

At this point, NASA is not considering dredging in a striped pattern due to its expected adverse 

effects on dredging efficiency, which would lead to much higher project costs. There is also no 

plan to avoid shoal crests as recent studies have indicated that there is potential for recovery of 

shoal crest height provided the dredging cut depth is not excessive (CSA International Inc. et al., 

2009; Dibajnia and Nairn, in press). In addition, the crests have lower benthic abundance and 

diversity than the flanks and adjacent troughs (e.g., Cutter and Diaz, 2000; Diaz et al., 2006; 

Slacum et al., in press). Per Dibajnia and Nairn (in press) recommendations, NASA would not 

dredge along the entire length of the shoal. 

In summary, for the initial fill, sub-area A-1 on Shoal A would be targeted first. Portions of subarea A-2 would only be dredged (to a similar depth) in an off-nominal condition, such as the 

discovery of a previously unidentified underwater obstruction or if fill material is substantially 

finer than what was shown by the exploratory vibracores. Sub-area A-3 would not be dredged for 

initial fill. 

Renourishment Fill 

NASA would follow the same general dredging guidelines for planning renourishment fill cycles 

as for initial fill and would consider use of either Shoal A or Shoal B for offshore borrow 

material. However, due to potential changes in the recommended dredging methodology and 

based on shoal conditions as determined by monitoring and new studies, dredging plan details 

would be developed prior to renourishment cycles. If conditions warrant, and with appropriate 

agency consultations, NASA may modify its approach in the future. 

Additional details of the SRIPP dredging plan (including an assessment of shoal geometry such 

as Relative Shoal Height and Base Depth) are described in NASA’s Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (see Appendix J). 

2.5.7.3 Sand Placement from Offshore Dredging 

Once the dredge arrives at the pump-out buoy (approximately 3 km [2 mi] offshore), it would 

connect to the discharge pipeline on the buoy. The dredge would then mix the dredged sand with 

water to form a slurry, and pump the slurry from its discharge manifold through a submerged or 

floating pipeline. Discharge at the beach would occur at a fixed point in tandem with contouring 

of the deposited sand by bulldozers. Booster pumps may be needed to aid in offloading the sand 

from the pump-out buoy to the shoreline. 

Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

78 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 79 

2.5.7.4 North Wallops Island Borrow Site 

A pan excavator would likely be used to remove sand from the north Wallops Island borrow site 

(Photo 7). Because it runs on several rubber tires with a low tire pressure, it can work in areas of 

the beach where typical equipment may be bogged down in unstable sand. The pan excavator 

would stockpile the sand, which would be loaded onto dump trucks that would transport the fill 

material up and down the beach. Bulldozers would then be used to spread the fill material once it 

is placed on the beach. All heavy equipment would access the beach from existing roads and 

established access points. No new temporary or permanent roads would be constructed to access 

the beach or to transport the fill material to renourishment areas. 

Photo 7: Example of a pan excavator 

2.6 SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

This section summarizes and compares the potential environmental impacts, presented in detail 

in Chapter 4, of the Proposed Action Alternatives and No Action Alternative. 

The four alternatives carried forward for analysis in this PEIS are: 

 Alternative One (Preferred Alternative) – Beach Fill, Seawall Extension 

 Alternative Two – Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension 

 Alternative Three – Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension 

 No Action Alternative 

For initial fill volumes under all three Proposed Action Alternatives, only Unnamed Shoal A 

would be used because it is closer than Unnamed Shoal B and requires less transit time and fuel. 

Dredging at Unnamed Shoal A and B would result in similar environmental impacts. For 

renourishment fill, a portion of the fill volume could be excavated from the north Wallops Island 

borrow site, or the entire fill volume could be dredged from either Unnamed Shoal A or 

Unnamed Shoal B. 

2.6.1 Implementation Schedule 

WFF does not expect to receive sufficient funding to implement all of the initial components 

(seawall extension and initial phase of the beach fill) in a single year. Instead, the initial 

components would be staged and completed over a 3-year time span. The order in which 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

80 

construction would occur has been carefully considered. The first year of construction would 

consist of the approximately 400-m (1,315-ft) seawall extension. Years 2 and 3 would be 

dedicated to dredging and placement of beach fill. If the expected funding in Year 2 or Year 3 is 

postponed or cancelled, the completed portions of the project would be viable projects 

themselves and would not have negative shoreline consequences either to Wallops Island or to its 

neighbors (USACE, 2010a). However, each individual project element (seawall and beach fill) 

would only partially fulfill the purpose and need of the SRIPP and therefore would not 

intentionally be constructed by itself as a long-term solution. In Year 2, funding is expected to be 

available to place approximately 917,000 m3 (1.2 million yd3

) of fill material. Year 3 funding 

would allow for placement of the remaining beach fill, expected to be approximately 1,530,000 

m3 (2 million yd3

) of sand. 

Using the total volumes listed in Table 7 and Table 8, the initial beach fill would require 

approximately 1,000 to 1,100 dredge trips from the offshore borrow sites to the Wallops Island 

shoreline and each renourishment fill would require approximately 240 to 270 dredge trips. Two 

dredges would be in use at the same time and would accomplish about three round trips per day. 

Assuming 10-percent downtime for the dredges due to weather, equipment failure, etc., the 

917,000 m3 (1.2 million yd3

) volume of fill placed in Year 2 would result in approximately 410 

dredge trips and would take approximately 81 days, or about 3 months. The remaining volume to 

be placed under Alternative One, approximately 1,530,000 m3 (2 million yd3) would result in 

approximately 690 dredge trips and would take approximately 135 days, or about 4.5 months. 

Renourishment activities (assuming all fill is taken from one of the proposed offshore shoals) 

would take approximately 50 days, or about 2 months each cycle. 

The implementation schedule in Table 9 would apply to all of the Proposed Action Alternatives. 

Table 9: Implementation Schedule 

Project Year Activity Time Required for 

Implementation 

Year 1 Construction of the seawall extension 7 months 

Initiation of a monitoring program Ongoing 

Year 2 Partial initial beach fill and dredging 3 months 

Continuation of the monitoring program Ongoing 

Year 3 Completion of initial beach fill dredging 4.5 months 

Construction of the groin, breakwater, or 

neither, depending upon the alternative chosen 

1 month (same for both 

groin and breakwater) 

Continuation of the monitoring program Ongoing 

Year 8 First renourishment fill 2 months 

2.6.2 Consideration of Costs and Benefits 

The planning process for USACE Civil Works projects requires that a cost-benefit analysis be 

performed to ensure that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the costs, thereby providing 

a justification for implementation. As the SRIPP is not a USACE project but would rather be 

funded through NASA appropriations, conducting a cost-benefit analysis using a standard 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 81 

USACE methodology is not required prior to project implementation and was therefore not 

performed. However, in planning the SRIPP, NASA worked closely with USACE to consider the 

costs of each alternative and whether the benefit realized (storm damage reduction) would 

outweigh the monetary expenses. 

Following the initial and secondary screening of alternatives described in Sections 2.3 and 2.4, 

USACE prepared lifecycle cost estimates for each alternative analyzed in detail in this PEIS. Of 

the three Proposed Action Alternatives considered in detail in this PEIS, several iterations of 

those alternatives were evaluated, with the difference being the sand source (Shoal A, Shoal B, 

north Wallops Island, or a combination) for initial construction and future renourishment cycles. 

Based on the sand source, project lifecycle costs ranged from $87 million to approximately $100 

million in 2010 U.S. dollars. 

Regarding the benefits of storm damage reduction, NASA first assessed the values of the Federal 

and State infrastructure located on Wallops Island. The current replacement value of the Wallops 

Island infrastructure is just over $1 billion, with an additional $100 million expected within the 

next several fiscal years. Although the reduction in direct damage to infrastructure is a primary 

goal of the SRIPP, its true benefit is the continued use of the island to support the aerospace 

programs that are at the core of WFF’s mission. 

Attempting to estimate the value of the benefits to WFF programs and projects throughout the 

50-year term of the SRIPP would be highly speculative given the fact that the facility, as a 

research range, is subject to short-lived, intensive projects that come and go. As such, NASA 

found it more appropriate to consider the shorter-term (i.e., approximately 5 to 10 years) benefits 

of programs and projects that are established and more certain. 

Since its founding as a U.S. government aerospace test range, WFF has supported a regular 

manifest of suborbital rocket missions. These missions, typically flown on sounding rockets, 

currently take place at a frequency of approximately 30 per year. The value of each sounding 

rocket mission is $3 million, totaling approximately $90 million annually. This money primarily 

stays at NASA and in the local economy. The value of each Expendable Launch Vehicle 

mission, 2-8 of which may reasonably occur annually within the next 5 to ten years, is $200 

million, with about $3 million of that being provided locally for range support excluding tourism 

($6-24 million annually). Up to 20 UAS missions could occur per week, each with a value of 

$100,000, with about $20,000 of that going directly to WFF for a week of flight (approximately 

$1 million annually). In total, these missions and activities at Wallops Island add up to between 

approximately $97-115 million annually, and do not include revenues generated by local 

businesses for lodging, meals, and other tourism-based activities, which would increase the 

positive economic impact. 

Additionally, the recent decision of Orbital Sciences Corporation to base its operations at WFF 

for the Commercial Orbital Transportation System and Commercial Resupply Services contracts 

to supply the International Space Station represent an up to $1.9 billion economic impact over at 

least 5 years that would span globally, with its core operations being at the launch facilities on 

Wallops Island. 

After reviewing the abovementioned values of both the infrastructure and programs supported by 

Wallops Island, NASA concluded that even the short-term benefits of implementing the SRIPP 

substantially outweighed the lifecycle monetary costs. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

82 

2.6.3 Comparison of Costs of Dredging from Shoal A versus Shoal B 

There would be a cost reduction in dredging sand from Unnamed Shoal A versus Unnamed 

Shoal B due to the shorter transit distance required for the dredge. As described in Section 

2.5.7.1 (Offshore Dredging), the one-way distance from Unnamed Shoal A to the theoretical 

pump-out buoy location is approximately 9 km (5 mi) less than it is for Unnamed Shoal B. The 

reduced distance would translate into lower fuel consumption and costs for dredging sand from 

Unnamed Shoal A. Table 10 below shows a cost reduction of approximately $3.3 million for the 

initial beach fill and $840,000 for each renourishment event under the Preferred Alternative if 

Shoal A is used instead of Shoal B. 

Table 10: Approximate Cost Reduction by Dredging Sand from Shoal A versus Shoal B 

Initial Beach Fill Single Renourishment Event 

Alternative One (Preferred) $3,300,000 $840,000 

Alternative Two $3,000,000 $750,000 

Alternative Three $3,000,000 $730,000 

2.6.4 Comparison of Impacts 

Table 11 provides a comparison of the potential impacts shown by resource for each alternative. 
Table 11: Summary of Impacts from the Proposed Actio

Resource Alternative One: Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension A

Geology and Geomorphology – Shoreline 

Placement of beach fill (initial and renourishment) would create and maintain a beach approximately 21 m (70 ft) wide on Wallops Island. The addition of sediment to the longshore transport system would result in a reduction in the rate of erosion at the southern end of Wallops Island and northern end of Assawoman Island. Over the lifetime of the SRIPP, the seawall extension and beach fill would have long-term direct beneficial impacts on the Wallops Island shoreline by mitigating the current rate of shoreline retreat. Continued beach nourishment would add to this benefit. Long-term adverse impacts on geology would occur because placement of beach fill would prevent overwash, thereby causing some island narrowing. North Wallops Island sand removal would result in minor adverse impacts on sediments and would lower topography within the excavated areas. 

Placement of beach fill (initial and renourishment) would create and maintain a beach approximately 21 m (70 ft) wide on Wallops Island. The addition of sediment to the longshore transport system would result in a reduction in the rate of erosion at the southern end of Wallops Island and northern end of Assawoman Island. Over the lifetime 

of the SRIPP, the seawall extension and beach fill would have long-term direct beneficial impacts on the Wallops Island shoreline by mitigating the current rate of shoreline retreat. Continued beach nourishment would add to this benefit. Long-term adverse impacts on geology would occur because placement of beach fill would prevent overwash, thereby causing some island narrowing. Construction of a groin would help to retain sand on the Wallops Island shoreline so that erosion and sediment transport from Wallops Island would be reduced and the beach created by the SRIPP would stay in place longer than under Alternative One. North Wallops Island sand removal would result in minor adverse impacts on sediments and would lower topography within the excavated areas. 

Placemrenouribeach bWalloplongshreductiend of AssawoSRIPPwould on the the curbeach nLong-toccur bprevennarrowConstruretain sthat eroWallopcreated than unNorth Win minowould areas. 

Geology, Geomorphology and Bathymetry – Offshore Shoals and Nearshore Environment 

Dredging would remove a total of approximately 3,057,500 m3 (3,998,750 yd3) 

of sand from Unnamed Shoal A for the initial beach fill. Each of the nine anticipated renourishment cycles would require 770,000 m3 (1,007,500 yd3) or a total of 

Dredging would remove a total of approximately 2,786,250 m3 (3,645,000 yd3) 

of sand from Unnamed Shoal A for the initial beach fill. Each of the nine anticipated renourishment cycles would require 690,000 m3 (915,500 yd3) or a total of approximately 

Dredgiapprox

sand frbeach frenouri

(878,75
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

84 

Resource Alternative One: Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension A

approximately 9,990,000 m3 (13,066,250 yd3) 

of sand over the lifetime of the SRIPP. The renourishment material may be dredged from Unnamed Shoal A, Unnamed Shoal B, and/or the northern end of Wallops Island. Dredging would result in changes to the volume, shape, and elevation of the sediments on either shoal. Removal of shoal sediments would result in long-term adverse impacts on sitespecific and regional geology. The newly created beach profile would extend underwater for a maximum of 52 m (170 ft), resulting in a new bathymetric profile within the subaqueous lands immediately east of Wallops Island. 

8,997,500 m3 (11,767,500 yd3) of sand over 

the lifetime of the SRIPP. The renourishment material may be dredged from Unnamed Shoal A, Unnamed Shoal B, and/or the northern end of Wallops Island. Dredging would result in changes to the volume, shape, and elevation of the sediments on either shoal. Removal of shoal sediments would result in long-term adverse impacts on sitespecific and regional geology. The newly created beach profile would extend underwater for a maximum of 52 m (170 ft), resulting in a new bathymetric profile within the subaqueous lands immediately east of Wallops Island. 

8,760,0

lifetime materiaA, UnnWallopchangethe sedsedimeimpactThe neunderwresultinsubaquIsland. 

Shoreline Change Placement of beach fill (initial and 

renourishment) would create a beach berm approximately 21 m (70 ft) wide on Wallops Island, resulting in long-term beneficial direct impacts. The addition of sediment to the longshore transport system would offset some ongoing erosion that is occurring at the northern end of Assawoman Island. Dredging of the offshore shoals would result in minimal change to local wave conditions and no impact to the Assateague Island shoreline. Sediment would continue to accrete along the northern end of Wallops Island. 

Placement of beach fill (initial and renourishment) would create a beach berm approximately 21 m (70 ft) wide on Wallops Island, resulting in long-term beneficial direct impacts. The groin would be specifically designed to let some sand pass through the structure; according to USACE modeling, the combination of the groin with beach fill would result in accretion of sand on the north end of Assawoman Island. The greatest amount of erosion and accretion would occur immediately adjacent to the groin and would exponentially decrease with distance from the groin. Renourishing the beach would reduce the potential for downdrift erosion by providing continual sand on the Wallops Island shoreline, some of which would be available to the longshore sediment transport system. Dredging of the offshore shoals would result in minimal change to local wave conditions 

PlacemrenouriapproxIsland, impactThe breto let saccordiof the baccretioAssawowould by provIsland availabsystemDredgiminimaimpact Sedimenorther
Resource Alternative One: Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension A

and no impact to the Assateague Island shoreline. Sediment would continue to accrete along the northern end of Wallops Island. 

Water Resources Elevated turbidity would result in marine 

waters at the offshore shoals from dredging and in the nearshore environment from sand 

placement. 

Elevated turbidity would result in marine waters at the offshore shoals from dredging and in the nearshore environment from sand placement. 

Elevateat the onearsho

Air Quality Emissions from construction and dredging 

activities are not anticipated to cause longterm adverse impacts on air quality or climate change. 

Emissions from construction and dredging activities are not anticipated to cause longterm adverse impacts on air quality or climate change. 

Emissiactivitiadverse change

Noise Temporary, localized minor impacts are 

anticipated during construction, dredging, and fill. Temporary, localized impacts would result on marine mammals associated with increased noise from vessel activities (dredging). 

Temporary, localized minor impacts are anticipated during construction, dredging, and fill. Temporary, localized impacts would result on marine mammals associated with increased noise from vessel activities (dredging). 

Tempoanticipfill. Teon marnoise f

Hazardous Materials Restoring the shoreline and increasing the 

distance between breaking waves and hazardous materials critical storage areas and accumulation points would have a beneficial impact. 

Restoring the shoreline and increasing the distance between breaking waves and hazardous materials critical storage areas and accumulation points would have a beneficial impact. 

Restoridistancmateriapoints 

MEC MEC are not anticipated to be encountered in 

the area of seawall construction or beach fill. Shoreline erosion would increase to the south of the seawall extension in the first 1 to 2 years of the SRIPP; MEC may migrate to the ocean if further beach erosion occurs in this area. The beach fill (starting in Year 2) would reduce the potential of MEC migration into the ocean. There is a potential that MEC would be encountered during excavation of 

MEC are not anticipated to be encountered in the area of seawall construction or beach fill. 

Shoreline erosion would increase to the south of the seawall extension in the first 1 to 2 years of the SRIPP; MEC may migrate to the ocean if further beach erosion occurs in this area. The beach fill (starting in Year 2) would reduce the potential of MEC migration into the ocean. There is a potential that MEC would be encountered during 

MEC athe are

Shorelithe seathe SRfurther beach fpotentiThere iencoun
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

86 

Resource Alternative One: Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension A

the north Wallops Island borrow site. NASA would implement an MEC Avoidance Plan, conduct surveys, and remove MEC as necessary. 

excavation of the north Wallops Island borrow site. NASA would implement an MEC Avoidance Plan, conduct surveys, and remove MEC as necessary. 

Wallopimplemsurvey

Biological Resources – Birds 

Temporary noise disturbances from the construction machinery used for seawall extension, movement of beach sand, excavation of the north Wallops Island borrow site, and the dredges are expected to adversely affect birds. Adverse effects may also occur from disturbance of beach habitat during the placement of sand on Wallops Island shoreline (initial fill and renourishment cycles) and excavation at north Wallops Island for renourishment. Dredging may disrupt feeding at offshore shoals and cause changes to shoal morphology that could impact foraging, but the impacts are not anticipated to be significant within a regional context given the hundreds of shoals and potential forage areas available to the birds within the midAtlantic region. The newly created beach could create suitable shorebird nesting habitat. 

Temporary noise disturbances from the construction machinery used for seawall extension and groin, movement of beach sand, excavation of the north Wallops Island borrow site, and the dredges are expected to adversely affect birds. Adverse effects may also occur from disturbance of beach habitat during the placement of sand on Wallops Island shoreline (initial fill and renourishment cycles) and excavation at north Wallops Island for renourishment. Dredging may disrupt feeding at offshore shoals and cause changes to shoal morphology that could impact foraging, but the impacts are not anticipated to be significant within a regional context given the hundreds of shoals and potential forage areas available to the birds within the midAtlantic region. The newly created beach could create suitable shorebird nesting habitat. 

Tempoconstruextensisand, eborrow adverseoccur fthe plashoreliand excrenourioffshormorphoimpactwithin shoals birds wcreated nesting 

Biological Resources – Benthic Resources 

Direct adverse impacts are anticipated on bottom communities within dredging area. Benthic communities and habitat would be removed during dredging. Assuming the entire proposed borrow area of Shoal A would be dredged (uniform dredge depth of approximately 0.6 m [2 ft]) for the initial beach fill, approximately 518 ha (1,280 ac) of benthic habitat would be removed. During each of nine renourishment cycles, approximately 140 ha (347 ac) of benthic habitat on Shoal A or Shoal B would be 

Direct adverse impacts are anticipated on bottom communities within dredging area. Benthic communities and habitat would be removed during dredging. Assuming the entire proposed borrow area of Shoal A would be dredged (uniform dredge depth of approximately 0.6 m [2 ft]) for the initial beach fill, approximately 518 ha (1,280 ac) of benthic habitat would be removed. During each of nine renourishment cycles, approximately 116 ha (287 ac) of benthic habitat on Shoal A or Shoal B would be 

Direct bottom Benthic removeproposdredgeapproxfill, apphabitat renouri(287 acB woul
Resource Alternative One: Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension A

adversely impacted with a uniform dredging depth of approximately 0.6 m (2 ft). Placement of the initial fill would bury existing intertidal benthic community along an approximate 4,300-m (14,000-ft) length of the seawall. The mean tidal range is approximately 1.1 m (3.6 ft); therefore, approximately 0.5 ha (1.2 ac) of hard-bottom, intertidal habitat would be permanently buried. In addition, approximately 91 ha (225 ac) of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall would be buried during the initial fill placement. A new beach would be formed in front the seawall and a beach benthic community would become established. 

adversely impacted with a uniform dredging 

depth of approximately 0.6 m (2 ft). Placement of the initial fill would bury existing intertidal benthic community along an approximate 4,300-m (14,000-ft) length of the seawall. The mean tidal range is approximately 1.1 m (3.6 ft); therefore, approximately 0.5 hectare (1.2 ac) of hardbottom, intertidal habitat would be permanently buried. Approximately 91 ha (225 ac) of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall would also be buried during the initial fill placement. A new beach would be formed in front the seawall and a beach benthic community would become established. In addition, the construction of the groin would bury 0.08 ha (0.19 ac) of sandy, subtidal benthic habitat and replace it with hard substrate. 

dredginPlacemintertidapproxseawal1.1 m (hectare would ha (225 the exithe initformed commuIn addibury 0.habitat 

Biological Resources – Fisheries 

Direct site-specific adverse effects would result on EFH within: (1) the dredged area due to removal of benthic habitat and changes in shoal bathymetry, and (2) the fill placement area due to burial of existing benthic habitat. However, the impacts would not be significant within a regional context. There would also be minor direct impacts to fisheries outside the dredging and fill footprints due to turbidity as a result of the dredging and fill placement operations. 

Direct site-specific adverse effects would result on EFH within: (1) the dredged area due to removal of benthic habitat and changes in shoal bathymetry, and (2) the fill placement area due to burial of existing benthic habitat. However, the impacts would not be significant within a regional context. There would also be minor direct impacts to fisheries outside the dredging and fill footprints due to turbidity as a result of the dredging and fill placement operations. The groin would provide hard bottom habitat within the nearshore area. The introduction of hard substrate would provide diverse habitat and prey to the nearshore fish assemblage. 

Direct on EFH removabathymto buriathe impregionadirect iand fill the dreThe brehabitat introdusimilar habitat assemb
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

88 

Resource Alternative One: Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension A

Biological Resources – Marine Mammals 

Potential temporary, localized adverse impacts would be associated with (1) physical disturbance to habitats during dredging and fill, (2) vessel strike, and (3) increased noise from vessel activities (dredging). 

Potential temporary, localized adverse impacts would be associated with (1) physical disturbance to habitats during dredging and fill, (2) vessel strike, and (3) increased noise from vessel activities (dredging). 

Potentiwould disturb(2) vesvessel 

Biological Resources – Threatened & Endangered Species 

The SRIPP may affect, but not likely to adversely affect vegetation, whales, sea turtles (except for loggerhead), and the Red Knot. May affect, and likely to adversely affect loggerhead sea turtle and Piping Plover. No adverse effect to other bird species is anticipated. 

The SRIPP may affect, but not likely to adversely affect vegetation, whales, sea turtles (except for loggerhead), and the Red Knot. May affect, and likely to adversely affect, loggerhead sea turtle and Piping Plover. No adverse effect to other bird species is anticipated. 

The SRadverse(except affect asea turtto othe

Socioeconomics Beneficial impacts would result from 

reducing damages to infrastructure, reducing losses of work days and jobs, and from temporary construction-related job creation. Temporary minor adverse effects would result on surf clams and fisheries at dredge site from smothering and elevated turbidity. Temporary impacts would result on commercial and recreational fishing resources during the placement of beach fill material on Wallops Island due to elevated turbidity levels in the nearshore environment and disruption of the benthos, which would cause fish to avoid the disturbed areas. No long-term adverse impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries are anticipated. No disproportionate impacts to minority and lowincome persons are anticipated. 

Beneficial impacts would result from reducing damages to infrastructure, reducing losses of work days and jobs, and from temporary construction-related job creation. Temporary minor adverse effects would result on surf clams and fisheries at dredge site from smothering and elevated turbidity. Temporary impacts would result on commercial and recreational fishing resources during the placement of beach fill material on Wallops Island due to elevated turbidity levels in the nearshore environment and disruption of the benthos, which would cause fish to avoid the disturbed areas. No long-term adverse impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries are anticipated. No disproportionate impacts to minority and lowincome persons are anticipated. 

Beneficdamagework dconstruminor aand fiselevateresult oresourcmateriaturbiditand discause fterm adrecreatdispropincome 

Cultural Resources No archaeological (below-ground or 

underwater) resources or above-ground historic properties are in the project area; therefore, no cultural resources would be affected. 

No archaeological (below-ground or underwater) resources or above-ground historic properties are in the project area; 

therefore, no cultural resources would be affected. 

No arcunderwpropertcultura
Resource Alternative One: Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension A

Transportation A temporary increase in upland and maritime 

traffic is anticipated with no adverse impacts. 

Temporary increase in upland and maritime 

traffic is anticipated with no adverse impacts. 

Tempo

traffic 

Cumulative Impacts Dredging operations would contribute 

incrementally to the overall removal of sand resources from shoals located on the inner continental shelf in the Mid-Atlantic region offshore of Maryland and Virginia. The SRIPP would contribute incrementally to the overall beneficial impacts of shoreline restoration efforts within the region by adding sand to the nearshore sediment transport system. The incremental contribution to cumulative water resource impacts would be negligible. The cumulative reduction in benthic invertebrate fauna would indirectly affect fish that forage on these benthic species; however, nearby shoals would provide alternate foraging grounds for marine species and mitigate adverse cumulative impacts. Negligible cumulative impacts are anticipated on air quality and marine mammals. Adverse and beneficial impacts are anticipated on birds and sea turtles; NASA would implement mitigation measures required by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NMFS through SRIPP Section 7 consultation. Beneficial socioeconomic impacts are anticipated. 

Dredging operations would contribute incrementally to the overall removal of sand resources from shoals located on the inner continental shelf in the Mid-Atlantic region offshore of Maryland and Virginia. The SRIPP would contribute incrementally to the overall beneficial impacts of shoreline restoration efforts within the region by adding sand to the nearshore sediment transport system. The incremental contribution to cumulative water resource impacts would be negligible. The cumulative reduction in benthic invertebrate fauna would indirectly affect fish that forage on these benthic species; however, nearby shoals would provide alternate foraging grounds for marine species and mitigate adverse cumulative impacts. Negligible cumulative impacts are anticipated on air quality and marine mammals. Adverse and beneficial impacts are anticipated on birds and sea turtles; NASA would implement mitigation measures required by USFWS and NMFS through SRIPP Section 7 consultation. Beneficial socioeconomic impacts are anticipated. 

Dredgiincremresourccontineoffshorwould beneficefforts nearshoincremresourccumulafauna wthese bwould marine impactanticipAdverson birdimplemUSFWconsultare ant
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

90 

This page intentionally left blank.
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

 91 

2.7 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION 

ALTERNATIVES 

For activities associated with the Proposed Action that are anticipated to have potential 

environmental impacts, NASA would be expected to utilize site-specific mitigation measures to 

avoid or minimize the impacts. Table 12 below provides an overview of the mitigation measures 

that would be utilized under each Proposed Action Alternative; mitigation measures are 

presented in detail in Chapter 5 of this PEIS. 

Table 12: Summary of Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Action Alternatives 

Mitigation Measures 

Seawall Extension 

 Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented for erosion, sediment control, 

and vehicle and equipment fueling spill prevention. 

 During construction operations in beach nesting bird or sea turtle nesting season, 

biological resource surveys would be conducted within the project area by a qualified 

biologist. Any nests identified within the project work area would be avoided. 

 USFWS reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions would be followed to 

avoid and minimize effects on Piping Plovers and sea turtles. 

Offshore Dredging Operations

 The dredge contractor would be required to implement a marine pollution control plan to 

minimize any direct impacts to water quality from construction activity. 

 Dredging would be conducted in a manner generally consistent with the recommendations 

of recent BOEMRE sponsored studies, which include: 

o Dredging in areas that are accreting to the extent practicable; 

o Avoiding dredging in erosional areas to the extent practicable; 

o Dredging at a depth needed to obtain the required fill volume that would not be 

excessive (approximately 2 m [6.6 ft]); and 

o Not dredging along the entire length of the shoal. 

 USACE dredging guidelines would be followed, including use of dredge dragheads with 

rigid deflectors to reduce the risk of entrainment of sea turtles. 

 NMFS reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions would be followed to 

avoid and minimize incidental takes of sea turtles.

Sand Placement Activities 

 If nourishment occurs during shore bird or sea turtle nesting season, a qualified biologist 

would closely monitor the beach during sand placement activities to ensure that impacts to 

any beach nesting birds or sea turtle species and their nests would be avoided or 

minimized. If any sea turtle or nests are detected within the planned work area, the nest 

would be avoided until NASA consulted with USFWS. 

 NASA would plant the newly created beach with native vegetation. 
Description and Comparison of Alternatives 

92 

Mitigation Measures 

 NASA would install sand fencing perpendicular to the beach with regular gaps to allow 

wildlife passage between the beach berm and dune area. 

 USFWS reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions would be followed to 

avoid and minimize effects on Piping Plovers and sea turtles.

North Wallops Island Sand Removal 

 BMPs would be implemented for erosion, sediment control, and vehicle and equipment 

fueling spill prevention. 

 Prior to starting work, a qualified biologist would survey an area 660 feet around the 

proposed work area to determine the presence of bald eagle nests. If nests are discovered, 

NASA would consult with USFWS to minimize effects to the species. 

 To avoid impacts to nesting Piping Plovers and sea turtles, excavation of sand for future 

renourishment would be conducted outside of plover and sea turtle nesting season (March 

15 through November 30 or the last date of potential sea turtle hatchling emergence based 

on when the last eggs were laid).
Affected Environment 

 93 

CHAPTER THREE: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Chapter 3 presents information regarding existing resources at Wallops Island that may be 

affected by the project alternatives. This chapter contains discussions on resources under the 

three main categories of Physical Environment, Biological Environment, and Social and 

Economic Environment. Several of the affected environment sections are based on information 

provided in the WFF Environmental Resources Document (NASA, 2008a). 

3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

Wallops Island is approximately 11 km (7 mi) long and 800 m (2,650 ft) wide. It is bordered by 

Chincoteague Inlet to the north, Assawoman Island to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, 

and marshland to the west. The mainland area to the west is comprised mainly of rural farmland. 

South of Wallops Island is the former Assawoman Inlet (now closed) and Assawoman Island, a 

576-ha (1,424-ac) island managed as part of the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge 

(CNWR) by the USFWS. A string of undeveloped barrier islands extends down the coast to the 

mouth of Chesapeake Bay. The Eastern Shore of Virginia’s Atlantic coast shoreline on the 

Delmarva Peninsula is one of the longest stretches of undeveloped shoreline on the east coast of 

the United States. 

Much of the Wallops Island beach has nearly or completely eroded and is armored with a rock 

seawall along 4.6 km (2.86 mi) of the shoreline. On the southern portion of the island, near the 

MARS launch complex, shoreline retreat has averaged about 3.7 m (12 ft) per year from 1857 to 

the present (USACE, 2010a). Farther south, adjacent to Assawoman Inlet, shoreline retreat 

exceeded 5 m (16.4 ft) per year during that same time period. The northern end of Wallops 

Island has been accreting, both as a result of sediment bypassing of Chincoteague Inlet and 

northward net sediment transport on the northern end of Wallops Island (USACE, 2010a). 

The SRIPP project area lies within the Northeast Continental Shelf, which is divided into four 

major subregions, Gulf of Maine (GOM), Georges Bank (GB), Southern New England (SNE), 

and the Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB), that reflect different underlying oceanographic conditions, 

ecosystems, and fishery management boundaries (Figure 19). There is also variation in sea 

surface temperature, bathymetry, and biology (e.g., chlorophyll and zooplankton biomass) within 

each of these subregions. The SRIPP study area lies within the central portion of the MAB. 
Affected Environment 

94 

Source: NOAA NEFSC, 2007 

Figure 19: Northeast Continental Shelf Subregions 

3.1.1 Meteorology 

WFF is located in the climatic region known as the humid continental warm summer climate 

zone. The climate is tempered by the proximity of the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the 

Chesapeake Bay to the west. Also affecting the climate is a cold water current, known as the 

Labrador Current, which originates in the polar latitudes and moves southward along the 

Delmarva coastline. The current creates a wedge between the warm Gulf Stream offshore and the 

Atlantic coast. 

Four distinct seasons are discernible in the region. The climate is dominated in winter by polar 

continental air masses and in summer by tropical maritime air masses. Clashes between these 

two air masses create frontal systems, resulting in thunderstorms, high winds, and precipitation. 

Summer is hot and humid with precipitation occurring primarily from thunderstorm activity. 

Autumn is characterized by slightly decreasing temperatures and strong frontal systems with rain 

and sustained winds. 

The storms causing the most significant coastal erosion and other damage along the Mid-Atlantic 

shorelines are nor’easters, or extratropical storms (Dolan et al., 1988 and references contained 

therein). On the east coast of North America, nor’easters most often originate from the vicinity 

of Cape Hatteras, NC (Davis et al., 1993) between December and April, with the peak in 

February. Unlike a hurricane, the greatest damage from nor’easters comes not from wind, but 

from strong waves lasting up to several days, which is most damaging along long areas of coastal 

zones. Unlike a hurricane, which affects a smaller geographic area more intensely, nor’easters 

can sometimes be difficult to classify and predict due to their diffuse nature. Over the past 50 

years, these storms have become less frequent but more intense (Environmental Protection 

Agency [EPA], 2009a). Zhang et al. (2000) conducted an analysis of hourly tide gauge records 

from 10 tide gauges along the East Coast; their analysis did not show any discernible long-term 

Wallops Island
Affected Environment 

 95 

trend in storm activity during the twentieth century. This suggests a lack of response of 

storminess to minor global warming documented along the U.S. Atlantic coast during the last 

100 years (Zhang et al., 2000). However, increased global climate change is predicted in the next 

century (IPCC, 2007), which is likely to cause changes in seawater temperatures and in turn 

affect the number and intensity of hurricanes. 

Hurricanes and tropical storms occur less frequently than nor’easters and usually occur between 

June and November. Like nor’easters, hurricanes originate from unstable atmospheric 

conditions, but they are comprised of a cooler air mass with a warmer temperature at their core. 

Hurricanes form over warm ocean waters. As opposed to a nor’easter, hurricane impacts can 

extend well inland from the coastal zone, but typically only affect smaller stretches of the coast 

(Davis et al., 1993). According to a study by Komar and Allan (2008) that investigated 30 years 

of wave data, the waves off the east coast of the United States have gradually increased in height, 

especially those generated by hurricanes. Examination of the wave data indicated a net increase 

in the occurrence of waves higher than 3 m (9 ft). This is believed to be associated with the rise 

in frequency and intensification of hurricanes. The steady increase in the capacity of hurricanes 

to generate higher waves is attributed to gradual climate changes. 

The Maryland and Virginia shores have been hit by a number of major storms this century, 

including 39 nor’easters between 1954 and 2003 and 41 hurricanes and tropical storms between 

1856 and 2003 (USACE, 2010a). Specific damaging storms on record include hurricanes in 1902 

and 1933, the Ash Wednesday 1962 Nor’easter, the Halloween 1991 Nor’easter, the January 4, 

1992 Nor’easter, the December 1992 Nor’easter, and the November 12, 2009 Nor’easter. 

3.1.2 Climate Change 

There is consensus among leading scientific organizations (The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change [IPCC, 2007], The National Academy of Sciences, The American 

Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the 

Advancement of Science, among others [Oreskes, 2004]) that the chemical composition of the 

Earth’s atmosphere is changing. Changes to the atmosphere are occurring both naturally and due 

to a number of human activities, such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and other land use 

changes, resulting in the accumulation of trace greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. 

By absorbing the radiative energy from the Sun and Earth, GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, 

and their accumulation in the atmosphere may be contributing to an increase in the Earth’s 

average surface temperature, which in turn is expected to affect weather patterns and the severity 

of storms/droughts, increase average sea levels, and increase intrusion of seawater into estuaries. 

Other effects are changes in precipitation rates, an increase in ozone (O3) levels due in part to 

changes in atmospheric photochemistry, and decreased water availability and quality (Jones & 

Stokes, 2007). 

GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), O3, and 

several hydro and chlorofluorocarbons. Water vapor occurs naturally and accounts for the largest 

percentage of GHGs, while CO2 is the second-most abundant GHG. Some GHGs are directly 

emitted from human processes (CO2, chlorofluorocarbons, and water vapor), while other gases 

(e.g., nitrogen oxides [NOx] and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]) emitted from these 

processes contribute indirectly by forming tropospheric (ground-level) O3 and other reactive 

species. Those compounds then react photochemically with GHGs and control the amount of 

radiation penetrating through the troposphere. As GHGs continue to increase, the average 
Affected Environment 

96 

temperature of the Earth’s surface increases, leading to changes in weather events and 

precipitation rates, an increase in O3 levels due in part to changes in atmospheric photochemistry, 

and decreased water availability and quality. 

According to the IPCC (2009), climate change predictions are now estimated to occur within the 

upper range of values predicted in the 2007 report. 

3.1.2.1 Sea-Level Rise 

Global sea-level rise refers to the average increase in the level of the world’s oceans. Sea-level 

rise is occurring on a world-wide basis and is projected to continue to occur at an increasing rate 

(EPA, 2009a). As the global climate warms and glaciers retreat, water stored as continental ice is 

released, adding to the mass of water in the oceans and causing a corresponding rise in sea-level 

(EPA, 2009a). Relative MSL considers both global sea-level rise and how local historical 

changes and unique circumstances, like rate of subsidence, affect the sea-level rise within a 

particular area. 

By the Bruun rule (Bruun, 1962), small changes in sea level can be expected to have dramatic 

effects on shoreline position, with increasing sea levels causing shoreline retreat. The shoreline 

at Wallops Island would experience the effects of future sea-level rise, as coasts and barrier 

islands are particularly vulnerable to the sea-level rise and intensified storm and wave events 

attributed to climate change (Nicholls et al., 2007). Beaches and barrier islands may adjust 

naturally by growing vertically, moving inland, or expanding laterally, although at a certain point 

the coastline would be fundamentally altered (EPA, 2009a). 

Although the scientific consensus is that the Earth’s climate is changing (NASA, 2010b; 

Oreskes, 2004; EPA, 2009a), there is still great uncertainty in calculating the precise contributing 

factors which result in sea-level rise, and new data are constantly emerging. Over the last 

century, relative sea-level rise rates along the Atlantic coast of the United States have ranged 

between 1.8 mm/year (0.07 in/year) (Maine) to as much as 4.4 mm/year (0.17 in/year) (Zervas, 

2001). The lowest rates (1.8 mm/year [0.07 in/year]) are nearly equivalent to the average global 

rate for the twentieth century of 1.7 ± 0.5 mm/year (0.07 ± 0.02 in/year) (Bindoff et al., 2007) 

and occur along coastal New England and from Georgia to southern Florida. The highest rates 

have been observed in the Mid-Atlantic region between northern New Jersey and northeastern 

North Carolina (Zervas, 2004). Data collected from long-term tidal gauges in Hampton Roads, 

VA indicate that between 1930 and 1960 the average relative sea-level rise for this location was 

4.2 mm (0.17 in) per year (NOAA, 2004). Subsidence of the land surface due to a range of 

factors contributes to the high rates of relative sea-level rise observed in the mid-Atlantic region. 

A report by the EPA (2009a) assesses the effect three potential rates of increase in the relative 

sea level might have on the physical and social environments from the coast of New York to 

North Carolina. The first scenario assumes that sea-level rise will continue at the current rate of 

2.4 to 4.4 mm (0.09 to 0.17 in) annually throughout the twenty-first century, the second scenario 

assumes an increase of 5 to 6 mm annually, and the third assumes an increase of 10 to 11 mm 

(0.39 to 0.43 in) annually. According to the report, if sea-level rise continues at the third scenario 

rate or higher, it is “very likely that future sea-level rise will contribute to significant changes 

resulting in the segmentation, disintegration, and/or more rapid landward migration” of the 

Wallops, Assawoman, Metompkin, and Cedar barrier islands (EPA, 2009a). However, there 

remains uncertainty in the precise outcome of the three scenarios because they depend upon the 
Affected Environment 

 97 

elevation of each individual coastal area in question, and currently available data are not 

considered accurate enough for scientists to predict quantitatively the precise effects of sea-level 

rise in the Mid-Atlantic (EPA, 2009a). In addition, the IPCC has concluded that based on new 

satellite data, the melting of continental ice sheets may contribute more to global sea-level rise 

than previously reported (IPCC, 2007). 

With the anticipated acceleration in the rate of global sea-level rise (e.g., IPCC, 2001 and IPCC, 

2007), local rates of relative sea-level rise will also accelerate. Recently, the Fourth Assessment 

Report of the IPCC has predicted that sea levels will rise by 10 to 59 cm (3.9 to 23.2 in) over the 

next century, which is a somewhat smaller rise and range than the estimated 11 to 88 cm (4.3 to 

34.6 in) reported in the Third Assessment Report (IPCC, 2001). Several recent criticisms of the 

IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report estimates of future sea-level changes (Rahmstorf, 2007; 

Rahmstorf et al., 2007; Hansen et al., 2007) argue that these estimates are conservative and do 

not incorporate adequately the potential contributions of land-based ice melt from Greenland and 

western Antarctica to the global sea level. The IPCC assessment concludes that the science 

regarding future acceleration in ice melt and its contribution to sea-level rise is not yet sufficient 

to include in its sea-level projections. 

3.1.3 Bathymetry 

Bathymetry is the measurement of depth at various places in a body of water. The nearshore 

environment east of Wallops Island slopes gently from the shoreline to approximately 12m (40 

ft) at the limit of state jurisdictional waters (5.5 km [3 nm] offshore). 

The nearshore seafloor east of Assateague Island is characterized by a discontinuous sheet of fine 

to medium sand containing a complex of linear shoals and troughs. The shoals in this area are 

approximately 1 to 10 m (3.3 to 33 ft) in height, approximately 2 to 4 km (1.2 to 2.5 mi) apart, 

and up to tens of km in length (Swift and Field, 1981; McBride and Moslow, 1991). The long 

axes of the shoals are oriented generally northeast to southwest directly into the predominant or 

prevailing storm wave approach direction, which is from the northeast in the MAB during 

nor’easters (Hayes and Nairn, 2004). The region of the continental shelf between Delaware and 

Chesapeake Bays (including the SRIPP Unnamed Shoals A and B, Blackfish Bank, and 

Chincoteague Shoals) contains at least 180 shoals similar of similar orientation and morphology 

(Dibajnia and Nairn, in press). 

Offshore of Fishing Point, a series of sand ridges and shoals referred to as Chincoteague Shoals 

(Figure 20) are located in depths of approximately 2 to 5 m (7 to 16 ft). Bathymetry in the shoal 

complex area east of Assateague Island ranges from an average of about 1 m (3 ft) near the 

shoreline to about 25 m (85 ft) deep about 21 km (13 mi) offshore in the vicinity of Unnamed 

Shoal B (Figure 21). 

The depth of the first sand ridge east of Chincoteague Shoals—Blackfish Bank—ranges from 9 

to 4 m (30 to 13 ft). Moving eastward, depth drops to about 21 m (70 ft) between Blackfish Bank 

and Unnamed Shoal A. The crest of Unnamed Shoal A is located in depths of 12 to 7.5 m (40 ft 

to 25 ft). Between Unnamed Shoals A and B, the depth ranges from 23 to 12 m (75 to 40 ft). The 

crest of Unnamed Shoal B is located in depths between 15 m (50 ft) to 9 m (29 ft). Figures 22 

and 23 show a profile view of the bathymetry between Assateague Island and Shoals A and B, 

respectively. 
Affected Environment 

98 

The sand ridge complex east of Assateague Island disappears relatively abruptly to the south in a 

featureless basin (Chincoteague Bight) that exists southeast of Fishing Point and east of Wallops 

Island (Figure 20). The Chincoteague Bight is characterized by a slow and steady increase in 

depth seaward from the shoreline. 

Bathymetric data (uncorrected for tides) were obtained within the 5.2-km2 (2-mi2) survey areas 

for both Unnamed Shoal A and B during the cultural resources survey conducted in 2009 for the 

SRIPP (see Section 3.3.7.2). The bathymetry was recorded using an Odom Hydrotrac® digital 

echo sounder along 80 survey transects spaced at 15.2-m (50-ft) intervals along Unnamed Shoal 

A, which yielded 348.9 liner survey km (216.8 linear survey mi). Unnamed Shoal B was divided 

into 84 transect lines spaced at 15.2-m (50-ft) intervals, which yielded 318.3 liner survey km 

(197.8 linear survey mi). Figure 24 shows the plan view of the bathymetry of Unnamed Shoal A 

and Unnamed Shoal B. Figure 25 shows the three-dimensional bathymetry of the proposed 

dredge areas. 

Source: Wikel, 2008. Bathymetric Digital Elevation Model was created from 1978 and 1982 hydrographic surveys 

from the NOAA – National Geophysical Data Center. 

Figure 20: Bathymetry of Chincoteague Shoals and Chincoteague Bight 

Affected Environment 

100 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Affected Environment 

102 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Affected Environment 

104 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Affected Environment 

106 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Affected Environment 

108 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Affected Environment 

 109 

3.1.4 Geology and Geomorphology 

This section describes the geology and geomorphological elements of the project area, including 

an overview of the Virginia Barrier Island system, Wallops Island, shoreline changes, and the 

offshore sand shoals. In addition, a summary is provided at the end of the section. 

3.1.4.1 Virginia Barrier Island System 

Wallops Island is part of the Virginia barrier island system that fronts the Atlantic Ocean. Barrier 

islands are dynamic systems formed by the interaction of wave, wind, and tidal energies that 

erode, transport, and deposit sediments (Leatherman, 1982). By absorbing the impact of highenergy marine processes, barrier islands reduce erosion of the mainland coast and provide shelter 

for sensitive coastal habitats. 

Leatherman (1982) and Kochel et al. (1985) classified the 12 Virginia barrier islands into three 

groups based on shoreline migration rates: (1) a northern parallel beach retreat group; (2) a 

middle rotational instability group; and (3) a southern non-parallel beach retreat group. Wallops 

Island is situated in the northern parallel beach retreat group. Wallops Island also possesses a 

morphology and features that are indicative of mixed-energy conditions (i.e., sedimentary 

processes driven by the interplay of waves and tides [Hayes, 1979; Oertel and Kraft, 1994; 

Wikel, 2008]). While the entire Virginia barrier island chain is subject to mixed-energy 

conditions (average deep water wave heights = 0.86 m; tidal range = 1.24 m), the morphologic 

variability expressed by each group of islands (Dolan et al., 1979; Leatherman, 1982) and 

individual islands within those groups (Byrnes, 1988; Harris, 1992; Richardson and McBride, 

2007) suggest that multiple processes operating over a variety of spatial and temporal scales have 

influenced and continue to influence both short- and long-term dynamics along Wallops Island. 

For example, the shoreline migration rates and morphology along Wallops Island have changed 

considerably over its distant and recent geologic past, in part because of its location at the 

intersection of the northern end of this mixed-energy barrier island chain and the southern end of 

the wave-dominated, Assateague Island and recurved spit system. 

Wallops Island and the three narrow barrier islands to the south—Assawoman, Metompkin, and 

Cedar—are unusual in that they are concave due to rapid erosion compared to the other barrier 

islands along the Virginia shore. Leatherman (1982) concludes that the combination of 

diminishing sediment supply, differential subsidence, and uniform wave attack has promoted the 

steady retreat of Assateague Island. Several factors help to shape these barrier islands, however, 

at Wallops Island long-term effects such as differential subsidence are not as great of a 

consideration as wave driven processes. The inlets between the islands approximately follow the 

courses of paleochannels formed during the late Wisconsin sea-level regression (Halsey, 1979). 

3.1.4.2 Wallops Island 

The relatively flat topography of Wallops Island is typical of barrier islands. Topography refers 

to the three-dimensional relief of the Earth’s surface, including both human-made and natural 

features, and is often expressed in elevation relative to sea level and shown as contour lines on a 

map. The unarmored shoreline segments at the north and south ends of Wallops Island consist of 

low sloping sandy beaches. The sandy portion of Wallops Island has an elevation of about 2.1 m 

(6.9 ft) amsl. The highest elevation on Wallops Island is approximately 4.6 m (15 ft) amsl. Most 

of the island is below 3.0 m (10 ft) amsl (NASA, 2005). 
Affected Environment 

110 

As is typical of barrier islands in the region, Wallops Island exhibits environmental zones related 

to changes in topography across the island profile. Generally, dunes are found at the highest 

elevations, and beaches and marshes are found at the lowest. On Wallops Island, previous 

structures, such as groins, weirs, beach beams, and beach prisms have modified the natural 

sediment transport processes, thereby changing the island’s structure. The seawall that was 

constructed to protect critical infrastructure on the island has fixed the shoreline position, thereby 

resulting in complete loss of the beach seaward of the wall and preventing long-term natural 

maintenance of the gently sloping nearshore and beach systems that would have existed under 

natural conditions. In addition, without a beach to provide a source of sand, the island’s ability to 

create and maintain natural dunes is limited. 

Located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Wallops Island is underlain 

by approximately 2,150 m (7,000 ft) of sediment. The sediment lies atop crystalline basement 

rock. The sedimentary section, ranging in age from Cretaceous to Quaternary (approximately 

145.5 to 2.5 million years ago), consists of a thick sequence of terrestrial, continental deposits 

overlain by a much thinner sequence of marine sediments. These sediments are generally 

unconsolidated and consist of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. 

The regional dip of the geologic units is eastward, toward the Atlantic Ocean. The two 

uppermost stratigraphic units on Wallops Island are the Yorktown Formation and the Columbia 

Group, which is not subdivided into formations. The Yorktown Formation is the uppermost unit 

in the Chesapeake Group and was deposited during the Pliocene epoch of the Tertiary Period 

(approximately 5.3 to 1.8 million years ago). The Yorktown Formation generally consists of fine 

to coarse glauconite quartz sand, which is greenish gray, clayey, silty, and in part, shelly. The 

Yorktown Formation occurs at depths of 18 to 43 m (60 to 140 ft) in Accomack County 

(Commonwealth of Virginia, 1975). 

The shoreline beaches consist mostly of sand deposited by wave action subjected to daily tidal 

flooding. As discussed in Section 2.4.3.2 of this PEIS, sampling of the Wallops Island beach was 

conducted by the USACE Norfolk District in 2007 to determine the grain size of the sediment on 

the beach (USACE, 2010a). One-hundred and seventy samples were taken along several 

transects, including sampling between the top of the beach and the mean low water (MLW) 

elevation, and at the north and south ends of Wallops Island. The mean grain sizes of the 

individual samples of native sand on Wallops Island were between 0.20 and 0.21 mm (USACE, 

2010a). 

In October 2009, sediment sampling of the north Wallops Island beach was conducted by the 

USACE to further evaluate the material there for suitability for use as renourishment fill (Figure 

12). As discussed in Section 2.4.3.4 of this PEIS, 16 samples were collected to a depth of 1.8 m 

(6 ft) and analyzed for grain size. The sediments generally consisted of tan to gray, poorly graded 

fine to medium sand with trace shell fragments and silt. The median grain sizes of all 16 samples 

ranged from 0.18 to 0.27 mm. 

3.1.4.3 Shoreline Changes 

Normal wave conditions produce gradual changes in island morphology, while large changes 

occur during major storms (Leatherman, 1982; Pekala, 1996). Over a longer time scale, shoreline 

position, orientation, and length can be affected by variations in sea level, sediment supply, and 
Affected Environment 

 111 

wave energy (Pekala, 1996). Leatherman (1982) cites coastal storms as a major contributor to 

beach and dune erosion, overwash processes, and the opening of tidal inlets on barrier islands.

Like several of the Atlantic coast beaches on the southern Delmarva Peninsula, such as 

Parramore Island (Richardson and McBride, 2007), the beach at Wallops Island has been in a 

state of chronic erosion for at least the last 150 years. An analysis of the shoreline between 

Fishing Point and Gargathy Inlet is shown in Figure 26; this figure is oriented so that land is at 

the bottom and offshore is at the top. Wallops Island extends from “-2000 m” to “+6500 m” 

along the horizontal axis. 

The 1849, 1857/1858, 1909/1911, 1933, and 1983 shorelines are taken from the U.S. Coast and 

Geodetic Survey charts. The 1994 shoreline was digitized from a rectified aerial photograph. The 

1996 and 2005 shorelines were obtained from Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) surveys. 

The dominant direction of storm wave approach for the Mid-Atlantic coastline shown in this 

figure is from the northeast (left) and sediment transport is generally to the south (right), though 

a significant transport reversal occurs on Wallops Island (for more information on waves and 

longshore sediment transport see 3.1.6.2 and 3.1.6.4, respectively). 

Panel A of Figure 26 shows the 1849 and 1857/1858 shorelines. In the mid-1800s the shoreline 

was much straighter, as Fishing Point spit had not formed. The inlet shown in the 1849 shoreline, 

now called Assateague Channel, has shifted to the southwest in the 1857 shoreline, suggesting 

that the main direction of longshore sediment transport was to the south. 

By 1909/1911, Fishing Point had started to form (Figure 26, Panel B). Assateague Channel had 

shifted farther to the southwest. The Wallops Island shoreline had retreated by approximately 75 

m (250 ft). By 1933, Fishing Point had formed a distinct hook, but it had not grown enough to 

redefine the mouth of Chincoteague Inlet. 

By 1983 (Figure 26, Panel C) substantial changes had occurred. Fishing Point had grown to the 

extent that the tip of it and the northern shoulder of Wallops Island had started to re-define the 

location of the throat section of Chincoteague Inlet. Some aerial photographs from the 1980s 

show the existence of an emergent ebb shoal. However, the distance between these points was 

still well over 2 km (1 mi) wide. 

The northern end of Wallops Island was now sheltered enough by Fishing Point that it had 

started to accrete, which was a change from earlier decades, as shown in Panel C. Because the 

mouth of Chincoteague Inlet was still so wide, it is likely that the majority of the accretion at the 

northern tip of Wallops Island was due to a transport reversal on Wallops Island, caused by 

Fishing Point blocking waves from the northeast. The rest of Wallops Island and Assawoman 

Island were still experiencing substantial erosion. The southern portion of Wallops Island, south 

of the existing seawall, is currently eroding at a rate of approximately 3 m (10 ft) per year 

(USACE, 2010a). 
Affected Environment 

112 

Figure 26: Wallops Island Shoreline Changes between 1849 and 2005 
Affected Environment 

 113 

By 1996, Fishing Point and the northeastern shoulder of Wallops Island had both grown enough 

that the mouth of Chincoteague Inlet was less than a half mile wide, and substantial inlet 

bypassing (from Fishing Point to Wallops) had started to occur (Figure 26, Panel D). Because of 

this sedimentation, in 1995 USACE began dredging Chincoteague Inlet at intervals ranging from 

1 to 3 years (USACE, 2006). On Wallops Island, the area of accretion at the northern tip had 

extended farther to the south, though the southern part of the island continued to erode. 

Figure 26, Panel E shows the 2005 shoreline. The dashed portion of this shoreline at the northern 

end of Wallops Island was not covered in the LiDAR survey. Instead, this shoreline is inferred 

from limited Global Positioning System (GPS) readings taken in 2007. The northern end of 

Wallops Island has continued to strongly accrete, both as a result of sediment bypassing of 

Chincoteague Inlet and northward net sediment transport on the northern end of Wallops Island. 

Today, the beach at the northern tip of Wallops Island contains a series of trapped shallow 

sloughs. These are the result of ebb shoal bar bypassing and welding to the inlet’s downdrift 

shoreline. These shoals form in the channel and migrate westward, where they weld onto the 

northern tip of Wallops Island. 

Growth of the Southern Tip of Fishing Point 

The development and growth of the cape called Fishing Point and the adjacent offshore spit 

platform and shoal complex has captured sand that would have otherwise been available to 

nourish Wallops Island and the islands farther south along the Virginia coastline. This is one 

reason that these shorelines are experiencing substantial erosion. Figure 27 shows National Park 

Service (NPS) shoreline location data through the spring of 2009 for the very southern tip of 

Assateague Island and shows that the tip of the island is continuing to grow to the southwest at a 

rate of approximately 50 m (150 ft) per year. If this trend continues over the next 50 years, the 

tip will grow to the southwest by about 2.3 km (1.5 mi). This will more strongly shelter the 

Wallops Island shoreline from ocean waves approaching from the northeast, and will shift the 

transport divergent nodal point (explained in Section 3.1.5.4, Longshore Sediment Transport), 

which is estimated to occur between the northern part of Assawoman Island and the southern 

portion of Wallops Island, to the south by roughly that amount. 

Narrowing of the Tom’s Cove Isthmus 

Another shoreline change feature is the narrowing of the thin strip of land separating Tom’s 

Cove from the Atlantic Ocean. The rate at which this is happening makes it likely that there will 

be storm-induced breakthroughs between Tom’s Cove and the ocean during the 50-year lifetime 

of the SRIPP. The first breach on this isthmus occurred as a result of a November 2009 

Nor’easter (USACE, 2010a). These breaches may close rapidly, or they may cause permanent or 

semi-permanent inlets to form. 
Affected Environment 

114 

 

Figure 27: Growth of Fishing Point 

Changes in Wallops Island Shoreline Orientation and Chincoteague Inlet Migration 

The northern end of Wallops Island is rapidly accreting. This is because sediment is being 

delivered to this location from two directions: 1) north along the Wallops Island shoreline, and 2) 

westward by the westward drift of Chincoteague Inlet ebb shoals. Over the short term, sediment 

may be stored in swash bars, the ebb tidal delta, or the ebb/flood tidal ramp. Over the long term, 

it is probable that the sediment will be carried into Chincoteague Inlet by tidal currents where it 

is sequestered in flood shoals. This mechanism will act to slow down the rate of sediment 

accumulation that would otherwise occur on northern Wallops Island. 

The sediment accumulation on north Wallops Island may tend to push Chincoteague Inlet to the 

east: this appears to already be occurring as documented on recent aerial photographs of the 

western tip of Assateague Island showing that it has retreated to the east. However, future 

Chincoteague Inlet locations can be strongly affected by USACE dredging decisions and whether 

attempts are made to maintain the inlet channel in a fixed location, or to dredge whatever is 
Affected Environment 

 115 

found to be the current channel location. The sediment accumulation on north Wallops Island is 

changing the existing north-south shoreline orientation to one that is much more east-west. 

3.1.4.4 Offshore Sand Shoals 

The coastal plain and continental shelf are closely related geologically. Both originate from the 

deposition and erosion of sediments on the eastern edge of North America caused by changes in 

sea level over the geologic timescale. Section 3.1.3 provides more detailed information regarding 

the bathymetry in the SRIPP project area, including a map showing the bathymetry of both 

Unnamed Shoals A and B from data collected by NASA during a 2009 survey of the shoals. 

Swift and Field (1981) categorized the shoals off Maryland into three groups based on their 

geomorphic characteristics: shoreface, nearshore, and offshore. Unnamed Shoals A and B are 

offshore sand ridges that are located at the southern end of the Assateague ridge field. In general, 

the offshore shoals in this ridge field are oriented with their long or main axis in a 

southwest/northeast orientation directly into the predominant storm wave approach direction. 

This orientation suggests the wave forces from nor’easters either directly or indirectly account 

for the origin and maintenance of these features (Hayes and Nairn, 2004). The offshore shoals 

are asymmetrical with their seaward flanks approximately three times as steep as the landward 

flanks. The coarsest sediment generally occurs on the shoreward flanks of the shoals (Swift and 

Field, 1981; Hayes and Nairn, 2004). Based on numerous studies, Hayes and Nairn (2004) 

conclude that once formed, most ridges in depths of less than 20 m (66 ft) are maintained and 

even enlarged by present-day hydrodynamics. 

See Section 2.4.3.3 and Appendix A for information on the USACE vibracore sampling and 

results. 

3.1.4.5 Summary 

The shoreline along Wallops Island has been in a state of chronic erosion for at least the last 150 

years. The development and growth of Fishing Point and the adjacent offshore spit platform and 

shoal complex has captured sand that would have otherwise been available to nourish Wallops 

Island and the islands farther south along the Virginia coastline. This is one reason that these 

shorelines are experiencing substantial erosion. The southern portion of Wallops Island, south of 

the existing seawall, is eroding at a rate of approximately 3 m (10 ft) per year (USACE, 2010a). 

The shoreline along northern end of Wallops Island is rapidly accreting. This is because 

sediment is being delivered to this location from two directions: 1) north along the Wallops 

Island shoreline, and 2) westward by the westward drift of Chincoteague Inlet ebb shoals. In 

addition, the growth of Fishing Point has sheltered the northern portion of the Wallops Island 

shoreline from storm waves that approach primarily from the northeast. 

The Wallops Island shoreline is comprised of fine sand with a mean grain size between 0.20 and 

0.21 mm. The two offshore shoals identified as potential borrow sites are located at the southern 

end of the Assateague ridge field and contain sand that is compatible for use as beach fill 

material. 
Affected Environment 

116 

3.1.5 Physical Oceanography and Coastal Processes 

3.1.5.1 Tides 

The project area has a semidiurnal tide (two high and two low tides occur each day). The mean 

ocean tide range is approximately 1.1 m (3.6 ft); the mean spring tide is approximately 1.3 m 

(4.4 ft). Tidal currents are generally weak except in the vicinity of the ebb and flood tidal jet of 

Chincoteague Inlet. 

3.1.5.2 Waves 

There is seasonal variability in wave height, period, and direction. The dominant wave direction 

is from the southeast. Dominant storm waves are from the northeast. The largest and most 

frequent waves originate from the east-northeast and northeast directions as a result of 

extratropical storms in the summer and fall, or nor’easters between October and February. 

Hurricanes, which occur less frequently than nor’easters, are usually fast moving and produce 

substantial coastal impacts with durations of a day or less. However, because of their low central 

pressures and high wind speeds, hurricanes can generate large storm surges. In contrast, 

nor’easters can cause impacts over longer time scales (several tidal cycles), but usually do not 

produce extremely high storm surges. Individual storms can cause the equivalent change of 

decades of shoreline in a matter of days (Fenster et al., 2001). 

Based on USACE Wave Information Studies (WIS) hindcast data from 1980-1999, the 

maximum significant wave height was approximately 6 m (20 ft) high with an 11 second period. 

Average wave heights vary seasonally; the lowest monthly average wave occurs in July and 

August; the maximum monthly average wave heights occur in December, January, and February. 

The largest measured wave at Ocean City was 4.4 m (14 ft); this occurred during a January 1992 

nor’easter. As discussed in Section 3.1.1, according to Komar and Allan (2008), the waves off 

the east coast of the United States are gradually increasing in height, especially those generated 

by hurricanes. 

Waves in the area are refracted around Fishing Point. Wave energy is reduced along northern 

Wallops Island and the east-west oriented section of Fishing Point due to wave sheltering by the 

recurved spit. Nearshore along Wallops Island there is a strong gradient in the wave height, with 

the height decreasing to the north (USACE, 2010a). 

The most frequent wave approach direction is from the southeast quadrant; however, the waves 

from the northeast tend to be larger and longer in period. Moffatt & Nichol (1986) reported that 

waves from the northeast and east northeast account for 71 percent of the total wave energy 

along the Virginia coast. The general, predominant southerly littoral drift along the Maryland 

and Virginia coast lines is a result of waves from these directions. The presence of Fishing Point 

greatly affects the wave patterns seen on the shore at Wallops Island (USACE, 2010a). Wave 

energy coming from the northeast is largely blocked by Fishing Point, whereas wave energy 

coming from the southeast arrives at the beach with little change. Waves coming from the 

southeast have roughly the same height everywhere along the shoreline, but waves coming from 

the northeast have dramatically decreasing height (and thus energy) the farther north they are 

along Wallops Island. This phenomenon results in diminished southerly sand transport. 

Storm waves also affect the submerged offshore sand shoals. Storm waves from the northeast 

converge along the crests of both the shore-attached and shore-detached shoal crests such that 
Affected Environment 

 117 

wave energy is greatest along the crests. Bed forms on the surface of the sediment such as ripple 

marks on the shoal crests are evidence of this effect (Appendix B). 

3.1.5.3 Currents 

The water circulation in this region of the inner continental shelf is characterized by a general 

southward movement of the surface and bottom water throughout the year. Average southerly 

currents are on the order of 10 cm/sec (0.3 ft/sec) or about 0.4 km/hr (0.2 knots) (Brooks, 1996). 

However, from April to September, the surface water movement may periodically reverse and 

move northward in association with the prevalence of south winds (USACE, 1998). The 

northeastwardly flowing Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean is well offshore of Wallops and 

Assateague Islands, generally more than 320 km (200 mi) seaward. Currents may be much larger 

during nor’easters when synoptic pressure gradients are established north-south from Cape Cod 

to Cape Hatteras and across the entire MAB. Coupled to nor’easter waves which act to mobilize 

sediments, these relatively strong currents can transport substantial volumes of suspended 

sediment in short periods of time.

3.1.5.4 Longshore Sediment Transport 

Typical longshore sediment transport along the Mid-Atlantic shoreline is north to south. 

However, sediment transport can occur in other directions (i.e., south to north) locally. 

Longshore sediment transport rates can vary significantly and are influenced by the local 

geomorphology and bathymetry. 

Fishing Point at the southern end of Assateague Island has grown to the point that waves coming 

from the northeast are refracted, or bent, shadowing the northern end of Wallops Island from 

these high energy waves. Wave refraction around Fishing Point and the Chincoteague Inlet ebbtidal delta has contributed to the bypassing of sand around the delta and a local reversal in 

longshore transport from south to north leading to sand accretion on the northern end of Wallops 

Island. This shoal and inlet complex serves as an efficient sediment trap, allowing only about 5 

percent of longshore transport to bypass to the south (Moffatt & Nichol, 1986). 

The USACE conducted sediment transport modeling and a sediment budget analyses at Wallops 

Island for the SRIPP (see Appendix A). This modeling and the SRIPP project design were 

performed according to current USACE policy. As with all mathematical models applied to 

natural resources, the models used in the SRIPP analyses have limitations and do not exactly 

mimic nature. While they do provide significant insights, the fact that they have limitations is 

one of the principle reasons for utilization of an adaptive management strategy for the SRIPP. 

Longshore sediment transport rates along Wallops Island vary from year to year primarily 

because of yearly variations in the input wave field (USACE, 2010a). To determine the gross and 

net average transport rates along Wallops Island, the USACE used 20 years of WIS hindcast data 

(USACE, 2010b) from 1980 and 1999 that was broken into 20 different 4-year blocks (1980–

1983, 1981–1984, etc.). The GENESIS model was run using each of these blocks and the 

sediment transport rates during the 4th year were averaged. USACE analysis of this wave data 

determined the dominant wave direction at Wallops Island, and thus the dominant direction of 

net sediment transport. 

Bathymetry data used in the modeling were obtained from the National Ocean Survey hydrographic 

surveys that are available in electronic format from the Geophysical Data System (version 4.0) 
Affected Environment 

118 

developed by the National Geophysical Data Center. Bathymetric surveys collected in the 1960s 

through the 1990s were used where available, with earlier survey data used to fill gaps in the more 

recent bathymetry coverage. 

Gross sediment transport volumes quantify the total flux of sediment in both directions alongshore 

whereas net volumes refer to the difference between volumes moving in opposite directions. As with 

any modeling exercise, there is inherent uncertainty within the transport modeling due to several 

factors, which include: (1) a short timescale of the data used compared to the time frame of the 

transport processes, (2) a lack of current, detailed nearshore bathymetry, and (3) estimation of future 

sea-level rise. To account for some of this uncertainty, the USACE calculated both average longshore 

sediment rates and rates within the 95-percent confidence limits, as shown on the graphs below. 

Figure 28 depicts the estimated average gross sediment transport rates along Wallops Island 

estimated by the USACE (2010a). The 95-percent confidence limits are shown along with the 

average gross transport rate. This figure shows average gross rates of 300,000 m3

 (400,000 yd3) per 

year to the south of the seawall, greatly reduced transport rates in front of the seawall, and rates of 

270,000 m3

 (350,000 yd3) per year to the north of the seawall. The gross sediment transport rates 

within the 95-percent confidence limits varied up to roughly 23,000 m3

 (30,000 yd3) from the 

average. 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Figure 28: Average Yearly Gross Sediment Transport Rates along Wallops Island 

The average net sediment transport rates estimated by the USACE (2009a) (Figure 29) vary between 

15,000 m3

 (20,000 yd3) to 46,000 m3 (60,000 yd3) per year at different locations along the 

shoreline—the net sediment transport rates within the 95-percent confidence limits vary by roughly 

15,000 m3

 (20,000 yd3) from the average, indicating the uncertainty in the estimated rates. On Figure 

29, positive transport rates (indicating net transport to the south) are on the upper side of the zero 

South end of existing 

seawall

North end of existing 

seawall

Assawoman Inlet (closed)
Affected Environment 

 119 

value on the left vertical axis and negative rates (indicating net transport to the north) are shown 

below the zero line. This figure indicates that for average transport conditions there is a divergent 

nodal point (a location along the shoreline where net sediment transport switches directions) on the 

north end of Assawoman Island. Southward of the divergent nodal point, the net sediment transport 

is to the south, and northward of the nodal point the net transport direction is to the north. 

The 95-percent confidence limits indicate that for most years the varying wave conditions shift the 

divergent point along the shoreline within about a 2.1 km (1.3 mi) window, referred to as the “nodal 

zone.” Because of the continuing growth of Fishing Point (see Figure 27) along with the 

southwestward migration of the offshore shoals (Wikel, 2008), the USACE determined that the 

divergent nodal zone along Wallops Island has been shifting to the south over time (USACE, 2010a). 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Figure 29: Net Sediment Transport Rates along Wallops Island 

Waves coming from the southeast have roughly the same height everywhere along the shoreline, but 

waves coming from the northeast have dramatically decreasing height (and thus energy) the farther 

north they are along Wallops Island. This means that they are less capable of transporting sand to the 

south. The wave sheltering from Fishing Point and the offshore shoals is the primary reason that the 

net sediment transport in most years along Wallops Island is to the north. Figure 30 provides another 

view of the divergent nodal point (represented as zero net sediment transport) and the direction net 

sediment transport modeled by the USACE. Northerly sediment transport is evidenced by the 

accumulation of sediment on the southern side of the previously existing groins (Photo 8, taken in 

1994) at the northern end of the seawall. Evidence of southerly sediment transport in the past is 

shown in Photo 9 (taken in 1969 and farther south along the shoreline than Photo 8). However, it 

Nodal Zone

Divergent 

Nodal 

Point
Affected Environment 

120 

should be noted that a level of spatial uncertainty exists in interpreting the trends shown in these 

photographs as they portray two different locations. Additionally, the two photographs may be 

capturing seasonal reversals thereby making it difficult to conclusively determine net long-term 

transport directions from the aerial photographs. 

Note: The number shown after the “±” indicates the 95 percent confidence intervals for net annual sediment 

transport. 

Figure 30: Wallops Island Sediment Budget 

Photo 8: Groin field located at north central part of Wallops Island showing sediment 

transport direction to the north – photo taken March 20, 1994 

Numbers shown are the 

average net annual transport 

rates in thousands of cubic 

yards per year. Source: USACE, 

2010a 

Approximate Wallops IslandAssawoman Island BoundaryApproximate 

location of 

nodal zone

40±30 60±18 60±18 60±18 40±31 20±36 20±38

0±38
Affected Environment 

 121 

Photo 9: Groin field located along central Wallops Island showing sediment transport 

direction to the south – photo taken in March 1969 

3.1.5.5 Cross-Shore Sediment Transport 

Cross-shore sediment transport refers to the cumulative movement of beach and nearshore sand 

perpendicular to the shore by the combined action of tides, wind, and waves, and the shoreperpendicular currents produced by them. Unlike longshore sediment transport, which is difficult 

to observe, cross-shore sediment transport can result in large and highly visible changes in the 

beach configuration over intervals as short as 1 day (Schwartz, 2005). Cross-shore transport 

results in an adjustment of the beach toward an equilibrium profile (NOAA Coastal Services 

Center, 2010). 

Dredging of shoals could affect shoreline stability by deepening a portion of the cross-shore 

profile, thereby inducing seaward cross-shore sediment transport. The shoals under consideration 

for the SRIPP are detached shoreface ridges and are located over 8 km (5 mi) from the 

Assateague shoreline. There are deep troughs landward of the two shoals and the crest heights 

are lower compared to Blackfish Bank (crests ranging from 4 to 7 m [13 to 23 ft]), which is 

located shoreward of Shoals A and B. As a result, the shoals are essentially isolated from the 
Affected Environment 

122 

shoreline. The relevant characteristics of Unnamed Shoals A and B relative to cross-shore 

sediment transport supporting this conclusion are summarized in Table 13. 

Table 13: Characteristics of Unnamed Shoals A and B Relative to Cross-Shore Sediment 

Transport 

Shoal 

Distance from 

Assateague Island 

km (mi) 

Elevation Relative to Mean Sea Level in m (ft) 

Shoal Crest Trough Landward of Shoal 

A 8 (5) -8 (-26) -20 (-66) 

B 12 (7.5) -10 (-33) -26 (-85) 

3.1.6 Water Resources 

3.1.6.1 Surface Water and Water Quality 

Wallops Island is separated from the mainland by a marshy bay. The marshes flood regularly 

with the tides and are drained by an extensive system of meandering creeks. Surface water on 

Wallops Island flows through numerous tidal tributaries that subsequently flow to the Atlantic 

Ocean. 

The southern and eastern portions of Wallops Island are part of the Eastern Lower Delmarva 

watershed, while the western portion is part of the Chincoteague Bay watershed. The remaining 

Wallops Island surface waters flow into numerous small unnamed watersheds. The Chincoteague 

Bay watershed has little topographic relief and a high water table. Large areas of the watersheds 

on Wallops Island are comprised of tidal wetlands. The Atlantic Ocean lies to the east of 

Wallops Island. Figure 31 shows the water resources on and around Wallops Island. 

The northern boundary of Wallops Island is formed by Chincoteague Inlet and its western side is 

bounded by a series of water bodies that include (from north to south) Ballast Narrows, Bogues 

Bay, Cat Creek, and Hog Creek (Figure 31). This western boundary of Wallops Island includes a 

section of the Virginia Inside Passage, a federally maintained navigational channel. No natural 

perennial streams or ponds exist on the island; however, intermittent water bodies may form after 

storms or in response to other physical forces such as tides. One constructed stormwater 

detention pond is located north of building V-20 adjacent to the Navy AEGIS building. 

Northeast of Wallops Island, across Chincoteague Inlet, are Assateague and Chincoteague 

Islands. At the southern portion of Assateague Island is Tom’s Cove. Assateague Island is 

separated from Chincoteague Island by a series of water bodies to its west (north to south): 

Assateague Bay, Oyster Bay, Little Oyster Bay, and Assateague Channel. South of Wallops 

Island is Assawoman Inlet, which separates it from Assawoman Island. Assawoman Creek, a 

tributary of Woman’s Bay, is found just south of Wallops Island. 

Affected Environment 

124 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Affected Environment 

 125 

The CWA (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.), as amended in 1977, established the basic framework for 

regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The USACE regulates 

the discharge of dredged or filled material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, 

pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. Section 401 of the CWA requires States to certify permit 

compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and standards. The Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VDEQ) is responsible for providing Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification for Section 404 Federal permits. 

Surface waters in the vicinity of Wallops Island are saline to brackish and are influenced by the 

tides. Saltwater intrusion, which is the movement of saltwater into a freshwater environment, 

occurs periodically within the marshes at WFF. Most often, saltwater intrusion is caused by 

ground-water pumping from coastal wells (Barlow, 2003), or from construction of navigation 

channels. Salt water intrusion can also occur as the result of a natural process like a storm surge 

from a hurricane. 

Outgoing tidal flow is generally north and east to Chincoteague Inlet and out to the Atlantic 

Ocean; incoming tides flow in the reverse direction. The VDEQ has designated the surface 

waters around Wallops Island as Class II – Estuarine Waters (VDEQ, 2009). The Atlantic Ocean 

is designated as Class I – Open Ocean. Surface waters in Virginia must meet the water quality 

criteria specified in 9 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 25-260-50. This set of criteria 

establishes limits for minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations, pH, and maximum temperature 

for the different surface water classifications in Virginia. In addition, Virginia surface waters 

must meet the surface water criteria specified in 9 VAC 26-260-140. This set of criteria provides 

numerical limits for various potentially toxic parameters. For the Class I and II waters in the 

vicinity of Wallops Island, the saltwater numerical criterion is applied. Both sets of standards are 

used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to protect and maintain surface water quality. 

No wild or scenic rivers are located on, or adjacent to, Wallops, Assateague, Chincoteague, or 

Assawoman Islands; therefore, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) does not 

apply to this project (USFWS, 2007). 

3.1.6.2 Wetlands 

In general terms, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor 

determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living 

in the soil and on its surface. They are transitional areas between terrestrial and aquatic systems 

where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water 

(Cowardin et al., 1979). Wetlands provide a number of benefits to the environment, including 

water quality improvement, floodwater storage, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and 

biological productivity. 

EO 11990 (Wetland Protection) directs Federal agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, and 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of 

wetland communities. In accordance with the CWA (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.), projects at WFF 

that involve dredging or filling wetlands require Section 404 permits from the USACE. Title 14 

of CFR Part 1216.2 (NASA regulations on Floodplain and Wetland Management) directs WFF 

and its tenants to minimize wetland impacts. 

In addition, permits may be required from the VMRC, Accomack County Wetlands Board, and 

the VDEQ for work that may impact wetlands. A Joint Permit Application (JPA), filed with 
Affected Environment 

126 

VMRC, is used to apply for permits for work in the waters of the United States, including 

wetlands, within Virginia. The VMRC plays a central role as an information clearinghouse for 

local, State, and Federal levels of review; JPAs submitted to VMRC receive independent yet 

concurrent reviews by local wetland boards, VMRC, VDEQ, and USACE. 

Wallops Island 

Extensive wetland systems border Wallops Island and can typically be classified as one of the 

three following systems: 

 Estuarine - tidal wetlands who salinities exceed 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt), at least 

partially enclosed by land; 

 Palustrine - non-tidal wetlands not adjacent to rivers and lakes and tidal wetlands whose 

salinity does not exceed 0.5 parts per thousand; and 

 Shallow open water - bodies of standing water less than 2 m (7 ft) in depth free of 

emergent vegetation but may contain floating vegetation. 

Wetlands are also classified by the types of vegetation that grow within them. Typical wetland 

vegetation types encountered on Wallops Island are: 

 Emergent - dominated by erect rooted herbaceous, usually perennial plants; 

 Scrub-shrub - dominated by woody plants less than 6m (20 ft.) in height; and 

 Forested - dominated by woody plants greater than 6m (20 ft.) in height. 

Figure 32 provides further details on the types and locations of wetland communities present on 

Wallops Island. The island has non-tidal freshwater emergent wetlands and several small 

freshwater ponds in the interior. Freshwater forested/shrub wetlands, estuarine intertidal 

emergent wetlands, and maritime forests exist on its northern and western edges. Marsh wetlands 

also fringe Wallops Mainland along Arbuckle Creek, Hog Creek, and Bogues Bay. 

Wetland delineations in the vicinity of the existing seawall were conducted in July 2009 and July 

2010. Tidal wetlands were found including 1.19 ha (2.95 ac) of palustrine shrub-scrub and 2.21 

ha (5.47 ac) of palustrine emergent wetlands. In addition, 2.38 ha (5.87 ac) of the marine 

intertidal unconsolidated shore (the Atlantic Ocean) was delineated within the study area (Figure 

33). 

Assateague and Assawoman Islands 

The peninsula at the southernmost portion of Assateague Island, forming Tom’s Cove, has intertidal marine wetlands along its southeastern shore and slightly inland. Both estuarine intertidal 

unconsolidated and estuarine intertidal emergent wetlands are found in the center of the 

peninsula. Where the peninsula widens into the main body of Assateague Island there are 

numerous freshwater ponds as well as freshwater forest and shrub areas. South of Wallops 

Island, Assawoman Island has intertidal marine wetlands along its western shore and both 

estuarine intertidal unconsolidated and estuarine inter-tidal emergent wetlands inland. 

Affected Environment 

128 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Affected Environment 

130 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Affected Environment 

 131 

3.1.6.3 Marine Waters 

The continental shelf water within the SRIPP study area of the Atlantic Ocean originates from 

the coastal waters off Canada, moves southward over the continental shelf, and is continuously 

modified by river runoff and air-sea interaction as it moves to the south. In winter, the 

temperature of the shelf water mass is much lower than that of the slope water mass due to the 

cooling effects of the atmosphere. Currents in the shelf water mass have a stronger southwestdirected component in the winter season compared to all other seasons. Development of the shelf 

water mass along the Mid-Atlantic coast is also dependent on the variations in Gulf Stream 

transport from the south, as well as forces from the atmosphere and river runoff. 

Marine waters in the project area maintain a fairly uniform salinity range (32 to 36 ppt) 

throughout the year, with pockets of high salinity water (38 ppt) found near the Gulf Stream in 

the fall (NASA, 2003a). The salinity of nearshore shelf water, influenced by freshwater runoff, is 

generally lower than offshore water masses. Over the continental shelf, the salinity concentration 

usually increases with depth. Water masses near the coast are at most times of the year less saline 

than the corresponding layer offshore, due to freshwater influence from rivers. 

A thermocline is a vertical zone of rapidly changing temperature that divides the upper layer of 

warmer marine water from the colder, deeper layer. Because density is controlled largely by 

temperature, the thermocline coincides with a vertical zone of rapidly changing density. This 

phenomenon is referred to as stratification. There are distinct differences in stratification of the 

Mid-Atlantic Ocean water column between summer and winter. The density gradient causes 

resistance to vertical mixing and there is little exchange between the surface waters and the 

deeper, colder waters (Kennett, 1982). In mid-latitude waters, such as the waters within the 

vicinity of the proposed SRIPP offshore borrow sites, a seasonal thermocline develops in the 

spring and persists until fall (Hollister, 1973; Kennett, 1982; Adams et al., 1993). This occurs 

with the onset of stratification due to the warming of the surface waters by solar radiation and the 

decrease in mixing as storm activity diminishes. 

In the SRIPP project area in winter, the water column is vertically well-mixed, with water 

temperatures averaging 14° Celsius (C) (57° Fahrenheit [F]) at the surface and 11° C (52° F) at 

depths greater than 20 m (656 ft). In summer, the water column is vertically stratified with 25° C 

(77° F) water near the surface and 10° C (50° F) water at depths greater than 200 m (656 ft) 

(NASA, 2003a). Results of the 2009 benthic video survey of Unnamed Shoals A and B 

(described in Section 3.2.5.4) showed bedforms on both shoal surfaces, which is evidence that 

wave energy reaches extends to the seafloor and mixing occurs throughout the water column. 

3.1.7 Floodplains 

EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires Federal agencies to take action to minimize 

occupancy and modification of the floodplain. Specifically, EO 11988 prohibits Federal agencies 

from funding construction in the 100-year floodplain unless there are no practicable alternatives. 

As shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) produced by FEMA, the 100-year 

floodplain designates the area inundated during a storm having a 1-percent chance of occurring 

in any given year. The 500-year floodplain designates the area inundated during a storm having a 

0.2-percent chance of occurring in any given year. 

FIRM Community Panels 5100010070B and 5100010100C indicate that Wallops Island is 

located entirely within the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. Wallops Island is a barrier island 
Affected Environment 

132 

that experiences flood waters primarily during major storm events (nor’easters, tropical storms, 

or hurricanes) both from waves and from the marshes and bays on its land-ward side. The 

wetlands on Wallops Island and the island itself retain floodwaters during storm events and 

therefore function as flood mitigation for the mainland during storms. 

3.1.8 Coastal Zone Management 

Barrier islands such as Wallops, Assateague, Chincoteague, and Assawoman Islands are 

elongated, narrow landforms that consist largely of unconsolidated and shifting sand, and lie 

parallel to the shoreline between the open ocean and the mainland. These islands provide 

protection to the mainland, prime recreation resources, important natural habitats to unique 

species, and valuable economic opportunities to the country. The northern end of Wallops Island 

also contains coastal primary sand dunes that serve as protective barriers from the effects of 

flooding and erosion caused by coastal storms (NASA, 2008a). 

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA [P.L. 97-348], 16 U.S.C. 3501-3510), enacted in 

1982, designated various undeveloped coastal barrier islands as units in the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System. Designated units are ineligible for direct or indirect Federal financial 

assistance programs that could support development on coastal barrier islands; exceptions are 

made for certain emergency and research activities. Wallops Island is not included in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System; therefore, the CBRA does not apply. 

VDEQ is the lead agency for the Virginia Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program, which is 

authorized by NOAA to administer the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Any Federal 

agency development in Virginia’s Coastal Management Area (CMA) must be consistent with the 

enforceable policies of the CZM Program. Although Federal lands are excluded from Virginia’s 

CMA, any activity on Federal land that has reasonably foreseeable coastal effects must be 

consistent with the CZM Program (VDEQ, 2008a). Enforceable policies of the CZM Program 

that must be considered when making a Federal Consistency Determination include: 

 Fisheries Management. Administered by VMRC, this program stresses the conservation 

and enhancement of shellfish and finfish resources and the promotion of commercial and 

recreational fisheries. 

 Subaqueous Lands Management. Administered by VMRC, this program establishes 

conditions for granting permits to use State-owned bottomlands. 

 Wetlands Management. Administered by VMRC and VDEQ, the wetlands management 

program preserves and protects tidal wetlands. 

 Dunes Management. Administered by VMRC, the purpose of this program is to prevent 

the destruction or alteration of primary dunes. 

 Non-Point Source Pollution Control. Administered by the Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation (VDCR), the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law is 

intended to minimize non-point source pollution entering Virginia’s waterways. 

 Point Source Pollution Control. Administered by VDEQ, the Virginia Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System permit program regulates point source discharges to 

Virginia’s waterways. 
Affected Environment 

 133 

 Shoreline Sanitation. Administered by the Virginia Department of Health, this program 

regulates the installation of septic tanks to protect public health and the environment. 

 Air Pollution Control. Administered by VDEQ, this program implements the Federal 

Clean Air Act (CAA) through a legally enforceable State Implementation Plan. 

 Coastal Lands Management. Administered by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance 

Department, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act guides land development in coastal 

areas to protect the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. 

Because Wallops Island is within Virginia’s CMA, NASA activities are subject to the Federal 

Consistency requirement. The nearby barrier islands of Assateague, Chincoteague, and 

Assawoman Islands are also included in Virginia’s CMA. 

3.1.9 Air Quality 

The CAA (P.L. 108-201, 42 U.S.C. 85 et seq.), as amended, requires EPA to set National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and 

the environment. The CAA established two types of NAAQS: primary and secondary standards. 

Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations 

such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards protect public welfare, 

including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and 

buildings. 

The EPA has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants that are called “criteria” pollutants. They 

are: CO, NOx, O3—for which VOCs and NOx are precursors—lead (Pb), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

and particulate matter (PM). EPA divides PM into two categories: inhalable coarse particles (i.e., 

PM less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) but larger than 2.5 micrometers) and fine 

particles (i.e., PM less than or equal to 2.5 micrometer (PM2.5). Although States have the 

authority to adopt stricter standards, the Commonwealth of Virginia has accepted the Federal 

standards and has incorporated them by reference in 9 VAC 5-30 (VDEQ, 2008b; see Table 14). 

Federal regulations designate Air Quality Control Regions, or airsheds, that cannot attain 

compliance with the NAAQS as non-attainment areas. Areas meeting the NAAQS are designated 

as attainment areas. Wallops Island and Mainland are located in Accomack County, an 

attainment area for all criteria pollutants; therefore, a General Conformity Review (under Section 

176(c) of the CAA) does not apply to the facilities prior to implementing a Federal action. 

Wallops Island and Wallops Mainland are considered a synthetic minor source, and the two land 

masses are combined into a facility-wide State operating air permit for stationary emission 

sources (Permit Number 40909, amended August 3, 2006). A facility is considered a major 

source in an attainment area if all of its sources together have a potential to emit (PTE) greater 

than or equal to 90.7 mt per year (100 tons per year) of the criteria pollutants, or greater than or 

equal to 9.1 mt per year (10 tons per year) of a single Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) or 22.7 mt 

per year (25 tons per year) of combined HAPs. Table 15 lists the emissions for Wallops Island 

and Wallops Mainland based on the 2008 Emission Statement. 
Affected Environment 

134 

Table 14: National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Primary Standards Secondary Standards 

Pollutant Level Averaging Time1 Level Averaging Time 

CO 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 8-hour 2 

None 

35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 1-hour 2

Pb 0.15 μg/m3 3 Rolling 3-Month Average Same as Primary 

1.5 μg/m3 Quarterly Average Same as Primary 

NO2 53 ppb 4 Annual Arithmetic Average Same as Primary 

100 ppb 1-hour 5

 None 

PM10 150 μg/m3 24-hour 6 Same as Primary 

PM2.5 15 μg/m3 Annual Arithmetic Average 7 Same as Primary 

35 μg/m3 24-hour 8 Same as Primary 

O3 0.075 ppm (2008 standard) 8-hour 9 Same as Primary 

0.08 ppm (1997 standard) 8-hour 10 Same as Primary 

0.12 ppm 1-hour 11 Same as Primary 

SO2 0.03 ppm Annual Arithmetic Average Same as Primary 

0.14 ppm 24-hour 2 0.5 ppm 3-hour 2

75 ppb 12 1-hour None 

ppm = parts per million 

μg = microgram 

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 1

A NAAQS violation results in the re-designation of an area; however, an exceedance of the NAAQS does not always mean a violation has 

occurred.

2 Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 3

Final rule signed October 15, 2008. 

4

 The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is show here for the purpose of clearer comparison to the 1-

hour standard. 

5 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not 

exceed 100 ppb (effective January 22, 2010). 

6

 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. 7 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented 

monitor must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3

. 8 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area 

must not exceed 35 μg/m3

 (effective December 17, 2006). 9

 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average O3concentrations measured at each monitor 

within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm (effective May 27, 2008). 10 (a) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average O3concentrations measured at each monitor 

within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

 (b) The 1997 standard – and the implementation rules for that standard – will remain in place for implementation purposes as EPA undertakes 

rulemaking to address the transition from the 1997 O3 standard to the 2008 O3 standard. 

 (c) EPA is in the process of reconsidering these standards (set in March 2008). 

11 (a) EPA revoked the 1-hour O3 standard in all areas, although some areas have continuing obligations under the standard (anti-backsliding). 

 (b) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 

ppm is ≤ 1. 12 Final rule signed June 2, 2010. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each 

monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb. 

Source: EPA, 2010 
Affected Environment 

 135 

Table 15: Calendar Year 2008 Air Emissions at Wallops Island/Mainland 

Pollutant Emissions (mt per year/tons per year) 

CO 0.34 / 0.37 

NOX 1.36 / 1.50 

SO2 2.65 / 2.92 

VOC 0.03 / 0.03 

PM10 0.15 / 0.16 

PM 0.21 / 0.23 

Source: VDEQ, 2008b 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Separate pre-construction review procedures have been established for projects that are proposed 

to be built in attainment areas versus non-attainment areas. The pre-construction review process 

for new or modified major sources is called New Source Review (NSR) and consists of a 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review for sources located in an attainment area. 

This review process is intended to keep new air emission sources from causing existing air 

quality to deteriorate beyond acceptable levels codified in the Federal regulations. Construction 

of major new stationary sources in attainment areas must be reviewed in accordance with the 

PSD regulations. The PSD rule defines a major source as any source with a PTE of 90.7 mt per 

year (100 tons per year) or more of any criteria pollutant for source categories listed in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(1)(i), or 226.8 mt per year (250 tons per year) or more of any criteria pollutant for 

source categories that are not listed. If a new source is determined to be a major source for any 

criteria pollutants, then other remaining criteria pollutants would be subject to PSD review if 

those pollutants are emitted at rates that exceed the following significant emission thresholds: 

 90.7 mt per year (100 tons per year) for CO 

 36.3 mt per year (40 tons per year) for NOX, VOC, or SO2

 13.6 mt per year (15 tons per year) for PM10

 22.7 mt per year (25 tons per year) for PM 

Major sources that exceed any of the PSD thresholds are subject to PSD review for all criteria 

pollutants. Although Wallops Island and Wallops Mainland are assumed not to be a major source 

under the PSD program, nor one of the listed source categories, to continue to protect air quality 

in designated attainment areas, a PSD applicability analysis must be conducted for each Federal 

project. NASA ensures that before each project is initiated, PTE is calculated to not only assess 

whether a permit to construct for applicable sources is needed, but also to document that the 

entire project does not trigger PSD. 

Minor New Source Review 

The minor NSR permit program applies to the construction, reconstruction, relocation, or 

modification of any stationary source that will emit regulated air pollutants above minimum 

exemption levels. If a permit is required, it must be obtained before any activity on the project 

can begin. Prior to installing any new stationary emission sources, NASA is responsible for 
Affected Environment 

136 

assessing if a permit-to-construct application is necessary, and if so, for preparing and filing the 

applicable Form 7 permit application forms. 

New Source Performance Standards 

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) regulations (40 CFR 60) establish pollutant 

emission limits and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for various emission 

sources based on source type and size. These regulations apply to new, modified, or 

reconstructed sources. According to the State Operating Permit, and confirmation by NASA 

environmental personnel, there are no current (i.e., installed) emission sources (i.e., boilers, 

storage vessels, emergency generators) that are subject to NSPS. However, referencing the 

NASA Expansion of the WFF Launch Range EA (NASA, 2009a), there were proposed 

emergency generators associated with the proposed action and alternatives that would be subject 

to NSPS Subpart IIII regarding emissions from stationary diesel internal combustion engines, 

which will eventually be included in the facility’s permit. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Section 112(a) of the CAA Amendments requires the development of emission standards for 

listed HAPs from new and modified equipment at stationary major and area sources (i.e., a 

source that is not a major HAP source). Emission standards promulgated under this subsection 

require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAPs for specific source categories. 

The standards are to be established by taking into consideration the cost of achieving such 

emission reductions, and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy 

requirements. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations, codified at 40 

CFR Parts 61 and 63, regulate HAP emissions. Part 61 was promulgated prior to the 1990 CAA 

Amendments and regulates specific HAPs: asbestos, benzene, beryllium, coke oven emissions, 

inorganic arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride. The 1990 CAA Amendments 

established an original list of 189 HAPs to be regulated, which resulted in the promulgation of 

Part 63, also known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. These 

MACTs regulate emissions from major HAP sources and specific source categories that emit 

HAPs. 

Wallops Island and Wallops Mainland are currently considered a minor (or area) HAP source, 

and are therefore not subject to NESHAP regulations for major sources. The facility would, 

however, be subject to any applicable area source NESHAP regulations when these regulations 

are promulgated by EPA. Condition 19 of the March 24, 2008, Stationary Source Permit to 

Operate establishes a federally enforceable limit of 8.5 mt per year (9.4 tons per year) of 

hydrochloric acid and 0.91 mt per year (1.0 ton per year) of Pb. These limits are placed on the 

combustion of solid fuel propellants during static rocket motor test firing events. 

3.1.9.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Each GHG is assigned a global warming potential (GWP), which is the ability to trap heat, and is 

standardized to CO2, which has a GWP value of one. For example, N2O has a GWP of 310, 

meaning it has a global warming effect 310 times greater than CO2 on an equal-mass basis. For 

simplification, total GHG emissions are often expressed as a CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The CO2e 
Affected Environment 

 137 

is calculated by multiplying each GHG emission by its GWP and adding the results to produce a 

combined rate to represent all GHGs. 

There are a multitude of State and regional regulatory programs requiring GHG emissions 

reductions. Although Virginia has no current GHG legislation, the Governor issued Executive 

Order (EO) 59 in 2007, which established the “Governor’s Commission on Climate Change” 

(Bryant, 2008). Since then, VDEQ has had a Climate Change Steering Committee and GHG 

Emissions Workgroup who have focused on possible regional reduction targets, among other 

items. In addition to State programs, there is emerging Federal climate change-related 

legislation. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that EPA had the regulatory authority to 

include GHGs as pollutants under the CAA. On October 30, 2009, EPA issued a new rule 

(Mandatory Reporting of GHGs) that adds substantial additional requirements, such as 

measurement, monitoring, and reporting, for many industries. 

As GHGs are relatively stable in the atmosphere and are essentially uniformly mixed throughout 

the troposphere and stratosphere, the climatic impact of GHG emissions does not depend upon 

the source location. Therefore, regional climate impacts are likely a function of global emissions. 

Table 16 lists the GHG emissions for Wallops Island/Mainland based on the 2008 annual update 

forms for Wallops Island, which provides VDEQ with consumption rates from stationary 

sources. Emissions factors from the EPA’s AP-42 (EPA, 2009b) and Environment Canada’s 

National Inventory Report (Environment Canada, 2006) were used in conjunction with the 

Wallops Island/Mainland consumption rates to calculate annual GHG emissions for 

boilers/heating equipment, emergency generators, and mobile sources (i.e., government-owned 

gasoline-powered vehicles). GHG emissions were combined into one CO2e value using approved 

factors to weight each pollutant. 

Table 16: Calendar Year 2008 Greenhouse Gas Air Emissions at Wallops Island/Mainland 

Pollutant Emissions (mt per year/tons per year) 

CH4 0.06 (0.07) 

CO2 2,676 (2,950) 

N2O 0.14 (0.15) 

Total GHG Emissions 2,676 (2,950) 

Table 17 depicts estimates of GHG emissions for Wallops Island/Mainland facilities by source 

categories. Mobile source emissions were based on fuel consumption rather than vehicle miles 

traveled due to unavailable data. Mobile source emissions for Wallops Island were assumed to be 

all gasoline dispensed from the Main Base as there was no data available to determine what 

percentage of gasoline dispensed was used at the Main Base versus Wallops Island/Mainland. 
Affected Environment 

138 

Table 17: Calendar Year 2008 Greenhouse Gas Emissions at Wallops Island/Mainland in 

Metric Tonnes per Year (Tons per Year) 

Source CH4 CO2 N2O CO2e

External Combustion 

Sources 

0.021 

(0.023) 

1,823.60 

(2,010.15) 

0.039 

(0.043) 

1,835.73 

(2,203.96) 

Internal Combustion Sources 0.0009 

(0.001) 

12.23 

(13.48) 

0.0018 

(0.002) 

12.81 

(14.12) 

Mobile Sources 0.043 

(0.047) 

840.62 

(926.61) 

0.093 

(0.10) 

870.03 

(959.25) 

Total GHG Emissions 0.065 

(0.070) 

2,676.45 

(2,950.24) 

0.099 

(0.143) 

2,718.58 

(2,997.33) 

3.1.10 Noise 

The EPA’s Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 to 4918) as amended by the Quiet 

Communities Act of 1978, states that it is the policy of the United States to promote an 

environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. 

3.1.10.1 Fundamentals of Noise 

Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, 

such as air or water. Noise is unwanted sound that may interfere with normal activities or 

otherwise diminishes the quality of the environment, for either humans or wildlife. Sound is 

generally characterized by several variables, including frequency and intensity. Frequency 

describes the sound’s pitch and is measured in Hertz (Hz), while intensity describes the sound’s 

loudness and is expressed in decibels (dB). Decibels are measured using a logarithmic scale. 

The method commonly used to quantify airborne sounds consists of evaluating all frequencies of 

a sound according to a weighting system that reflects that human hearing is less sensitive at low 

frequencies and extremely high frequencies than at the mid-range frequencies. This is called “A” 

weighting, and the dB level measured is called the A-weighted sound level (dBA) (see Table 18). 

Sounds levels underwater are not weighted and measure the entire frequency range of interest. 

Because air and water are two different media with different densities, different reference sound 

pressure levels are used for each. The most commonly used reference for air is 20 microPascals 

(μPa) and the most commonly used reference for underwater is 1 μPa. Unless otherwise noted, 

all airborne noise levels are reported in dBA referenced to 20 μPa and all underwater noise levels 

are reported in dB relative to 1 μPa in this PEIS. 

3.1.10.2 Noise Standards and Criteria 

Because sounds in the outdoor environment are usually not continuous, there are a few common 

metrics used to describe noise. The first is the time-averaged sound pressure level or Leq. The 1-

hour Leq is the measurement unit used to describe monitored baseline in-air noise levels in the 

vicinity of WFF. It conforms to the requirements in 23 CFR Part 772 and is a descriptor 

recommended by the Federal Highway Administration for describing noise levels during peak 

traffic periods. The second is the Day Night Level, or DNL, which is a 24-hour average sound 

level with an added penalty of 10 dB during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) to account for 
Affected Environment 

 139 

sensitivity of the period when people are typically sleeping. EPA guidelines, and those of many 

other Federal agencies, recommend that outdoor sound levels do not exceed 55 dB DNL in 

noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, or hospitals. 

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates noise impacts on 

workers. OSHA regulations on in-air noise standards ensure that workers are not exposed to 

noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to 85 dBA is limited to 15 minutes or less during an 

8-hour work shift. Exposure to impulsive or impact noise (loud, short duration sounds) is not to 

exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level. 

Table 18: Typical Noise Levels of Familiar Noise Sources and Public Responses 

Thresholds/Noise Sources Sound Level 

(dBA) Subjective Evaluationa Possible Effects on Humansa

Human threshold of pain 140 

Deafening 

Continuous exposure 

to levels above 70 

dBA can cause hearing 

loss in the majority of 

the population 

Siren at 100 ft 

Loud rock band 

130 

Jet takeoff at 200 ft 

Auto horn at 3 ft 

120 

Chain saw 

Noisy snowmobile 

110 

Lawn mower at 3 ft 

Noisy motorcycle at 50 ft 

100 

Very Loud Heavy truck at 50 ft 90 

Pneumatic drill at 50 ft 

Busy urban street, daytime 

80 

Loud 

Normal automobile at 50 mph 

Vacuum cleaner at 3 ft 

70 

Speech interference Air conditioning unit at 20 ft 

Conversation at 3 ft 

60 

Moderate 

Quiet residential area 

Light auto traffic at 100 ft 

50 

Sleep interference Library 

Quiet home 

40 

Faint 

Soft whisper at 15 ft 30 

Slight rustling of leaves 20 

Broadcasting studio 10 Very Faint 

Threshold of Human Hearing 0 

a

Both the subjective evaluations and the physiological responses are continuums without true threshold boundaries. 

Consequently, there are overlaps among categories of response that depend on the sensitivity of the noise receivers. 

Source: EPA, 1974 
Affected Environment 

140 

The Accomack County code states that “...any loud, disturbing, or unreasonable noise in the 

county, which noise is of such character, intensity or duration as to be detrimental to the life, 

health, or safety of any person, or to disturb the quiet, comfort, or response of any reasonable 

person” is prohibited (Accomack County, 2001). Table 19 shows the specific noise limitations 

by land use as regulated by Accomack County. 

Table 19: Accomack County Noise Guidelines by Land Use 

District/Land Use Daytime Level (dBA) Nighttime Level (dBA) 

Residential 65 55 

Agricultural 65 55 

Business 70 60 

Industrial 70 60 

Barrier Island 65 55 

Source: Accomack County, 2001 

As a general rule, the above levels should not be exceeded; however, exceptions to the rule exist. 

According to Article II, Section 38-35 of the Accomack County code, “This article shall not 

apply to noises generated by commercial or industrial operations except for those noises that 

emanate from the boundaries of such commercial or industrial site and affect persons who are 

not working onsite at such commercial or industrial operation.” There are no County-specific 

regulations regarding unacceptable levels of dBA at noise-sensitive receptors such as schools, 

hospitals, courts, and churches; although the Accomack County code states that noise would be 

deemed excessive when it “unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or 

building, provided that conspicuous signs are displayed on or near such building or institution 

indicating that such is a school, church, hospital, clinic or other public building.” 

3.1.10.3 Existing Noise Environment 

In 1992, WFF performed a noise monitoring survey and modeling program to determine baseline 

noise levels around the facility. Of the 13 sites selected for the noise-monitoring program, four 

were on Wallops Island and one was in the town of Assawoman along the route to Wallops Island. 

Noise levels at each site were monitored for periods ranging from 15 minutes to 1 hour, 

depending on the site and predominant source of noise. A period of 1 hour was used at sites 

monitored during peak traffic conditions. Shorter periods were used for sites monitored during 

off-peak traffic conditions and sites in natural environments where noise levels were relatively 

constant. 

Wallops Island was found to contain a wide range of background noise levels. At the northern 

portion of Wallops Island, natural sounds of wind, trees, and birds are the predominant source of 

the 53-dBA noise level. At the southern end of the island, as well as along the eastern seawall, the 

sounds of water and waves generate a noise level of about 64 dBA. In the interior of the island, 

near roads and buildings, noise levels are about 61 dBA during off-peak traffic periods and 64 to 

65 dBA during peak a.m. and p.m. traffic (NASA, 2005). 
Affected Environment 

 141 

Existing underwater sound levels are unknown, but existing sources of underwater sound include 

physical (earthquakes, wind, etc.), biological (marine mammals, fish, invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic (commercial shipping, recreational vessels, fishing vessels, dredging, and 

aircrafts). 

3.1.11 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste 

3.1.11.1 Hazardous Materials Management 

The WFF Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP), developed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

Part 112 (Oil Pollution Prevention and Response), 40 CFR Part 265 Subparts C and D 

(Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan), and 9 VAC 25-91-10 (Oil Discharge Contingency Plan), 

serves as the facility’s primary guidance document for the prevention and management of oil, 

hazardous material, and hazardous waste releases. The ICP includes the following procedures for 

hazardous materials management at the entire WFF facility, including Wallops Island: 

 Each container of hazardous material is labeled in English with the following minimal 

description: name of chemical and all appropriate hazard warnings. 

 Each work area has Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) on file for each hazardous 

material used onsite. Each MSDS is in English and contains all required information. 

WFF utilizes an online electronic chemical inventory that contains links to appropriate 

MSDSs and is accessible to all WFF personnel through the GSFC intranet. Individual 

WFF support contractor offices train their personnel in the applicable hazardous 

communication pertinent to the requirements for each employee. 

 Spill contingency and response procedures are prepared and implemented. 

 The WFF Environmental Office offers annual ICP training to all Wallops and tenant 

personnel as well as to all visiting project teams. 

Vessels operating in the navigable waters of the United States, including trailer suction hopper 

dredges, are subject to the federal regulation pertaining to hazardous waste materials on board a 

vessel – 49 CFR Part 176 – Carriage by Vessel. This regulation defines the general vessel 

operating requirements such as certificates, cargo manifest, special permits, emergency 

situations, required reporting, and repairs involving welding, burning, and power-activated tools 

and appliances when hazardous waste materials are on board the vessel. 

3.1.11.2 Hazardous Waste Management 

The regulations that govern hazardous waste management are the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) and Virginia’s Hazardous Waste Management 

Regulations (9 VAC 20-60). A solid waste is any material that is disposed, incinerated, treated, 

or recycled except those exempted under 40 CFR 261.4. All hazardous wastes are classified as 

solid wastes. Wallops Main Base is separated from Wallops Island and Wallops Mainland by 

approximately 11.2 km (7 mi) of public roadway. As they are not contiguous, each has been 

assigned its own EPA hazardous waste generator number. Shipment of hazardous waste between 

the two sites is illegal except by a licensed hazardous waste transporter. To facilitate the 

transportation of rocket motors declared hazardous waste from the Main Base to the Wallops 

Island, NASA has its own hazardous waste transporter license. NASA uses licensed hazardous 
Affected Environment 

142 

waste transporters to transport hazardous waste off site to licensed treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities. 

Wallops Island and Wallops Mainland are together classified as a Large Quantity Generator 

because the area has the potential to generate more than 1,000 kg (2,205 lbs) of hazardous waste 

per month. In calendar year 2009, 10,585 kilograms (23,335 lbs) of hazardous waste including 

various expired chemicals, jet fuel mixed with hydraulic fluid, used oil, oily condensate, oily 

rags, paint cans, and paint thinner were generated on Wallops Island and Wallops Mainland 

combined. Hazardous wastes generated on Wallops Island are stored on the Mainland at Building 

U-081, a less-than-90-day accumulation area in which hazardous waste may be stored for up to 

90 days from the date of initial accumulation. In addition, Satellite Accumulation Areas are 

established in individual laboratories, shops, or other facilities designated by the generator for 

the accumulation of waste, not to exceed 208 liters (55 gallons) of hazardous waste, or 0.95 liter 

(1 quart) of extremely or acutely hazardous waste. 

Wallops Island hazardous waste generators are responsible for the following: 

 Properly containerizing waste 

 Properly labeling waste containers with information pertaining to the contents and with 

the words “Hazardous Waste” 

 Ensuring that less than 208 liters (55 gallons) of hazardous waste or less than 0.95 liter (1 

quart) of acute hazardous waste are accumulated at or near the point of generation 

 Properly completing and transferring a disposal inventory sheet to the NASA 

Environmental Office 

3.1.11.3 Petroleum Storage Tank Management 

The Wallops Island facilities include 21 aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and 2 underground 

storage tanks (USTs). Both the ASTs and USTs are used for the storage and dispensing of 

heating oil. Occasionally, temporary tanks are brought to Wallops Island during construction 

activities and typically contain diesel fuel and gasoline. All fuel storage tanks must be operated 

in accordance with Virginia storage tank regulations (9 VAC 25-91 [AST] and 9 VAC 25-580 

[UST]), which are overseen by the VDEQ Tidewater Regional Office. 

3.1.12 Munitions and Explosives of Concern 

MEC are explosive munitions (bombs, shells, grenades, etc.) that did not function as designed 

and may pose a risk of detonation. MEC is composed of unexploded ordnance (UXO) and 

discarded military munitions (DMM). 

In 2007 the USACE completed a study assessing relevant information regarding suitability of 

various borrow site options considered for the SRIPP identified several reported UXO sites, one 

offshore explosive dumping area and two uncharacterized offshore UXO sites (USACE, 2007). 

Ordnance, explosives, and pyrotechnics fired on to or dropped on one or more of the Wallops 

Island range areas include: Pentolite, HBX-1 Aluminum Explosive, Dynamite, Primacord, 

Composition C-3, Composition B, Electric Blasting Caps, T-55 Rocket Motors, 2.25-in Solid 

Rocket Motors, Practice Bombs, 37mm munitions, 30mm munitions, 20mm munitions, Mk 77 
Affected Environment 

 143 

Fire Bomb, Mk5 Night Drift Signals, AN-Mk4 Signals, AN-Mk5/Mk23/Mk43, Mk6 Parachute 

Flares, and Aerial Mines. 

There are nine known historic live fire and bombing areas off of Wallops Island. None of these 

are currently active (USACE, 2007). Four additional areas of concern were identified by the 

USACE and are listed in Table 20 below. Figure 34 illustrates the location of these 13 areas of 

potential MEC. 

Table 20: Potential MEC Locations within Project Area 

ID Impact Area Name Impact Area Located Within SRIPP 

Study Area? 

2 Target Center Yes 

5 Strafing Target Yes 

6 Gunboat Point Bombing Area Yes 

7 Machine Gun and Rocket 

Firing Area 

Yes 

-- Small Arms Ranges 

14 Explosive Ammunition Test 

Facility 

Yes 

PTF Plate Test Facility Yes 

17 Sea Target Yes 

RA Restricted Area Danger Zone No 

EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

(EOD) Area 

Yes 

-- Off-Shore Dump Site No 

-- Off-Shore UXO site 1 Yes 

-- Off-Shore UXO site 2 Yes 

Source: USACE, 2007 

Known historic live fire and bombing areas determined to potentially affect the project area are 

described below. 

Target Center 

The Target Center was the aiming point for the test range on Wallops Island and was used by the 

Naval Aviation Ordnance Test Station to analyze aviation ordnance between 1946 and 1959. The 

test range was instrumented and was used to assess the delivery, aircraft separation, ballistics, 

and accuracy of aviation ordnance. The impact area for the Target Center was located on land 

only on the northern eastern tip of Wallops Island. It is inferred from the lack of references to 

live (high explosive) ordnance use at the Target Center that only practice munitions and 

pyrotechnics were used at this site. Because the Target Center was located entirely on land, it is 

not expected that MEC (only UXO in this instance) from this site has migrated to the Atlantic 

Ocean. 
Affected Environment 

144 

Strafing Target 

The strafing target was used to test aircraft machine guns and cannons at a fixed ground target. 

The target impact area was located totally on land on the northeastern tip of Wallops Island and 

the USACE estimates that it is unlikely that MEC from this site has migrated to the Atlantic 

Ocean. 

Gunboat Point Bombing Area 

The former bombing area was located on the peninsula at the northeastern extremity of Wallops 

Island. The Gunboat Point area was used by Naval Aviation Ordnance Test Station to test live, 

high explosive aircraft delivered ordnance and incendiary devices. During the period of 24 

January and 1 July 1952, the Ordnance Department had loaded, dropped, and reported on 

approximately 920 aircraft parachute flares. The Gunboat Point impact area has changed 

significantly over the years. 

Though most of the impact area was on Wallops Island itself, further characterization of this area 

is necessary to determine the extent of shoreline and offshore impact. Due to sediment 

movement, MEC may now be submerged beneath the Atlantic Ocean or the Chincoteague Inlet. 

The USACE expects that UXO might be present along the northeastern shoreline of Wallops 

Island (USACE, 2007). Some of the UXO could have migrated to the contiguous Atlantic Ocean 

beaches. 

Machine Gun and Rocket Firing Area 

The firing area had two ground ranges, a 685-m (2,250-ft) range and a 230-m (750-ft) range, that 

were located immediately south of the Wallops Island north boat basin and were oriented 

southeast toward the ocean. Targets were constructed on the sand dunes along the beach. The 

machine gun firing area was used to statically test aircraft machine guns and cannons primarily 

firing 20 and 30 mm munitions. Aircraft rockets were tested at this range. The impact area for 

this range can be defined as a 40 degree fan originating at the firing point on Wallops Island and 

extending south-south east about 5,500 m (18,000 ft) into the Atlantic Ocean. UXO is expected 

to be present in the target area of this range that was located on the sand berms along the Atlantic 

Ocean beach front. 

Sea Target 

The Sea Target was probably a pyramid target constructed from wooden slats and telephone 

poles driven into the ocean bed at a depth of about 10 m (33 ft). UXO from munitions and landlaunched rockets fired from Naval Auxiliary Air Station Chincoteague and Wallops Island is 

expected to be found in the Sea Target impact area. The UXO should be concentrated in a 915-m 

(3,000-ft) radius circle around the Sea Target center. 

Affected Environment 

146 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Affected Environment 

 147 

Explosive Ammunition Test Facility 

The Explosive Ammunition test complex included the Explosive Ammunition Test Facility 

(Building W-81) and the Environmental Chamber (Building W-140) and was used to test fire 

aircraft guns and munitions. The facility included gun mount slabs, target stands, and a Rocket 

Cluster Site. High explosive munitions were tested at this facility. Targets were constructed on 

the sand dunes along the beach. The impact area for this range can be defined as a 40 degree 

safety fan originating at the firing point and extending perpendicular to the beach line and 5,500 

m (18,000 ft) into the Atlantic Ocean. MEC is expected to be present in this impact area and in 

the vicinity of the firing facility. 

Navy Plate Test Facility 

It is not clear whether the proposed 1953 Plate Test Facility was ever constructed. If constructed, 

munitions similar to the Explosive Ammunition Test Facility would have been fired east into the 

Atlantic Ocean. Additionally the impact area for this range would have similar dimensions as the 

Explosive Ammunition Test Facility. If used, MEC would be expected to be present in this 

impact area and in the vicinity of the firing facility. 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Area 

The NACA and later NASA operated an EOD area on the southern end of Wallops Island. This 

area was in service until NASA constructed the current Open Burn/Open Demolition facility in 

the same area. The EOD area was located entirely on shore. It is not expected that MEC (both 

UXO and discarded military munitions) from this area has migrated to the Atlantic Ocean. 

However, if further beach loss occurs in this area, MEC may eventually enter the Atlantic Ocean. 

Offshore UXO sites 

There are two offshore UXO sites in the Atlantic Ocean in the proximity of Wallops Island. The 

nearer site is located 11.58 km (7.2 mi) from the island at a depth of 13 m (44 ft). The second site 

is located 21.84 km (13.6 mi) from the island at a depth of 21 m (68 ft). The extent of either 

ordnance site is not known. 

3.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

The sections below describe the current biological resources present or potentially present within 

the project action area. Threatened and Endangered species are discussed in Section 3.2.10 

below. 

Unless otherwise specified, the sources of the information provided herein are the WFF ERD 

(NASA, 2008a), the NASA Biological Assessment (BA) prepared for this project (Appendix C), 

and the USFWS and NMFS Biological Opinions (BOs) received in response to the BA 

(Appendices D and E). 

3.2.1 Vegetation 

The barrier island system along the Delmarva Peninsula contains various ecological succession 

stages, including beaches, dunes, swales, maritime forests, and marsh. The natural vegetative 
Affected Environment 

148 

zones overlap and are constantly in a state of flux as the geographical positions of the islands 

slowly shift. 

The beach system of the Virginia and Maryland barrier islands from east to west includes the 

subtidal zone, intertidal zone, and upper beach zone. The subtidal zone on the eastern side of the 

islands extends from the lower limit of low tide to the seaward-most limit of wave action. 

Because of the dynamics of wave action, few plants exist in the subtidal zone. Due to shoreline 

erosion and the presence of the seawall, beach habitat is absent seaward of the seawall on 

Wallops Island. 

The intertidal zone is a transition zone exposed during low tide and totally submerged at high 

tide. This zone is an extremely dynamic area. Except for algae on the rocks of the existing 

seawall, plant species are virtually nonexistent in the intertidal zone located on the eastern 

portion of Wallops Island because of the deleterious effects of wave action on the stability of the 

zone. Microscopic plants and animals exist in the minute spaces between individual sand grains 

in the eastern intertidal zone 

The northern and southern dune vegetation on Wallops Island directly borders salt marshes 

(Figure 35). On the southern portion of Wallops Island, the dune and swale zone extends to the 

tidal marsh on the western side. No maritime forest exists on this part of the island. In the central 

and northern areas, the dune and swale zone extends to the maritime zone that starts where the 

secondary dune line once existed. The northern part of Wallops Island within the dune and swale 

zone is in an almost natural state, and is dominated by northern bayberry (Morella pensylvanica), 

wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), groundsel bush (Baccharis halimifolia), and American beach 

grass. The central portion of Wallops Island is dominated by common reed and maintained lawn 

areas. Common reed is invasive and has the ability to grow in areas with very low habitat value; 

it is considered to be an undesirable plant. Due to its successful competition with many other 

plant species, common reed has taken over much of the area in the center of Wallops Island. 

A small area of maritime forest zone exists on the central portion of the island, with an expansive 

thicket zone on the northern part. The thicket zone is dominated by extensive clusters of northern 

bayberry, wax myrtle, and groundsel bush. The thicket zone in some areas is virtually 

impenetrable due to dense stands of poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and greenbriar (Smilax

spp.), which is also pervasive on other areas of Wallops Island. The northern maritime forest 

zone is dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and cherry trees (Prunus spp.), with an 

understory of northern bayberry, wax myrtle, and groundsel bush. These species are able to 

thrive in sandy soils with poor drainage. 

There are 461 ha (1,140 ac) of tidal marsh between Wallops Island and Mainland. A tidal marsh 

is an area of low-lying wetlands that is influenced by the tides. The marsh is interlaced with 

small streams known locally as “guts.” The marsh itself can be divided into the low marsh and 

the high marsh—each a distinctive community. The low marsh, which is inundated at high tide, 

is dominated by salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). The high marsh, which is flooded 

by approximately 50 percent of the high tides, is dominated by salt meadow cordgrass (S. 

patens). As the marshes provide suitable habitat for both feeding and reproduction, these areas 

are of tremendous importance to marine life and to the terrestrial and avian species that depend 

on the marshes for their existence (NASA, 2008a). 

Affected Environment 

150 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Affected Environment 

 151 

3.2.1.1 2009 North Wallops Island Vegetation Survey 

NASA conducted a vegetation survey of the north Wallops Island area in October 2009 to 

characterize the vegetation communities within the SRIPP project area. Vegetation communities 

were identified using a classification system developed for Assateague Island in 1995 by The 

Nature Conservancy for the NBS/NPS Vegetation Mapping Program at Assateague Island 

National Seashore. 

Vegetation communities observed during the Wallops Island site visit included maritime forest, 

shrubland, open upland, low marsh, high marsh, sand dune, subtidal open water, sand flat, and 

ocean beach. Figure 36 shows the approximate locations of these vegetation communities. The 

outlines of these areas are based on interpretation of the aerial photography and the site visit; 

precise locations of these communities would require traditional or GPS surveys, which have not 

been conducted. 

In addition to these upland and wetland vegetated habitats, tidal sand flats and shallow open 

water also exist at the very northern end of the island. Overwash areas are present on the sand 

flats as evidenced by the burying of salt marsh cordgrass plants with sand. Widgeon grass 

(Ruppia maritima) was observed in the shallow water area located between the sand flats and the 

beach berm offshore. Stems of eelgrass (Zostera marina) were present with the widgeon grass, 

but were not rooted. 

3.2.2 Wildlife 

As a barrier island along the Atlantic coast, Wallops Island is home to a diverse array of wildlife 

species. The Assateague Island National Seashore extends from the northern (Maryland) portion 

of Assateague Island through Virginia. The southern (Virginia) portion located closest to 

Wallops Island is part of CNWR. Both protected park areas provide high quality habitat for a 

variety of wildlife. Assawoman Island to the south of Wallops is also owned by the USFWS and 

is part of CNWR. 

Wildlife species that are not federally listed but designated by the Commonwealth of Virginia as 

Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) are discussed in the various resource sections 

below. The SGCN list identifies species that the Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries (VDGIF) considers to be imperiled or in decline (VDGIF, 2010). Within the SGCN 

list, species are classified into four tiers that were developed to identify the relative importance 

of conservation need for each species. A Tier 1 species designation reflects a critical 

conservation need as the species faces an extremely high risk of extinction or extirpation, 

whereas a Tier 4 designation applies to species of moderate conservation need that may be either 

rare within parts of its range or have demonstrated a declining trend over time. Tiers 2 and 3 

represent very high and high conservation need, respectively. 

3.2.2.1 Invertebrates 

Wallops Island, particularly the tidal marsh area, has an extensive variety of invertebrates. 

Saltmarsh cordgrass marshes provide habitat to herbivorous (plant eating) insects such as the 

saltmarsh grasshopper (Orchelimum fidicinium) and the tiny plant hopper (Megamelus spp.). 

Plant hopper eggs are in turn preyed upon by a variety of arthropods, the group of animals that 

includes insects, spiders, and crustaceans. The tidal marshes are inhabited by a number of 

parasitic flies, wasps, spiders, and mites. The spiders prey mostly on herbivorous insects, and 
Affected Environment 

152 

mites prey primarily on microarthropods (small invertebrates) found in dead smooth cordgrass. 

Saltmarsh mosquitoes (Ochlerotatus sollicitans) and greenhead flies (Tabanus nigrovittatus) are 

prevalent insects on Wallops Island.

Particular species inhabit different areas of the marsh depending on their ability to adapt to the 

fluctuating tides. Many insects and arachnids (e.g., spiders and ticks) can tolerate lengthy 

submersions. Insects that cannot sustain long submersions tend to move up the marsh vegetation 

during high tide. Periwinkle snails (Littorina irrorata) and mud snails (Ilyanassa obsoleta) can 

withstand lengthy submersions and are found mainly on the marsh surface. 

On the Atlantic side of the island, the upper beach zone is dominated by burrowing organisms, 

such as ghost crabs (Ocypode quadrata), sand fleas (taltrid amphipods), and insects. Ghost crabs 

are important predators on mole crabs (Emerita spp.) and coquina, or bean, clams (Donax spp.) 

clams that live in the lower portions of the beach. They dig burrows up to 1.3 m (4 ft) deep and 

feed typically at night. 

3.2.2.2 Amphibians and Reptiles 

A variety of amphibians and reptiles use the dune and swale zones for foraging. Fowler’s toad 

(Bufo fowleri) can be found under stands of bayberry. The green tree frog (Hyla cinerea) is 

found in the wetter areas in the northern portion of Wallops Island. Other frogs include the gray 

tree frog (Hyla versicolor) and southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala). Some species of 

reptiles such as the black rat snake (Elapha obsoleta), the Tier IV SGCN hognose snake 

(Heterodon platirhinos), the Tier III SGCN box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and northern fence 

lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) can be found in low-lying shrubby areas. The northern water snake 

(Nerodia sipedon sipedon) is generally located in close proximity to freshwater and brackish 

ponds and also in marshes on the western side of the islands. Snapping turtle (Chelydra 

serpentina) and diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) can be found in saltmarsh 

estuaries, tidal flats, and lagoons. The diamondback terrapin is recognized as a Tier II SGCN in 

Virginia’s Wildlife Action Plan (VDGIF, 2005). 

3.2.2.3 Birds 

The Virginia Barrier Island Lagoon System includes the seaward margin of the lower Delmarva 

Peninsula from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay to the Maryland Virginia border. According to 

the Audubon Society (2010), this location is an important bird area in Virginia and along the 

Atlantic Coast of North America. The area has also been designated as a United Nations 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Biosphere Reserve and a Western Hemisphere 

Shorebird Reserve Site. 

Wallops Island is located within the boundaries of the Barrier Island Lagoon System Important 

Bird Area (IBA) and is in the path of the coastal route of the Atlantic Flyway, a regular avenue 

of travel for migrating land and water birds that winter on the waters and marshes south of 

Delaware Bay. The Barrier Island Lagoon System IBA and the Atlantic Flyway are of great 

importance to waterfowl and other birds, especially during the spring and fall migration. Ducks, 

geese, shorebirds, songbirds, and raptors pass through the Atlantic Flyway. The barrier islands, 

including Wallops, Assateague, Chincoteague, and Assawoman Islands, are particularly 

important for migratory birds. Some species use these islands as a stopover point, while others 

use the islands and surrounding habitats as an overwintering area. The bay side of the islands 

tends to contain the highest concentrations of migratory birds. 

Affected Environment 

154 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Affected Environment 

 155 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA, 16 U.S.C. 703-712) was enacted to ensure the 

protection of shared migratory bird resources. The MBTA prohibits the take and possession of 

any migratory bird, their eggs, or nests, except as authorized by a valid permit or license. The 

statutory definition of “take” is “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, 

capture or kill.” A migratory bird is any species that lives, reproduces, or migrates within or 

across international borders at some point during its annual life cycle. Migratory birds, as well as 

non-migratory birds are discussed in this section. Bird species that are identified as protected 

species are discussed in detail under Section 3.2.10 Threatened and Endangered species. 

A discussion of various bird species is provided below based on their life history and habitat 

usage. 

Terrestrial Birds 

Raptors, including the Tier III SGCN Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Osprey (Pandion 

haliaetus), and the State threatened Tier I SGCN Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), inhabit 

the marsh areas, including the marsh west of Wallops Island. The marshland on the western side 

of the barrier islands provides habitat to wading birds such as the Great Egret (Ardea alba 

egretta), Snowy Egret (Egretta thula), Tier III SGCN Glossy Ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), Tier III 

SGCN Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor), Tier IV SGCN Green Heron (Butorides virescens), 

Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodius), Tier III SGCN Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax 

nycticorax), and Tier IV SGCN Clapper Rails (Rallus longirostris). 

Great Horned Owls (Bubo virginianus) can be found in the maritime forest and Tier II SGCN 

Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) can often be seen flying over WFF; a Bald Eagle nest is 

located on the northern end of Wallops Island. The maritime forests may also give shelter to 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula), Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), Whiteeyed Vireos (Vireo griseus), and the Tier II SGCN Northern Saw-whet Owl (Aegolius acadicus) 

during migration stopovers. 

Birds that use the shrub zones include various species of sparrows, Red-winged Blackbirds 

(Agelaius phoeniceus), Boat-tailed Grackles (Quiscalus major), and Fish Crows (Corvus 

ossifragus). Birds common in the shrub zone include Song Sparrow (Melopiza melodia), Tier IV 

SGCN Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and Mourning 

Dove (Zenaida macroura). Resident Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) are found year-round in 

open upland portions of the WFF. 

Shorebirds 

During spring and fall migrations, shorebirds feed on plants and animals in the intertidal zone of 

the Virginia barrier islands. 

Laughing Gulls (Larus atricilla), Herring Gulls (L. argentatus), and Great Black-backed Gulls 

(L. marinus) commonly forage in the upper beach zone and the intertidal zone. 

The Sanderling (Calidris alba) is a small pale sandpiper commonly seen in flocks chasing 

receding waves on ocean beaches, and running away from them when they return. It breeds in 

the high Arctic and winters along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts from Canada to Argentina 

(MacWhirter et al., 2002). 
Affected Environment 

156 

A small dark shorebird with a single band across its chest, the Semi-palmated Plover 

(Charadrius semipalmatus), is the most common plover seen during migration. The Semipalmated Plover feeds primarily on insects and can be found on the Atlantic coast during the 

non-breeding winter season (Nol and Blanken, 1999). 

The Tier IV SGCN Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus) is a speckled shorebird that 

winters on coastal mud flats and brackish lagoons. The Short-billed Dowitcher can be seen on 

the beaches within the project area during migration and feeds primarily on aquatic invertebrates 

such as mollusks and marine worms (Jehl et al., 2000). 

The Tier IV SGCN Dunlin (Calidris alpina) can be found within the project area during the nonbreeding season. Non-breeding plumage for the Dunlin is a dull brownish gray, with a whitish 

belly. Its main source of food is insects. 

The Tier II SGCN American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) is a large shorebird, common 

in coastal salt marshes and sand beaches throughout the central part of its range. One of the few 

birds to feed mainly on bivalve mollusks living in saltwater, this species is completely restricted 

to marine habitats. Eastern oystercatchers regularly winter in large flocks, from Virginia south 

along the Atlantic coast (Nol and Humphrey, 1994). Of the more than 700 breeding pairs of 

American Oystercatchers documented in coastal Virginia in 2008, over 50 percent occurred on 

Virginia’s barrier islands, with 40 percent occurring on several islands south of Wallops 

including Metompkin and Cedar Islands (Wilke et al., 2009). Additionally, American 

Oystercatcher productivity rates along the barrier island chain are some of the highest reported 

on the U.S. Atlantic coast, suggesting that the islands may serve as important population sources 

for the larger East Coast population (Wilke et al., 2007). 

The Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) is found in flocks in diverse aquatic 

habitats, such as the coastline and estuaries, as well as inland in rivers, lakes, and other bodies of 

water. They build flat nests made of twigs, seaweed, and flotsam, either in trees or on the ground. 

The primary prey of the cormorant is small, bottom-dwelling or schooling fish (USFWS, 2009a), 

but they are also known to eat insects and amphibians (Hatch and Weseloh, 1999). 

Marine Birds 

Marine birds are found not only in the shoreline/coastal environment but also over the open 

ocean where they forage. All birds described in this section may be found within the SRIPP 

project area. 

The Tier II SGCN Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger) is active at all times of the day, especially at 

dawn and dusk, and occasionally at night, feeding on fish. It builds its nest on the ground 

(Gochfeld and Burger, 1994). 

The Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) lives along warm marine coastlines and estuarine 

areas. Its primary prey is fish, as well as the occasional marine invertebrate. Pelicans are known 

for swooping down on fish from the air and trapping them in their bills. They build their nests in 

short trees or shrubs and on the ground, frequently in colonies with other shorebirds (Shields, 

2002). 

Various species of terns can be found on the beaches of Wallops, Assateague, and Chincoteague 

Islands. Terns are closely related to gulls and skimmers, but are more specialized in their nesting 
Affected Environment 

 157 

habitats, diet, and foraging methods. Most nest in colonies, frequently in proximity to groups of 

other nesting shorebirds (Gotchfeld and Burger, 1996). 

The Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia) lives and breeds in a wide variety of coastal habitats, including 

salt marshes and barrier islands. Nesting occurs in colonies on beaches. The nest is a small 

indentation in the sand, lined with twigs, pebbles, or leaves. During the winter, they are found 

along beaches and roosting on the Islands. The Caspian Tern feeds mainly on fish, but also on 

insects and small crustaceans (Cuthbert and Wires, 1999). 

The Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) is medium in size and has a black cap and white wings with 

dark tips. The Common Tern is the most widespread tern in North America and nests on islands, 

in marshes and sometimes on the beach, and is considered a Tier III SGCN. The Common Tern 

prefers to eat small fish and small invertebrates (Nisbet, 2002). The Common Tern nests on 

barrier islands, beaches, and in saltwater marshes. The nests are well-disguised, appearing to be a 

pile of dead leaves or vegetation on the ground. Its primary prey is fish, with some invertebrates 

(Nisbet, 2002). 

The Tier IV SGCN Forster’s Tern (Sterna forsteri) is very similar in appearance to several other 

species of tern. It breeds in the marshes in areas of open water with stands of vegetation. Floating 

nests are fabricated out of vegetation and are found in open water or on floating vegetation. The 

Forster’s Tern also occasionally makes its nest in mud or sand. In the winter, it is found along the 

coastline. Prey includes various small fish and arthropods (McNicholl et al., 2001). 

The Least Tern (Sterna hirundo) is found on the coast, in bays, and in estuaries. Sandy coastal 

beaches are used for nesting, but the birds also nest on flat elevated surfaces like roofs. On 

beaches, the nest is a small indentation or “scrape” in the sand, soil, or in pebbles. Like most 

other terns found on and near Wallops Island, fish and invertebrates are its primary food source 

(Thompson et al., 1997). The Least Tern is a Tier II SGCN. 

The Royal Tern (Sterna maxima) nests on low-lying barrier island beaches, in nest scrapes in the 

sand. The birds are frequently found in colonies, nesting and feeding on fish and shrimp 

(Buckley and Buckley, 2002). The peak nesting season for the Royal Tern in the coastal Virginia 

area is June. The Royal Tern is a Tier II SGCN. 

Waterbirds such as scoters, loons, and gannets may occur within the offshore portion of the 

SRIPP project area. In a draft report, Forsell (2003) noted that these were found distributed over 

shoals in the mid-Atlantic during aerial surveys conducted from December 2001 to March 2003. 

Preliminary studies indicate that the birds use the mid-Atlantic area as foraging grounds during 

winter months (Forsell, 2003). 

A coastal duck that breeds in the subarctic, the Black Scoter (Melanitta nigra) is a stocky diving 

duck that feeds on aquatic invertebrates, especially aquatic insects and mollusks (e.g., bivalves 

and gastropods) as well as crustaceans (e.g., crabs) from the seafloor (Bordage and Savard, 

1995). The White-winged Scoter (M. fusca) and Surf Scoter (M. perspicillata) are very similar to 

the Black Scoter in both appearance and feeding habits. Black Scoters typically feed at depths of 

less than 10 m (33 ft), while the White-winged and Surf Scoters typically feed at depths less than 

5 m (16 ft). 

The Common Loon (Gavia immer) is a large waterbird whose male territorial call is considered a 

symbol of the wild north. Duck-like in appearance, the Common Loon has a long pointed bill 

and a long body that slopes to the rear. It swims underwater to catch fish, propelling itself with 
Affected Environment 

158 

its feet. It swallows most of its prey underwater. The loon has sharp, rearward-pointing 

projections on the roof of its mouth and tongue that help it keep a firm hold on slippery fish. In 

North America, the common loon breeds on clear freshwater lakes surrounded by lakes. It 

winters primarily in coastal marine areas near shore (McIntyre and Barr, 1997). 

The Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata) is the smallest of the loons. Distinctive from the other 

loon species in behavior, vocalizations, and life history, the Red-throated Loon breeds in low 

tundra wetlands, bogs, and ponds in forests. It winters in relatively shallow, sheltered marine 

habitat (Barr et al, 2000). 

Breeding in only a few large colonies along the North Atlantic, the Northern Gannet (Morus 

bassanus) spends most of its life at sea. Flocks engage in spectacular bouts of plunge-diving for 

fish, with hundreds of birds diving into the ocean from heights of up to 40 m (130 ft) (Mowbray, 

2002). Northern Gannets feed on fish and squid. 

3.2.2.4 Mammals 

On Wallops Island, mammals such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), opossum 

(Didelphis marsupialis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) are 

plentiful. Raccoon and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) are occasionally found in the upper beach zone 

and the inter-tidal zone. The gray squirrel and opossum inhabit the maritime forest along with 

other mammals that use other sections of the island for forage and shelter. Raccoon, red fox, 

white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), rice rat 

(Oryzomys palustris), white-tailed deer, and Eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus) are 

found in the dune and swale zone. 

While most mammals found on Assateague Island are comparable to those found on Wallops 

Island, CNWR provides protected habitats to a several additional species. Wild horses (Equus 

caballus) roam freely on the northern side of the island, and are restricted by fencing on the 

southern portion closest to Wallops Island. The feral horses and non-native sika deer (Cervus 

nippon) feed on the abundant vegetation commonly found in the interdune swale zone and 

thickets. Assateague Island also provides habitat for the federally and State-endangered (Tier II 

SGCN) Delmarva fox squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus), which can be found in pine and oak 

forests in the central portion of the island. Loblolly pines on the island provide habitat for the 

little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), and silver-haired bat 

(Lasionycteris noctivagans). Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) are found in brackish and freshwater 

impoundments, along with the occasional river otter (Lutra canadensis). 

3.2.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

The bay side of the Virginia barrier island system has a substantial population of submerged 

aquatic vegetation (SAV), including a variety of seagrasses. Two true seagrasses—eelgrass and 

widgeon grass—provide erosion control, habitat, and foraging area for fish, waterfowl, and 

mammals such as river otters. Water clarity is the most vital component of seagrass survival 

(Virginia Institute of Marine Science [VIMS], no date). Increases in water turbidity and changes 

in sediment content and nutrient levels can be detrimental to seagrass growth, the majority of 

which occurs from March through November. About 85 percent of the SAV within the barrier 

islands is found on the western side of Assateague Island in Chincoteague and Sinepuxent Bays. 

Smaller amounts of eelgrass and widgeon grass can be found in the coastal bays of Wallops, 

Assawoman, and Chincoteague Islands. 
Affected Environment 

 159 

According to the 2008 SAV online mapper prepared by the VIMS, the nearest mapped SAV bed 

to the SRIPP project area is in New Virginia Cove, approximately 11 km (7 mi) from the 

northernmost point of proposed beach fill on Wallops Island shoreline and approximately 8 km 

(5 mi) from the mouth of Chincoteague Inlet. The VIMS mapper did not indicate any SAV on 

the ocean side of Wallops or Assateague Islands, nor in the open ocean waters of the Atlantic off 

Wallops Island (VIMS, no date). However, during the October 2009 vegetation survey of north 

Wallops Island, small areas of widgeon grass were observed in the shallow water area located 

between the sand flats and the beach berm offshore, in addition to stems of eelgrass (Zostera 

marina). 

3.2.4 Plankton 

3.2.4.1 Phytoplankton 

Phytoplankton are small floating plants. Nutrients supplied from coastal runoff and vertical 

mixing in the water column support a relatively high abundance of phytoplankton out to a depth 

of about 20 m (65 ft) in the MAB. Peaks in phytoplankton populations vary annually, with 

highest abundances occurring in spring and late summer to late fall. Phytoplankton are important 

primary producers and are key prey for zooplankton and fish. 

3.2.4.2 Zooplankton 

Zooplankton are small floating or weakly swimming animals. Zooplankton include those species 

that spend their entire lives as plankton (holoplankton), as well as the eggs and larvae of many 

fish and invertebrates (meroplankton). Holoplankton abundance is highest in late spring, 

summer, and fall. Meroplankton are most numerous during late spring and summer. There are 

approximately 400 taxa of zooplankton in this portion of the MAB including copepods, 

chaetognaths, cladocerans, and larvae of several benthic groups such as barnacles, brachyurans 

(e.g., crabs), and echinoderms (e.g., sand dollars and starfish) (Sherman et al., 1996). 

Zooplankton are important prey for many fish. 

3.2.4.3 Ichthyoplankton 

Ichthyoplankton are the eggs and larvae of fish that are carried passively along with the currents. 

Olney and Bilkovic (1998) reviewed and presented a synthesis on the ichthyoplankton in the 

MAB. Ichthyoplankton populations are highly variable due to seasonal and climatic changes, 

diverse life histories, hydrodynamic processes, natural cycles of abundance, and fishing pressure. 

In general, fish that spawn in the MAB broadcast pelagic eggs. However, some species such as 

Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus harengus), common mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), 

sand eel (Ammodytes spp.), silverside (Menidia menidia), and winter flounder 

(Pseudopleuronectes americanus) have benthic eggs with a dispersive pelagic larval stage. The 

ichthyoplankton have the potential to be dispersed throughout the region and into habitats 

different than the spawning grounds. 

Spawning and ichthyoplankton populations vary seasonally in the MAB. The majority of species 

have a spawning period that includes spring and/or summer (Olney and Bilkovic, 1998). 

However, Grosslein and Azarovitz (1982) reported that significant quantities of fish larvae are 

present throughout the MAB all year. 
Affected Environment 

160 

3.2.5 Benthos 

Benthos are bottom-dwelling invertebrates that provide a critical link in the productivity of the 

marine waters off of Wallops Island. The benthos includes organisms that live on the sediment 

surface (epifauna) such as starfish and sand dollars, as well as organisms that live within the 

sediment (infauna) such as clams and worms. The majority of the benthos live in the upper 15 

cm (6 in) of sediment. Benthic organisms are an important food resource for fish, including those 

caught by recreational and commercial fishermen. 

Benthic habitats within the project area consist of: (1) the intertidal portions of the beach 

including the surf and swash zones, (2) the intertidal and subtidal portions of the rock seawall, 

and (3) the offshore or subtidal habitats. 

The distribution of beach infauna is controlled by physical factors, particularly sediment grain 

size, wave energy, and tidal range. Beach slope and wave height, in turn, have been identified as 

the two factors associated the most with different beach assemblages (McLachlan, 1990). Wave 

height is important because it is a measure of wave energy: the higher the wave energy, the more 

stressed and therefore less diverse and abundant the infaunal assemblage. Beach slope is 

important because beaches with steep slopes have a relatively small swash zone and species such 

as mole crabs which “ride” the tides in the swash zone may not have sufficient scope for feeding 

and thus be unable to establish large populations.

In addition to wave energy and tidal range, the distribution of beach infauna is dependent on 

other physical factors such as sediment texture. Intertidal infauna are usually highest in both 

abundance and biomass in the summer and lowest during mid-winter. Population numbers are 

seasonal, with highest abundances in the summer and lowest in the winter. Species composition 

varies within elevations of the beach, with lower species diversity occurring in the upper beach 

zone. 

The offshore benthic habitats of the nearshore northern Virginia continental shelf, within the 

region of the SRIPP study area, consist of unvegetated and unconsolidated sand of varying grain 

size. As described in Section 3.1.3, the shelf also contains topographically high shoals. A 

detailed description of the underwater sedimentary environment of the project area is provided in 

Section 3.1.4. 

Physical factors play a role in determining the structure of benthic communities of the shallow 

continental shelf including sediment type, hydrodynamics, and bottom topography. Sedimentary 

characteristics, such as grain size and organic content, are particularly important factors in 

determining the distribution and structure of benthic communities on open continental shelf areas 

(Theroux and Wigley, 1998). Sediment grain size distribution plays an important role in 

determining substrate stability and food availability, which in turn affects benthic community 

structure and the benthic trophic groups that may be present as suspension or deposit-feeding 

taxa (e.g., Rhoads, 1974; Fauchald and Jumars, 1979). Although infaunal species occur across a 

range of sediment types, the distribution of many infaunal taxa tend to be correlated to specific 

sedimentary habitats. For this region of the MAB, Wigley and Theroux (1981) reported that 

bivalves were the most abundant taxonomic group in the sand/shell sediment, while the second 

most abundant group in this sediment—crustaceans —were in turn the most abundant in sanddominated sediment. 
Affected Environment 

 161 

Hydrodynamic processes (e.g., currents and waves) also affect benthic community structure 

(e.g., Eckman, 1983; Hall, 1994). Hydrodynamic processes affect benthic larval transport, 

sediment characteristics, and food resources at a variety of spatial scales (Butman, 1987; Zajac et 

al. 1998; Palmer, 1988). Storms may affect benthic community composition, especially in 

shallow water (Hall, 1994; Posey et al., 1996; Posey and Alphin, 2002). Diaz et al. (2004) report 

that storms are important in structuring benthic communities. Even though individual storm 

events are unpredictable, their seasonality and frequency have a relatively narrow range over the 

course of a year. Storms can affect surface sedimentology over relatively short time periods. 

Niedoroda et al. (1989) concluded that a major storm can deposit a layer of sediment several cm 

thick at 20 m (65 ft) water depth and several millimeters thick at 40 m (130 ft) water depth. 

Local bottom topographic features, such as ridges and troughs, also play a role in determining 

shallow continental shelf macrobenthic communities. Diaz et al. (2004) reported that shoal-ridge 

communities are different from the mid-shoal and trough communities. Viscido et al. (1997) 

reported that the presence of a ridge has a clear influence on the local abundance and distribution 

of shrimp and crab populations. They reported that the ridge has an assemblage of crab and 

shrimp different from that on either side of the ridge. The differences may be attributable to the 

ridge being a high-energy environment or its sediment composition. 

In general, the overall abundance of benthic communities is highest in the late spring and early 

summer. However, a range of reproductive cycles exist for the benthos at the individual species 

level. Some species reproduce year-round, while others spawn during one or multiple seasons. 

The SRIPP project area encompasses two general benthic habitats: (1) the offshore sand shoals 

and (2) the nearshore beach and surf zone. Currently, beach habitat is absent seaward of the 

seawall on Wallops Island. An overview of the benthic communities within the offshore and 

nearshore habitats is provided below. 

3.2.5.1 Beach, Swash, and Surf Zones 

Currently, exposed beach exists only north and south of the seawall (Figure 3). Along the MidAtlantic coast, the uppermost zone of the beach is dominated by air-breathing crustaceans such 

as beach hoppers (taltrid amphipods) and ghost crabs. Between the drift line and mid-tide level is 

the swash zone, an area dominated by isopods, haustoriid amphipods, polychaetes (e.g., 

Scolelepis squamata), and mole crabs (Emerita talpoida). Below mid-tide is the surf zone where 

coquina clams and a variety of haustoriid amphipods dominate the benthic assemblage. Beyond 

the surf zone, benthic assemblages are characterized by increasing representation of fauna that is 

characteristic of offshore waters (described below). 

Donax and Emerita are key members of the beach benthic community and important prey items 

for a range of higher trophic levels organisms including ghost crabs, blue crabs, fish that inhabit 

the surf zone (e.g., Florida pompano), and shorebirds (e.g., Sanderling). Donax and Emerita are 

filter feeders and require moving water to feed. They are sensitive to physical characteristics of 

the beach. Dolan et al. (2004) reported that Emerita and Donax populations were reduced in 

areas of finer-grained sediment deposited over time from sand bypassing from the Oregon Inlet 

to Pea Island, NC. The population reductions were correlated to a higher heavy mineral content 

that increased the sand density and increased compaction. These physical changes affected the 

ability of Emerita and Donax to burrow into and out of the sand. In addition, Bowman and Dolan 

(1985) report that Emerita population densities are strongly influenced by physical processes 
Affected Environment 

162 

(e.g., wave energy) and physical attributes of the foreshore (e.g., grain size and beach slope). 

Emerita may be sensitive to sediment grain size because of implications for burrowing and or the 

effects of turbidity on feeding. Emerita abundances are highest in the late summer and early fall 

(Bowman and Dolan, 1985). Alexander et al. (1993) report that Donax burrowing rates are 

slowed by elevated coarse components of sediment including shell hash. 

3.2.5.2 Seawall 

In its current state with no beach in front of it, the rock seawall provides habitat for benthic 

organisms. As shown in Photo 10, green algae are present in the upper intertidal and splash 

zones. Barnacles and mussels are present in the lower tidal zones. The rocks also provide habitat 

for a variety of benthic organisms such as polychaete worms and amphipods, as well as crabs. 

The seawall also provides habitat for a variety of insects. Wilber et al. (2003) report that insects 

comprise a small but consistent component of the food supply of surf zone fish off the northern 

coast of New Jersey. 

Photo 10: Close-up of seawall on Wallops Island 

3.2.5.3 Offshore 

Relevant recent studies have been conducted of the offshore benthic communities in this region 

(Maryland and Virginia) of the MAB. Cutter and Diaz (2000), Diaz et al. (2004), and Slacum et 

al. (2006) reported on the benthic communities of the sand shoals and reference areas offshore of 

northern Maryland (approximately 35 to 50 km [20 to 35 mi] north of the proposed SRIPP 

borrow sites). The sampling sites were located approximately 16 to 25 km (10 to 15 mi) offshore 

in water depths between 10 and 20 m (6 and 12 ft). In addition, VIMS (2006) has examined the 

Sandbridge Shoal offshore of Virginia Beach approximately 120 km (75 mi) southwest of the 

SRIPP study area. 
Affected Environment 

 163 

Cutter and Diaz (2000) collected benthic grab samples, video, and sediment profile imaging data 

of sand shoals offshore of northern Maryland and southern Delaware in 1998 and 1999. Cutter 

and Diaz (2000) and Diaz et al. (2004) reported that in the sediment grab samples they collected 

offshore of northern Maryland and southern Delaware, they found that the infaunal communities 

were dominated by annelid worms, followed by mollusks and crustaceans. Mollusks accounted 

for over 85 percent of the biomass. 

Cutter and Diaz (2000) also reported on the epifauna of the area. They found that three crabs 

(hermit crabs [Pagurus spp.], portly spider crab [Libinia emarginata], and Atlantic rock crab 

[Cancer irroratus]) were most abundant. Large gastropods such as the whelk (Busycon 

canaliculatum) and moon snail (Polinices spp.) were also collected. Other large benthos 

collected were the infaunal bivalves such as the surf clam (Spisula solidissima) and common 

razor clam (Ensis directus). Astartes (Astarte spp.), bivalves, known to lie on the sediment 

surface, were collected along with starfish (Asterias spp.) and common sand dollar 

(Echinarachnius parma). Overall, crabs were most abundant in the habitats with biogenic 

structure, such as tubes created by the polychaetes Asabellides and Diopatra, and appeared to be 

using these habitats as nursery areas since most of the individuals were small (<5 cm [<2 in]). 

Other species were broadly distributed across all habitats such as nudibranchs (Pagurus spp.), 

sand shrimp (Crangon septemspinosa), and Asterias spp. The two species that appeared to prefer 

the sandy and more dynamic habitats were Polinices spp. and sand dollar.

Slacum et al. (2006) collected large epifauna during their trawling efforts on shoals offshore of 

Maryland (Table 21). These organisms are expected to occur on the offshore shoals in the project 

area. 

Table 21: Organisms Collected by Slacum et al. (2006) in Trawls Collected on Shoals 

Offshore of Maryland 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Asteroidea Starfishes 

Busycon carica Knobbed whelk 

Busycotypus canaliculatus Channeled whelk 

Callinectes sapidus Blue crab 

Cancer irroratus Atlantic rock crab 

Crangon septemspinosa Sand shrimp 

Echinoidea Heart urchins 

Gastropoda Gastropods 

Libinia emarginata Portly spider crab 

Limulus polyphemus Horseshoe crab 

Nudibranchia Nudibranchs 

Octopus vulgaris Common octopus 

Ovalipes ocellatus Lady crab 

Ovalipes stephensoni Coarsehand lady crab 

Paguridae Right-handed hermit crabs 

Polinices spp. Moon snails 
Affected Environment 

164 

Slacum et al. (2006) reported that the abundance of epifaunal groups between two habitats, i.e., 

the shoal and uniform bottom, showed no differences; this suggests that shoals are not preferred 

by epifaunal species when compared to their reference site habitat.

3.2.5.4 2009 Benthic Video Survey of Offshore Shoals 

In July 2009, a video survey was conducted of the benthic habitat of the two unnamed sand 

shoals as part of the baseline data collection for this PEIS (NASA, 2009b) (Appendix B). Video 

footage was collected at 40 stations (Figure 37) on each of the shoals (80 stations total) for 

approximately 5 minutes at each station. During collection of the video, the vessel was allowed 

to drift with the currents. Still images were extracted from the video during post-processing 

review. Five stations were established along each of eight transects oriented roughly 

The survey concluded that both the shoals are similar from a benthic habitat perspective and are 

comprised of unconsolidated sand with no hard substrate present. In addition, a sub-bottom 

profile survey conducted in June and July for the offshore cultural resource investigation reached 

the same conclusion (NASA, 2009c). 

The photos provided below are representative of the habitats present on the shoals. Figure 37 

depicts the location of these photo stations. Appendix B provides a more thorough description of 

the video survey as well as figures depicting all the video stations. 

In general, results of the video survey indicated that sediment on the crests and topographically 

higher portions of the shoals were dominated by physical features such as ripple marks (Photos 

11 and 12). The lack of apparent biogenic features does not necessarily indicate a paucity of 

biological resources (Cutter and Diaz, 2000). In general, benthic organisms in this habitat are 

dominated by infauna such as polychaete worms, and epifauna such as sand dollars that burrow 

through the sediment and do not construct tubes; therefore, the sand surface is left with a “clean” 

appearance (Cutter and Diaz, 2000). 

The deeper portions of the shoals were dominated by shell fragments and hash, as well as 

biological features such as tubes and feeding cones created by benthic organisms. Little or no 

evidence of ripple marks (Photos 13 and 14) were seen in the deeper portions. Dominant 

epifaunal benthos included sand dollars (Echinarachinus parma) (Photo 15), hermit crabs 

(Pagurus spp.), crabs (Libinia spp., Cancer spp.), moon shell (Polinices spp.), and whelk 

(Busycon spp.). Fish were rarely seen on the video; those observed were sea robins (Prionotus

spp.) (Photo 16). 

Affected Environment 

166 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Affected Environment 

 167 

Photo 11: Ripple marks characteristic of Station #20 from Unnamed Shoal B at a depth of 

approximately 14 m (45 ft). (Photo contains the date and time of collection in upper left 

and easting and northing coordinates in upper right) 

Photo 12: Ripple marks characteristic of Station #39 from Unnamed Shoal B at a depth of 

approximately 17 m (56 ft) 
Affected Environment 

168 

Photo 13: Shell hash and absence of bedforms characteristic of Station #2 from Unnamed 

Shoal A at a depth of approximately 17 m (55 ft) 

Photo 14: Shell hash and absence of bedforms characteristic of Station #17 from Unnamed 

Shoal A at a depth of approximately 19 m (64 ft) 
Affected Environment 

 169 

Photo 15: Sand dollars (Echinarachinus parma) from Station #14 from Unnamed Shoal B 

at a depth of approximately 15 m (48 ft) 

Photo 16: Sea robin (Prionotus spp.) in lower right of photo from Station #39 from 

Unnamed Shoal B at a depth of approximately 17 m (56 ft) 
Affected Environment 

170 

3.2.6 Invertebrate Nekton 

The Atlantic waters offshore of Wallops Island include invertebrates that live in the water 

column. These organisms include a variety of squid, jellyfish, and comb jellies (ctenophores). 

Comb jellies and jellyfish have limited mobility and generally are carried by currents. Comb 

jellies were frequently seen in the video collected from the shoals (Appendix B). Diaz et al. 

(2006) reported two species of squid were present at Sandbridge Shoal, which is located in 

approximately 13 m (43 ft) of water and 5 km (3 mi) offshore and to the south of the opening of 

the Chesapeake Bay. The squid species were the Atlantic brief squid (Lolliguncula brevis) and 

Atlantic bobtail squid (Rossia spp.). A variety of jellyfish species occur in the area including the 

sea nettle (Chrysaora quinquecirrha) and the moon jellyfish (Aurelia aurita). These squid and 

jellyfish species would likely be present within the SRIPP project area. 

3.2.7 Finfish 

The project area contains a broad diversity of fish species. The MAB contains over 300 species 

of fish, most of which are seasonal migrants with only a few species considered endemic to the 

area (Sherman et al., 1996). The diversity results from the MAB being an area of transition from 

cold water to the north and warmer waters to the south. Boreal (northern) species are present in 

the winter and warm-temperate/sub-tropical species are present in the summer (Musick et al.,

1986). Many of the species migrate from nearshore to areas offshore or southward seasonally, as 

dictated by temperature cycles, feeding opportunities, and spawning cycles (MMS, 1999). 

Generally, fish abundance is low in the winter with a progressive influx in the spring and peak 

abundances in the fall. In addition, diversity is highest in September and lowest in late winter 

(February/March) (MMS, 1999). In the offshore waters, spawning occurs over a wide 

geographical area with the production of pelagic eggs and larvae that are dispersed throughout 

the shelf water. 

In winter, the fauna is dominated by wide-ranging species such as sea herring (Clupea 

harengus), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), hakes (Urophycis spp., Merluccius spp.), 

monkfish (Lophius americanus), and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) (Musick, 1974; Phoel, 

1985; Nammack et al., 1985). In summer, the fauna is dominated by warm temperate and subtropical species such as summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), croakers, drums, and sea trout 

(Sciaenids), menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), and large coastal sharks (Carcharhinidae) 

(Desfosse et al., 1990). In spring and fall, the area is an important migration corridor for striped 

bass (Morone saxatilis) and bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix).

Warm water species such as bluefish and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) enter the region as 

temperatures rise in the spring and summer, while cold water species such as Atlantic cod 

(Gadus morhua), Atlantic herring, and American shad (Alosa sapidissima) migrate north. 

Similarly, as fall approaches, warm water species such as summer flounder (Paralichthys 

dentatus), butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), and black sea bass (Centropristis striata) may 

migrate offshore toward deeper waters and then move southward, while cold water species move 

south into the MAB (Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982). It is also possible for a pelagic species such 

as Atlantic mackerel to have both a southern and a northern contingent that spawns within the 

MAB during different periods, or in the case of menhaden, spawning episodes during migrations 

into and out of the MAB. 

Specific discussions of the surf zone and offshore shoals are provided below. 
Affected Environment 

 171 

3.2.7.1 Surf Zone 

The surf zone provides important habitat for a variety of fish species. It provides foraging areas 

for adult and juvenile fish, as well refugia from aquatic predators for juvenile fishes. A sitespecific study of surf zone fish was not conducted for the SRIPP. However, Layman (2000) 

conducted a survey (in water depths less than 0.4 m [1.3 ft]) of surf zone fish at the north end of 

Hog Island, which is located approximately 40 km (25 mi) to the south of the SRIPP project 

area. The results of his study adequately characterize the anticipated surf zone fish assemblage 

off Wallops Island. 

During his survey from August 1997 to October 1998, Layman (2000) caught 23 fish species of 

which three species accounted for 94 percent of the total number of fish collected. This low 

species diversity was characterized by three dominant species that included, in order of 

abundance, the rough silverside (Membras martinica), Florida pompano (Trachinotus carolinus), 

and gulf kingfish (Menticirrhus littoralis). The majority of all species were either seasonal 

juveniles or adult transient species that are much more common in other marine habitats. Only 

two species, rough silverside and white mullet (Mugil curema), were year-round residents. Most 

species utilize the shallow surf during the summer and early fall and migrate to deeper waters or 

southward during the cooler months (Layman, 2000). The survey also indicated an increase in 

species at night. Layman also reported higher species richness and abundance in runnels (the 

isolated troughs of water behind small sand bars). 

3.2.7.2 Offshore Sand Shoals 

Recent relevant studies have been conducted of the fish fauna of the sand shoals offshore of 

Ocean City, MD, located approximately 32 km (20 mi) north of the proposed SRIPP borrow sites 

(Slacum et al., 2006). Slacum et al. (2006) collected 57 taxa of finfish during seasonal sampling 

from the fall 2002 to the summer of 2004 using a combination of small otter trawls, large 

commercial trawls, and gill net sets. Spotted hake (Urophycis regia), scup (Stenotomus 

chrysops), and winter skate (Raja ocellata) were the dominant species collected; windowpane 

flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) and winter skate were highly prevalent species, being collected 

at nearly every site throughout the entire year. This study also included non-species specific 

bioacoustic studies to assess fish movement and relative abundances. 

After two consecutive years of fisheries monitoring in Federal waters off the coast of Maryland 

and Delaware, Slacum et al. (2006) documented that there are significant seasonal variations in 

species richness and abundances at the shoals and reference sites in this region of the MAB. 

They noted yearly variations in abundance, but overall the seasonal patterns of species 

assemblages were consistent and the majority of the species inhabiting the shoals and reference 

site habitats were seasonal residents. Comparisons between the net and bioacoustic data 

suggested that pelagic fish are using habitats differently between day and night. They concluded 

that: 1) fish occurring in the MAB either have no preference or prefer substrates at uniformbottom types to sandy shoals during the day; and 2) there are diel (day/night) differences in the 

abundance of pelagic fish using the shoals and reference sites. Their data suggest fish could be 

using the adjacent uniform-bottom habitats during the day and move onto the shoals at night to 

exploit new habitat, in which case shoals could represent an important resource for fish at night.

Finfish abundance and species diversity were generally higher over the seafloor flats than on the 

shoals. Windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), and 
Affected Environment 

172 

spotted hake (Urophycis regia) were caught throughout seasonal samples in higher numbers over 

the seafloor flats than over the shoals. Other finfish species showed seasonal patterns of 

distribution. Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) in fall, winter skate (Raja ocellata) in winter, and 

northern sea robin (Prionotus carolinus) in summer are examples of common species that were 

captured in daytime netting more frequently on the flat uniform-bottom areas than on the shoals. 

Sand lance (Ammodytes spp.) was netted more frequently on the shoals. Finfish netted from the 

shoals and seafloor flats differed the most in species composition in fall and winter, and were 

more similar in spring and summer. Nineteen species of finfish were collected only on either 

shoals or seafloor flat sites but not both. However, 18 of these species were infrequently 

collected and it is unclear whether their presence/absence resulted from habitat preference or 

chance. Among these, only bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) was commonly captured; it was 

collected only at seafloor flat sites. Nighttime bioacoustic surveys conducted during spring, 

summer, and fall found that finfish concentrated on two of the four shoals studied had the 

greatest topographic relief (Fenwick and Weaver Shoals), indicating that finfish migrate back 

and forth between the shoals and seafloor flats during the course of the day. Data collected was 

insufficient to adequately determine which finfish species are making preferential use of these 

two shoals at night. 

Cutter and Diaz (2000) conducted beam trawls to characterize demersal (living on or near the 

ocean bottom), juvenile fish on shoals offshore of Ocean City. Many fish use the shallow 

continental shelf as a nursery ground (Able and Fahey, 1998). Cutter and Diaz (2000) collected 

20 species, with spotted hake the most abundant species, followed by small mouth flounder 

(Etropus microstomus). These two species accounted for approximately 70 percent of the fish 

caught. Other species collected included northern sea robin, clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria),

and sand lance. Differences were noted in the day/night trawls in the polychaete Asabellides tube 

habitats and some of the sand habitats. Associations of fish between habitats appeared related to 

sediment grain size, bed roughness, and the presence of biogenic structures. 

Vasslides and Able (2008) in a study offshore of Little Egg Inlet, NJ, reported that sand ridges of 

the inner continental shelf appear to be important habitat for a number of fish species. From their 

trawl studies, they found that the near-ridge habitats had higher species abundances and richness 

compared to the surrounding inner continental shelf and also contained a distinct species 

assemblage including both recreationally and commercially important species. They reported 

that the sandy substrate at the top of the sand ridges provides important habitat for species that 

bury themselves in the sand such as the northern stargazer (Astroscopus guttatus) and snakefish 

(Trachinocephalus myops). In addition, sand lance, which also buries itself in the sand, was 

found predominantly in the sand substrate. 

3.2.8 Essential Fish Habitat 

In accordance with provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act of 1976 (MSA) and the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. 1801-1882), as amended 

by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), Federal agencies must consult 

for activities that may adversely influence EFH that is designated in a Federal Fisheries 

Management Plan (FMP). An EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Waters consist of aquatic areas and their 

associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are currently utilized by fish and 

may include areas historically used by fish. Substrate is defined as sediment, hardbottom, 

structures beneath the waters, and any associated biological communities. Necessary means the 
Affected Environment 

 173 

habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ contribution to a 

healthy ecosystem. Spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity covers all habitat types 

used by a species throughout its life cycle. Only species managed under an FMP are covered (50 

CFR 600). The activities may have direct (e.g., physical disruption) or indirect (e.g., loss of prey 

species) effects on EFH and may be site-specific or habitat-wide. The adverse effects must be 

evaluated individually and cumulatively. 

The NMFS has designated the “mixing” and “seawater” portions of estuaries, nearshore and 

offshore bottom, and water column areas within the project area as EFH, in compliance with the 

MSA. Managed species that may occur in the SRIPP study area are shown in Table 22. 

Table 22: NMFS Managed Species that May Occur in Waters Surrounding Wallops 

Island, VA and Proposed Offshore Borrow Sites 

Common Name (Scientific Name) Eggs Larvae Juveniles Adults 

Atlantic angel shark (Squatina dumerili) ---1 X2 X X 

Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) --- --- X X 

Atlantic sea herring (Clupea harengus) --- --- --- X 

Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizopriondon terraenovae) --- --- --- X 

black sea bass (Centropristus striata) n/a3 X X X 

bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) --- X X X 

cobia (Rachycentron canadum) X X X X 

dusky shark (Charcharinus obscurus) --- X X --- 

king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) X X X X 

monkfish (Lophius americanus) X X --- --- 

red drum (Sciaenops occelatus) X X X X 

red hake (Urophycis chuss) X X X --- 

sand tiger shark (Odontaspis taurus) --- X --- X 

sandbar shark (Charcharinus plumbeus) --- X X X 

scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) --- --- X X 

scup (Stenotomus chrysops) n/a n/a X X 

Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) X X X X 

spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) n/a n/a --- X 

summer flounder (Paralicthys dentatus) --- --- X X 

surf clam (Spisula solidissima) n/a n/a X X 

tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvieri) X 

windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aquosus) X X X X 
Affected Environment 

174 

Common Name (Scientific Name) Eggs Larvae Juveniles Adults 

winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) X X X X 

witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) X --- --- --- 

clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria) --- --- X X 

little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) --- --- X 

winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) --- --- X X 

Source: NMFS, No date 

1

The notation “---” indicates that EFH has not been designated within the project area for a given species and life 

stage. 

2

 notation “X” in the above table indicates that EFH has been designated within the project area for a given species 

and life stage. 

3

The notation “n/a” in the table indicates that the species either has no data available for the designated stage, or the 

particular stage is not present in the species’ reproductive cycle. These species are: spiny dogfish, surf clam, which 

are referred to as pre-recruits and recruits (this corresponds with juveniles and adults in the table); scup and black 

sea bass, for which there is insufficient data for the life stages listed, and no EFH designation has been made as of 

yet for certain life stages, although data are available to describe the applicable life stages for these species. 

 

3.2.9 Marine Mammals 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) prohibits the 

taking of marine mammals on the high seas. Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA directs the 

Secretary of the Department of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental (but not 

intentional) take of marine mammals. A discussion of marine mammals likely to occur within the 

project area is provided below. Marine mammals protected under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) are discussed in Section 3.2.10.7. 

Table 23 lists marine mammal species that are likely to occur within the area offshore of Wallops 

Island. 

Table 23: Marine Mammals Likely to Occur Offshore of Wallops Island 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Humpback Whale* Megaptera novaeangliae 

Fin Whale* Balaenoptera physalus 

North Atlantic Right Whale* Eubalaena glacialis 

Sperm Whale* Physeter macrocephalus 

Sei Whale* Balaenoptera borealis 

Blue Whale* Balaenoptera musculus 

Florida Manatee* Trichechus manatus latirostrus 

Dwarf Sperm Whale Kogia simus

True’s Beaked Whale Mesoplodon mirus

Blainville’s Beaked Whale Mesoplodon densirostris

Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Mesoplodon bidens

Cuvier’s-Beaked Whale Ziphius cavirostris

Melon-Headed Whale Peponocephala crassidens 
Affected Environment 

 175 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Short-Finned Pilot Whale Globicephala macrorhynchus 

Long-Finned Pilot Whale Globicephala melas 

Rough-Toothed Dolphin Steno bredanensis

Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncatus

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Stenella frontalis

Common Dolphin Delphinus spp. 

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus

Risso’s Dolphin Grampus griseus

Striped Dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba 

Spinner Dolphin Stenella longirostris 

Clymene Dolphin Stenella clymene

Seals Pinniped spp.

Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina

*Listed as federally endangered species under the ESA 

Whales, dolphins, and porpoises are known as cetaceans. Cetaceans are completely aquatic 

mammals, living their entire lives in the water. Because their bodies are constantly supported by 

water, animals in this order include some of Earth’s largest species. Cetaceans are specialized 

swimmers, with some species able to sustain speeds up to 40 km per hour (25 mi per hour), dive 

to 3,000 m (10,000 ft), or remain submerged for up to 2 hours (Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). 

Cetaceans are grouped into two taxonomic suborders: the baleen whales and toothed whales. 

Baleen whales are filter feeders that catch zooplankton or small schooling fish by skimming or 

gulping large volumes of prey and water. Toothed whales have a variable number of identical 

conical or spade-shaped teeth that are used to strain or grasp prey, primarily fish and squid 

(Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). 

The federally listed species shown in Table 23 (humpback whale, fin whale, northern right 

whale, sperm whale, sei whale, blue whale, and manatee) are discussed under Threatened and 

Endangered Species within Section 3.2.10.7 (Marine Mammals). 

Dwarf Sperm Whale 

Dwarf sperm whales attain lengths of 2.1 to 2.7 m (7 to 9 ft) and weigh approximately 280 

kilograms (kg) (600 pounds [lbs]) as adults. They are robust, with a shark-like head, dark gray 

back, and falcate dorsal fin (Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). Dwarf sperm whales are difficult to 

distinguish from pygmy sperm whales (Kogia breviceps) at sea, so abundance estimates include 

both species. The best abundance estimate for Kogia sp. along the U.S. Atlantic coast is 395, 

derived by combining estimates from two 2004 surveys: Florida to Maryland (37) and from 

Maryland to the Bay of Fundy (358) (Waring et al., 2007). 

Dwarf sperm whales occur worldwide in temperate and tropical waters. Sightings in the western 

North Atlantic tend to be oceanic—over the continental shelf edge and continental slope, and, 

occasionally, on the continental shelf (Mullin and Fulling, 2003; Waring et al., 2007; Wynne and 

Schwartz, 1999). 
Affected Environment 

176 

Beaked Whales 

Cuvier’s and Mesoplodon spp. beaked whales (including True’s, Blainville’s, and Sowerby’s 

beaked whales) are difficult to identify to the species level at sea. Much available population and 

distribution information is, therefore, to the genus level only, and the genera are grouped 

together for the purposes of stock assessments. The stock structure is unknown, as are the total 

numbers of either Cuvier’s beaked whales or Mesoplodon spp. beaked whales off the eastern 

U.S. Atlantic coast (Waring et al., 2009). The best abundance estimate for beaked whales is a 

sum of estimates from two 2004 U.S. Atlantic surveys (3,513 whales), where the estimate from 

the northern U.S. Atlantic is 2,839, and the southern U.S. Atlantic is 674. Beaked whale 

abundance may be highest in association with Gulf Stream and warm-core ring features (Waring 

et al., 2009). 

Beaked whales occur principally along the continental shelf edge and in deeper oceanic waters 

(CETAP, 1982; Waring et al., 2007). Most sightings are in late spring and summer, which 

corresponds to the survey efforts. The distribution is otherwise derived from stranding reports 

(Waring et al., 2009). 

Melon-Headed Whale 

Adult melon-headed whales can be 2.6 to 2.7 m (8.5 to 9 ft) in length. They are long and slim, 

with a dark back and cape and prominent dorsal fin. Their distribution is worldwide in tropical 

and sub-tropical waters. Their prey is primarily squid and small fish (Wynne and Schwartz, 

1999). The abundance of melon-headed whales along the U.S. Atlantic coast is unknown. No 

estimates are available, as the species is rarely seen during population surveys. Both groups 

sighted during NMFS surveys (one in 1999 and one in 2002) were in waters >2500 m (>8,200 ft) 

deep east of Cape Hatteras, NC (Waring et al., 2007). 

Pilot Whales (Short-finned and Long-finned) 

Pilot whales are recognizable by their bulbous heads, large melons, and diminutive beaks. Sexual 

dimorphism exists, with males larger in size and exhibiting more rounded dorsal fins than 

females. Long-finned pilot whales reach 7.6 m (25 ft) for males and 5.7 m (19 ft) for females. 

Short-finned pilot whales range from 5.2 m (17 ft) for adult females to 6 m (20 ft) for adult males 

(Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). 

The two species of pilot whales in the western Atlantic—the long-finned pilot whale and the 

short-finned pilot whale—are difficult to distinguish at sea. Therefore, most information below, 

including seasonal abundance estimates, refers to Globicephala spp. The best available estimate 

is the sum of estimates from two 2004 U.S. Atlantic surveys. This joint estimate (15,728 + 

15,411 = 31,139 whales) is considered best because the two surveys together most 

comprehensively cover the species’ habitat. The minimum population estimate for Globicephala

spp. is 24,866 (Waring et al., 2009). 

Short-finned and long-finned pilot whale distributions overlap in the Mid-Atlantic region 

(Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). Short-finned pilot whales occupy tropical to warm temperate 

waters and may seasonally extend into shelf-edge waters north of Cape Hatteras (Leatherwood 

and Reeves, 1983). The long-finned pilot whale is distributed in cold temperate waters, ranging 

in the North Atlantic from Iceland and West Greenland south to Cape Hatteras (Leatherwood and 

Reeves, 1983). Pilot whales generally occur in areas of high relief or submerged banks and are 
Affected Environment 

 177 

also associated with the Gulf Stream wall and thermal fronts along the continental shelf edge 

(Waring et al., 1992; NMFS unpublished data, cited in Waring et al., 2009). 

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 

Rough-toothed dolphins grow to 2.4 to 2.7 m (8 to 9 ft) in length. They are dark in coloration, 

with a long, slender beak and white lips, throat, and blotches on the sides and belly (Wynne and 

Schwartz, 1999). The number of rough-toothed dolphins off the U.S. Atlantic Coast is unknown, 

and abundance estimates are not available. This species is rarely seen during population surveys; 

there have been no sightings during shipboard or aerial surveys since 1999, except in the 

Caribbean (Waring et al., 2009). 

Rough-toothed dolphin distribution is not well known. They are considered a tropical to warmtemperate species that frequents deep oceanic waters (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1983). They 

have been seen in both shelf and oceanic waters in the Gulf of Mexico (Mullin and Fulling, 

2003). 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

There are two morphologically and genetically distinct bottlenose dolphin morphotypes (Hoezel 

et al., 1998) described as the coastal and offshore forms. Both inhabit waters along the U.S. 

Atlantic coast. North of Cape Hatteras, there is separation along bathymetric lines during 

summer months (Waring et al., 2009). 

Coastal Morphotype

The coastal migratory stock is designated as depleted under the MMPA. Stock structure was 

revised in 2002 to recognize both multiple stocks and seasonal management units. The 2008 

stock assessment report (Waring et al., 2009) identifies seven prospective stocks of coastal 

morphotype bottlenose dolphins along the Atlantic coast that replace these management units. 

These are the Central Florida, Northern Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Southern North 

Carolina stocks, and the Southern Migratory and Northern Migratory stocks. Since one or more 

of the stocks may be depleted, all stocks retain the depleted designation. The species is not listed 

as threatened or endangered under the ESA (Waring et al., 2009). 

The best abundance estimate for the Northern and Southern Migratory stocks is from a summer 

2002 survey. There was an apparent separation between the two stocks at approximately 37.5°N 

latitude and they overlapped little. The resulting abundance estimate was 7,489 for the Northern 

Migratory stock and 10,341 for the Southern Migratory (Waring et al., 2009). 

The coastal morphotype of bottlenose dolphins is continuously distributed along the Atlantic 

coast south of Long Island, NY, around the Florida peninsula, and into the Gulf of Mexico, 

although there are strong seasonal differences. During summer, they range from Florida to New 

Jersey in waters < 20 m (66 ft) deep, including estuarine and inshore waters (Waring et al., 

2009). During winter, bottlenose dolphins are rarely observed north of the North CarolinaVirginia border; distribution may be limited by water temperatures < 9.5oC. The Northern 

Migratory stock migrates south during winter and to waters along the North Carolina coast north 

of Cape Lookout. The Southern Migratory stock overlaps with the Northern Florida, Georgia, 

South Carolina, and Southern North Carolina stocks during winter months (Waring et al., 2009). 
Affected Environment 

178 

Offshore Morphotype

The western North Atlantic offshore bottlenose dolphin is not listed as depleted under the 

MMPA, or as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Stock status within U.S. Atlantic waters 

is unknown and data are insufficient to determine population trends. The best available 

abundance estimate for offshore bottlenose dolphins combines estimates from surveys in 2002 

and 2004 that, together, provided complete coverage of the offshore habitat from central Florida 

to Canada during the summer months. The resulting estimate is 81,588 (Waring et al., 2009). 

Offshore bottlenose dolphins are distributed primarily along the OCS and continental slope. 

Spatial distribution varies seasonally. Sightings occurred along the continental shelf break from 

Georges Bank to Cape Hatteras during spring and summer (CeTAP, 1982; Kenney, 1990). 

Genetic analysis showed that bottlenose dolphins in waters >40 m depth were from the offshore 

morphotype (Garrison et al., 2003). Torres et al. (2003) found a statistically significant break in 

the distribution of the morphotypes at 34 km (21 mi) from shore, based upon the genetic analysis 

of tissue samples collected in nearshore and offshore waters. During the winter and over the 

continental shelf south of Cape Hatteras, the two morphotypes overlap spatially (Garrison et al., 

2003; Waring et al., 2009). 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 

The species of spotted dolphins were not differentiated during surveys before 1998, resulting in 

inadequate data to determine the population trends along the U.S. Atlantic coast. Abundance 

estimates for Atlantic spotted dolphins were derived from ship and aerial surveys in 2004. The 

resulting estimate for the area from Maryland to the Bay of Fundy was 3,578 dolphins, and 

between Florida and Maryland, the abundance estimate was 47,400 (Waring et al., 2007). 

Atlantic spotted dolphins occur in tropical and warm temperate waters of the western North 

Atlantic. Their range extends from southern New England to the Gulf of Mexico and the 

Caribbean (Leatherwood et al., 1976, cited in Waring et al., 2007). South of the Chesapeake Bay, 

they may occur in inshore waters. North of the Chesapeake Bay, they are found in waters near 

the continental shelf edge and continental slope (Payne et al., 1984; Mullin and Fulling, 2003). 

Atlantic spotted dolphins are also associated with the north wall of the Gulf Stream and warmcore rings (Waring et al., 1992). 

Common Dolphin 

The common dolphin is one of the most widely distributed cetacean species, yet the total number 

off the U.S. Atlantic coast is unknown. Data are insufficient to determine population trends or 

stock status. The best abundance estimate for common dolphins is the sum of estimates from two 

2004 U.S. Atlantic summertime surveys. Together, they offer the most complete coverage of the 

species’ range. The estimate for the northern U.S. Atlantic (Maryland to the Bay of Fundy) is 

90,547, and for the southern U.S. Atlantic (Florida to Maryland) is 30,196 (Waring et al., 2007), 

for a combined total of 120,743. 

Common dolphins occur worldwide in temperate, tropical, and subtropical waters. In the North 

Atlantic, they are found over the continental shelf along the 200-2,000-m isobaths or in areas 

with prominent underwater topography (Evans 1994, cited in Waring et al., 2007). They are 

widespread from Cape Hatteras to Georges Bank (35 ̊ to 42 ̊ N) in OCS waters between mid-
Affected Environment 

 179 

January and May (CeTAP, 1982; Payne et al., 1984), then move northward onto Georges Bank 

and the Scotian Shelf from mid-summer to autumn. 

Atlantic White-sided Dolphin 

Population trends and total numbers of western North Atlantic white-sided dolphins along the 

U.S. Atlantic Coast are unknown due to insufficient data (Waring et al., 2009). The best 

abundance estimate currently available (63,368 dolphins) is an average based on surveys 

conducted in August of 2002 and 2006 (Waring et al., 2009). 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins occur primarily in continental shelf waters, out to the 100-m depth 

contour, in temperate and sub-polar areas of the North Atlantic. Three separate stocks might 

exist: Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Labrador Sea stocks (Palka et al., 1997). The 

Gulf of Maine stock is common in continental shelf waters from Hudson Canyon (approximately 

39 ̊ N) north through Georges Bank, and in the Gulf of Maine to the lower Bay of Fundy. 

Observations south of this area consist of a few strandings on beaches of Virginia and North 

Carolina between January and May. These strandings may represent the southern extent of the 

species’ range (Waring et al., 2009). 

Risso’s Dolphin 

The total numbers of Risso’s dolphins off the U.S. Atlantic coast is unknown, and data are 

insufficient for determining population trends (Waring et al., 2009). The best abundance estimate 

combines estimates from two 2004 U.S. Atlantic surveys. The estimate from the northern U.S. 

Atlantic (Maryland to the Bay of Fundy) is 15,053, and from the southern U.S. Atlantic (Florida 

to Maryland) is 5,426 (Waring et al., 2009), for a total of 20,479. 

Risso’s dolphins are distributed along the continental shelf edge from Cape Hatteras to Georges 

Bank during the spring, summer, and fall (CeTAP, 1982; Payne et al., 1984). In winter, they 

range from the MAB to offshore oceanic waters. Risso’s dolphins occur year round on the MAB 

continental shelf edge (Payne et al., 1984). They are known to be associated with prevalent 

bathymetric features, Gulf Stream warm-core rings, and the Gulf Stream north wall (Waring et 

al., 1992). 

Striped Dolphin 

Little is known about the stock structure of striped dolphins in the western North Atlantic, or 

how many occur off the U.S. Atlantic coast. The best abundance estimate for striped dolphins 

derives from the sum of estimates from the two 2004 U.S. Atlantic surveys. The estimate for the 

northern U.S. Atlantic (Maryland to the Bay of Fundy) is 52,055, and the southern U.S. Atlantic 

(Florida to Maryland) estimate is 42,407 (Waring et al., 2007), for a total of 94,462. 

Striped dolphins off the U.S. Atlantic Coast are distributed along the continental shelf edge from 

Cape Hatteras to the southern margin of Georges Bank, and offshore over the continental slope 

and rise in the Mid-Atlantic region (CeTAP, 1982; Mullin and Fulling, 2003). Sightings were 

generally associated with the 1,000-m (3,280-ft) depth contour during all times of the year 

(CeTAP 1982). 
Affected Environment 

180 

Spinner Dolphin 

Adult spinner dolphins range in size from 1.8 to 2.2 m (6 to 7.2 ft). They are long and slender, 

with a tricolor pattern that may be obscure, and a distinct dark stripe from eye to flipper (Wynne 

and Schwartz, 1999). The number of spinner dolphins off the U.S. Atlantic coast is unknown. 

Estimates are also unavailable for seasonal abundance, since spinner dolphins are rarely seen 

during population surveys (Waring et al., 2007). 

Spinner dolphin distribution in the Atlantic is not well known. In the western North Atlantic, 

they are found in deep water along most of the U.S. coast south to the West Indies, Venezuela, 

and in the Gulf of Mexico. Sightings off the northeast U.S. coast have been exclusively in deeper 

(>2,000 m [>6,560 ft]) waters (Waring et al., 2007). 

Clymene Dolphin 

Clymene dolphin adults reach lengths of 1.8 to 2.0 m (6 to 6.6 ft). They have a relatively short, 

broad beak, falcate dorsal fin, and are tri-colored (dark gray back, gray sides, white belly) 

(Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). They generally inhabit pelagic and deep waters where they prey 

upon squid and fish (Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). The number of Clymene dolphins off the U.S. 

Atlantic coast is unknown, and seasonal abundance estimates are unavailable for this species, 

since it is rarely seen during population surveys (Waring et al., 2007). 

Clymene dolphins occur in tropical and sub-tropical waters of the western North Atlantic, with 

sightings recorded off the southeastern United States (as far north as New Jersey), the Gulf of 

Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1983). Four groups were observed in 

1998, primarily on the continental slope east of Cape Hatteras, NC; none have been observed 

during surveys since (Waring et al., 2007). 

Seals and Manatee 

Seals and manatees are only distantly related mammals that have successfully adapted to a 

marine existence. Seals belong to a family known as pinnipeds (fin-footed carnivores). Pinnipeds 

have adapted to an amphibious marine existence. They forage at sea but come ashore for resting 

and breeding. Pinnipeds are carnivores and consume their prey whole. Many pinnipeds are 

capable of long, deep, repetitive dives because of their high blood volume and reduced heart rate. 

Manatees are more closely related to elephants than to other marine mammals. They are 

completely aquatic and herbivorous, feeding on submerged vegetation along tropical coasts, 

rivers, and estuaries. Unlike most marine mammals, manatees have poorly developed brains and 

have physical and behavioral traits that enhance their exposure to human hazards. 

Harbor Seal 

The harbor seal population along the New England coast has been increasing steadily since 

passage of the MMPA in 1972. The most recent abundance estimate, corrected for seals not 

hauled out, was 99,340 in 2001 (Waring et al., 2009). Increased abundance has also been 

documented at overwintering haul-out sites from the Maine/New Hampshire border to eastern 

Long Island and New Jersey (Payne and Selzer, 1989; Waring et al., 2007). 

In the western north Atlantic, harbor seals range from the eastern Canadian Arctic and Greenland 

south to southern New England and New York, and occasionally to the Carolinas (Boulva and 
Affected Environment 

 181 

McLaren, 1979; Katona et al., 1993; Gilbert and Guldager, 1998; Baird, 2001). Harbor seals 

occur year-round off eastern Canada and Maine (Katona et al., 1993) and along the southern 

New England and New York coasts from September through late May (Schneider and Payne, 

1983). Harbor seals move north to Maine and Canada prior to pupping from mid-May through 

June along the Maine coast (Richardson, 1976; Whitman and Payne, 1990; Waring et al., 2007). 

Scattered sightings and strandings have been recorded as far south as Florida (NMFS 

unpublished data, cited in Waring et al., 2009). 

3.2.10 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Under Section 7 of the Federal ESA, as amended, (U.S.C. 1531-1544) Federal agencies, in 

consultation with the USFWS and NMFS, are required to evaluate the effects of their actions on 

special status species of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats, and to take steps to conserve 

and protect these species. Special status species are defined as plants or animals that are 

candidates for, proposed as, or listed as sensitive, threatened, or endangered by USFWS. 

The Virginia Endangered Species Act (29 VAC 1-563 – 29.1-570) is administered by VDGIF and 

prohibits the taking, transportation, processing, sale, or offer for sale of any State or federally 

listed threatened or endangered species. As a Federal agency, NASA voluntarily complies with 

Virginia’s Endangered Species Act. 

Table 24 shows the State and federally listed threatened or endangered species that may occur 

within the vicinity of Wallops Island. Figure 38 shows the locations of federally listed threatened 

or endangered species that may occur or have historically occurred on Wallops Island. Each of 

the identified species is discussed in the following subsections. 

3.2.10.1 Vegetation 

Seabeach Amaranth 

Seabeach amaranth is an annual plant and a member of the Amaranth family (Amaranthaceae). 

The plant occupies a narrow beach zone that lies at elevations from 0.2 to 1.5 m (0.7 to 4 ft) 

above mean high tide, the lowest elevations at which vascular plants regularly occur. The species 

is dependent on a terrestrial, upper beach habitat that is not flooded during the growing season, a 

feature generally absent on beaches experiencing high rates of erosion (USFWS, 2010a). 

According to the USFWS (2010), seabeach amaranth occurs routinely on the Wild Beach portion 

of Assateague Island. Assawoman and Metompkin Islands were surveyed in 2009 and no plants 

were found. There is potential suitable habitat on the north end of Wallops Island, but there have 

been no recorded occurrences on Wallops Island to date. NASA conducted a seabeach amaranth 

survey on Wallops Island in August 2010; no plants were found (NASA, 2010f). 

3.2.10.2 Invertebrates 

Northeastern beach tiger beetles inhabit wide, sandy, ocean beaches from the intertidal zone to 

the upper beach. Eggs are deposited in the mid- to above-high tide drift zone. Larval beetles 

occur in a relatively narrow band of the upper intertidal to high drift zone, where they can be 

regularly inundated by high tides. Eight protected populations exist within the Eastern Shore of 

the Chesapeake Bay, VA geographic recovery area; however, there are no protected populations 

on Wallops Island. The northeastern beach tiger beetle is not currently known to occur on 
Affected Environment 

182 

Atlantic coastal beaches in Virginia. The closest documented population is approximately 30 km 

(20 mi) southwest of Wallops Island (USFWS, 2008). 

3.2.10.3 Terrestrial Mammals 

The Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel lives in mature forests of mixed hardwoods and pines with 

a closed canopy and open understory on the Delmarva Peninsula. The CNWR, located 

approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) northeast of Wallops Island, is home to a large population of these 

protected squirrels. The Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel has not been documented on Wallops 

Island. 

3.2.10.4 Birds 

Peregrine Falcon 

The Peregrine Falcon is found in a variety of habitats, but prefer cliffs for nesting and open areas 

for foraging (White et al., 2002). A resident pair of Peregrine Falcons nests on a hacking tower 

on the northwest side of Wallops Island, outside of the project area. Migrating Peregrine Falcons 

occur along the Wallops Island beach during fall migration (NASA, 2009a). 

Bald Eagles 

The Bald Eagle was threatened with extinction in the lower 48 states due to habitat destruction 

and degradation, illegal shooting, and the contamination of its food source, largely as a 

consequence of DDT (a pesticide) poisoning of its food sources. Protection under the ESA, 

together with reintroduction programs, brought populations up, and the species was reclassified 

as Threatened in 1995. The species was delisted in June 2007. The VDGIF still considers the 

Bald Eagle a threatened species. The Bald Eagle usually breeds in forested areas near large 

bodies of water (Buehler, 2000). The bird is an opportunistic feeder, but prefers fish. They may 

also eat large birds, small mammals, and carrion. Bald Eagles can be seen flying over Wallops 

Island. An active nest was discovered on the northern end of Wallops Island in 2009 (NASA, 

2009a) (Figure 38). 

Terns 

The Gull-billed Tern (Sterna nilotica) is medium size and has a black cap, a heavy bill and long 

legs (Molina et al., 2009). The Gull-billed Tern nests in coastal colonies along the Atlantic coast. 

North American Gull-billed Terns winter along the Gulf Coast, Pacific coast of Mexico, and into 

Central and South America. The Gull-billed Tern can be found nesting on the beaches or mud 

flats on Wallops Island. Although it does feed on fish occasionally, the Gull-billed Tern feeds 

mostly on insects, small crabs, and occasionally the chicks of other bird species in the area. 

Breeding and nesting takes place on sandy beaches in the spring and summer. In the winter, the 

tern moves to salt marshes, estuaries, and lagoons (Parnell, 1995). 

The Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii) is a medium-sized tern similar in appearance to several 

other terns and is primarily a tropical bird, breeding across the globe in tropical oceans habitats. 

When the Roseate Tern reaches the temperate zone in the northern Atlantic, it breeds on rocky 

offshore islands, barrier beaches, and salt marsh islands. In the winter, the Roseate Tern is found 

offshore or along coasts (Gochfeld et al., 1998). 
Aff

Table 24: Protected Species that May Occur in the SRIPP Project Area 

Common 

Name Scientific Name 

Likelihood of 

Occurrence 

Within Onshore 

Action Area2

Likelihood of 

Occurrence Within 

Offshore Action 

Area2

Potential 

Seasonal 

Presence 

Federal Status State Status 

Seabeach 

amaranth 

Amaranthus 

pumilus possible n/a All Threatened n/a 

Northeastern 

beach tiger 

beetle 

Cicindela 

dorsalis dorsalis 

highly unlikely n/a All Threatened Threatened 

Delmarva 

Peninsula fox 

squirrel 

Sciurus niger 

cinereus 

highly unlikely n/a All Endangered Endangered 

Wilson’s Plover 

Charadrius 

wilsonia Possible n/a All n/a Endangered 

Peregrine 

Falcon Falco peregrinus possible unlikely Fall n/a Threatened 

Gull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica possible n/a Spring/Fall Migration n/a Threatened 

Roseate Tern 

Sterna dougallii 

dougallii possible possible Spring, Fall Migration Threatened Threatened 

Bald Eagle 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus possible unlikely All n/a Threatened 

Red Knot1

Calidris canutus 

rufa known to occur n/a Spring/Fall Migration Candidate Species n/a 

Piping Plover 

Charadrius 

melodus known to occur n/a All Threatened Threatened 

Leatherback sea 

turtle 

Dermochelys 

coriacea possible possible Summer Endangered Endangered 

Kemp’s ridley 

sea turtle 

Lepidechelys 

kempii possible possible Spring, Summer Endangered Endangered 
Affected Environment 

184 

Common 

Name Scientific Name 

Likelihood of 

Occurrence 

Within Onshore 

Action Area2

Likelihood of 

Occurrence Within 

Offshore Action 

Area2

Potential 

Seasonal 

Presence 

Federal Status State Status 

Loggerhead sea 

turtle Caretta caretta known to occur Likely Spring, Summer Threatened Threatened 

Atlantic green 

sea turtle Chelonia mydas possible possible Summer Threatened Threatened 

Shortnose 

sturgeon 

Acipenser 

brevirostrum n/a highly unlikely All Endangered Endangered 

Humpback 

whale 

Megaptera 

novaeangliae n/a possible All Endangered Endangered 

Fin whale 

Balaeanoptera 

physalus n/a possible Spring/Summer Endangered Endangered 

Right whale 

Eubalaena 

glacialis n/a possible Fall/Winter Endangered Endangered 

Sperm Whale 

Physeter 

macrocephalus n/a highly unlikely Summer/Fall Endangered Endangered 

Sei whale 

Balaenoptera

borealis n/a highly unlikely All Endangered Endangered 

Blue Whale 

Balaenoptera 

musculus n/a highly unlikely Spring/Fall Endangered Endangered 

Florida Manatee 

Trichechus 

manatus 

latirostrus 

n/a highly unlikely Summer Endangered Endangered 

1Although candidate species are not protected under the ESA, NASA considered the effects of the SRIPP on the Red Knot in its BA.2n/a = not applicable; Highly unlikely = habitat not available and species is not documented in the action area; Possible = habitat available but 

documented in the action area; Likely =habitat available and species is occasionally documented in the action area; Known to occur = habitat a

regularly documented in the action area. Sources: USFWS, 2008; NASA, 2009a

Affected Environment 

186 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Affected Environment 

 187 

Red Knot 

The Red Knot is a medium sized, bulky sandpiper. It is a relatively short bird, with short legs. 

The head and breast are rusty in breeding plumage and gray the rest of the year. Outside of the 

breeding season, it is found primarily in intertidal, marine habitats, especially near coastal inlets, 

estuaries, and bays. The Red Knot breeds in drier tundra areas, such as sparsely vegetated 

hillsides. The Red Knot typically feeds on invertebrates, especially bivalves, small snails, and 

crustaceans. During the breeding season, the Red Knot also eats terrestrial invertebrates 

(Harrington, 2001). 

During its northern migration, the Virginia barrier islands provide an important stopover area for 

a large number of Red Knots. In the mid-1990s, 3 years of aerial surveys showed that numbers of 

Red Knots moving through the barrier islands of Virginia between mid-May and the second 

week of June reach 8,000 to 10,000 individuals (Watts and Truitt, 2000). During the 2009 

migration season, flock sizes of 100 to 145 birds were observed in the Overwash and Hook areas 

of Assateague Island. In late May 2009, flocks of 5 to 30 individuals were observed on south 

Assawoman Island. On May 8, 2009, USFWS observed a flock size of almost 1,300 individuals 

on north Wallops Island (USFWS, 2009b). In late May 2009, flocks of approximately 20 to 200 

Red Knots were observed on north Wallops Island (USFWS, 2009b). 

Wilson’s Plovers 

Wilson’s Plovers are found exclusively on southern beaches and tidal mudflats, typically in 

sparsely vegetated areas, including along beaches, sandbars, salt flats, and lagoons. They forage 

along intertidal mudflats during low tide. They nest either in isolated pairs or in colonies on 

beaches, commonly near a piece of driftwood or clump of grass. They are known to breed on the 

northern and southern beaches of Wallops Island and commonly share habitat with Piping 

Plovers. 

Piping Plovers 

Piping Plovers are small, sand-colored shorebirds, approximately 17 cm (7 in) long. The Atlantic 

Coast population breeds on sandy coastal beaches and winters along the Atlantic Coast. Piping 

Plovers nest on the ground above the high tide line on coastal beaches and barrier islands. Nests 

are usually found in areas with little or no vegetation. Plovers feed on invertebrates such as 

marine worms, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans, and mollusks. 

Piping Plovers use wide sandy beaches on Assawoman, Wallops, and Assateague Islands for 

courtship, nesting, and raising chicks. According to the USFWS (2010), suitable habitat varies 

along the seaward edge of islands within Delmarva Peninsula barrier islands year to year due to 

the competing effects of erosion and vegetation succession. The greatest areas of suitable beach 

occur on Assawoman Island and in the Hook and Overwash portions of Assateague Island. 

Over 200 breeding pairs of Piping Plovers are currently found on island overwash beaches along 

the coast of Virginia, representing approximately 11 percent of the Atlantic coast population. 

Over 75 percent of these breeding pairs nest on the northern barrier islands closest to Wallops 

including Assawoman, Metompkin, and Cedar Islands (Boettcher et al., 2007). 

Piping Plover nesting habitat has been delineated on the beaches and dunes at the northern and 

southern ends of Wallops Island (Figure 38). Although Wallops Island is not designated as 
Affected Environment 

188 

critical habitat, NASA manages portions of the island to protect Piping Plovers known to nest on 

Wallops Island. The northern and southern beaches have been closed to vehicle and human 

traffic during the plover’s nesting season (March 15 through September 1) since 1986. Biologists 

from the USFWS, CNWR, and VDGIF monitor Piping Plover nesting activities and provide 

advice to NASA on protection and management of the species. Biologists from the WFF U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Wildlife Services Office aid with predator control. In recent 

years, an increasing number of plover nests have been identified in the recreational beach area 

south of the designated plover nesting areas (Figure 38). Accordingly, NASA has implemented 

management practices that include regular monitoring and installation of high visibility signage 

when nests are located to ensure that plovers nesting in this area are also afforded an appropriate 

level of protection. 

As the southern portion of Wallops Island has experienced substantial erosion (3.3 m [11 

ft]/year), suitable habitat is increasingly less abundant. In addition, there is a general absence of 

beach habitat seaward of the existing seawall. According to Mitchell (2009, pers. comm.), no 

nesting plovers have been observed on south Wallops Island since at least 2000. Simultaneously, 

north Wallops Island has been accreting, thus presenting additional potential habitat for plover 

nesting. 

There has been an increasing trend in the number of nesting pairs of Piping Plovers at all CNWR 

units (including Assateague, Assawoman, and Metompkin Islands). Annually between 1996 and 

2010, Piping Plovers were observed in increasing numbers at CNWR. 

Nests at the north end of Wallops Island were observed in 1996 (three pairs with two chicks total 

fledged); 1998 (one pair unsuccessful); 2001 (one pair unsuccessful); 2004 (one pair with three 

chicks fledged); 2005 (two pairs, one nest lost to fox predation and second pair of chicks were 

lost); and 2006 (one pair of plovers nested, but the nest was abandoned due to attempted 

predation by a fox). There were no nests observed in 1997, 1999, 2000, 2002, and 2003. Five 

nesting attempts were made on north Wallops Island during 2007 and 2008, but none were 

successful in producing fledglings. In 2009, four Piping Plover pairs attempted nests on north 

Wallops Island. Of these, three were successful, producing a total of 10 fledglings (Scharle, 

2009). The resulting fledge rate of 2.5 young fledged per nesting pair was the highest in the state 

of Virginia for that year. In the 2010 nesting season, three nests were found on north Wallops 

Island with four chicks fledged (Figure 38). 

3.2.10.5 Sea Turtles 

Sea turtles are air-breathing reptiles with streamlined bodies and large flippers and are well 

adapted to life in the marine environment. They inhabit tropical and subtropical ocean waters 

throughout the world (NOAA, 2009b). 

There are two families of sea turtles (Wynne and Schultz, 1999). The family Dermochelyidae is 

comprised of only one genus and species, commonly referred to as the leatherback sea turtle. The 

Cheloniidae family contains six genera and six distinct species: the loggerhead, green, flatback, 

hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and olive ridley. In March 2010, NMFS and USFWS published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register to divide the worldwide population of loggerhead sea 

turtles into nine distinct population segements (DPSs). Loggerhead turtles in the project area 

would be considered to be in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS and would be proposed to be 

listed as endangered. 
Affected Environment 

 189 

Sea turtles have short, thick, incompletely retractile necks and legs that have been evolved to 

become flippers (Bustard, 1972). All species, except the leatherback, have a hard, bony carapace 

(top shell) modified for marine existence by streamlining and weight reduction (Bustard, 1972). 

The leatherback lacks shell scutes, and head and body scales. The shell is covered by leathery 

skin. The carapace is divided longitudinally by seven ridges (Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). These 

physiological differences are the reason for their separate designation as the only species in the 

family Dermochelyidae. 

Much of a sea turtle’s life is spent in the water and males of many species may never leave an 

aquatic environment (Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). The recognized life stages for these turtles 

are egg, hatchling, juvenile/subadult, and adult (Hirth, 1971). Reproductive cycles in adults of all 

species involve some degree of migration in which the animals endeavor to return to nest at the 

same beach year after year (Hopkins and Richardson, 1984). The nesting season ranges from 

April through September (Hopkins and Richardson, 1984; Nelson, 1988). It is believed that 

mating occurs just off the nesting beach, although solid evidence of this is lacking. After mating, 

the nesting female emerges from the water and digs a flask-shaped nest in the sand with her hind 

slippers, then lays 50 to 170 (depending on the species) ping-pong sized, ball-shaped eggs. After 

covering the eggs with sand, she returns to the water. The female sea turtle will nest several 

times in one season. Incubation periods for sea turtles vary by species from 45 to 65 days 

(Nelson, 1988; Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). 

Hatchlings break their shells and dig their way out of the nest at night (Wynne and Schwartz, 

1999). They orient themselves toward the sea by following the reflected light from the breaking 

surf (Hopkins and Richardson, 1984). After entering the surf, hatchlings engage in behavior 

referred to as “swim frenzy,” during which they swim in a straight line for many hours (Carr, 

1986). Once into the waters off the nesting beach, hatchlings enter a period referred to as the 

“lost years” where many species live and feed in floating sargassum (Wynne and Schwartz, 

1999). They “reappear” as juveniles in feeding grounds shared with adults, or in some cases, 

migrate to developmental feeding grounds. Some species, such as the leatherback, spend their 

entire lives in a pelagic existence, coming inshore only to mate and nest (Wynne and Schwartz, 

1999). 

The functional ecology of sea turtles in the marine and/or estuarine ecosystem varies by species. 

The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle is omnivorous and feeds on swimming crabs and crustaceans. The 

green turtle is an herbivore and grazes on marine grasses and algae, while the leatherback is a 

specialized feeder preying primarily upon jellyfish. The loggerhead is primarily carnivorous and 

has jaws well adapted to crushing mollusks and crustaceans, and grazing on organisms attached 

to reefs, pilings, and wrecks. 

Sea turtles are believed to play a significant role in marine and estuarine ecosystems. This role 

has likely been greatly reduced in most locations as a result of declining turtle populations. 

Population declines are a result of numerous factors, such as disease and predation, habitat loss, 

commercial fisheries conflicts, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms for their protection. As a 

result, all sea turtle species have been classified as endangered or threatened. 

Due to complex life histories and multiple habitats used by the various species, sea turtle 

populations have proven difficult to accurately census (Meylan, 1982). Because of these 

problems, estimates of population numbers have been derived from various indices, such as 
Affected Environment 

190 

numbers of nesting females, numbers of hatchlings per kilometer of nesting beach, and number 

of subadult carcasses washed ashore (Hopkins and Richardson, 1984). 

Sea turtles are affected by many factors occurring on the nesting beaches and in the water. 

Poaching, habitat loss, and nesting predation affect hatchlings and nesting females while on land. 

Fishery interactions, vessel interactions, and dredging operations affect sea turtles in the 

nearshore and offshore environment. 

The leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead, and Atlantic green sea turtles are known to migrate 

along U.S. Atlantic Coast beaches, though only the loggerhead, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley and 

Green sea turtle occur in the SRIPP project area, and only during the warmer months 

(approximately April 1-November 30). The SRIPP project area falls within the geographic range 

where loggerhead sea turtles, green sea turtles and leatherback sea turtles have shown nesting 

behavior, but the loggerhead sea turtle is the only species known to nest within the SRIPP project 

area. 

NASA coordinates with CNWR and USDA personnel in monitoring the Wallops Island beaches 

for sea turtle activity. Sea turtle crawl tracks, a sign of potential nesting activity, have historically 

seldom been found on Wallops Island beaches, but have increased in recent years. The USFWS 

recorded five nests on Wallops Island between 1974 and 2009, one of which was a loggerhead 

sea turtle nest on north Wallops Island in the summer of 2008 (Figure 38). Following flood 

inundation from several fall storms, CNWR personnel recovered approximately 170 eggs from 

the nest in October 2008. None were viable. According to a 2009 biological memorandum 

(USFWS), staff did not locate any sea turtle crawl tracks or nesting related activity on CNWR or 

Wallops Island from June to September 2009. 

For the 2010 nesting season, NASA recorded four loggerhead sea turtle nests on north Wallops 

Island within the NASA recreational beach area. All of the nests have had the presence of eggs 

confirmed. In addition, NASA personnel documented a false crawl in the narrow beach in front 

of the seawall near the northern extent of the existing seawall, where it appears the turtle 

returned to sea without nesting due to the absence of a suitable beach (USFWS, 2010a). 

Leatherback Sea Turtle 

The leatherback is the largest, deepest diving, most migratory, and widest ranging of all sea 

turtles. The adult leatherback can reach 1.3 to 2.4 m (4 to 8 ft) in length and 226 to 907 kg (500 

to 2000 lbs) in weight. Also the largest living reptile in the world, the endangered leatherback 

turtle lacks a hard shell and is covered by leathery skin. The leatherback is the only black marine 

turtle in the Atlantic (Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). The most recent population estimate for the 

North Atlantic is a range of 34,000 to 94,000 adult leatherbacks, which is considered a stable 

population (NMFS, 2007). Leatherbacks are predominantly a pelagic species and feed on 

jellyfish. The greatest causes of decline and the continuing primary threats to leatherbacks 

worldwide are long-term harvest and incidental capture in fishing gear. Harvest of eggs and 

adults occurs on nesting beaches, while juveniles and adults are harvested on feeding grounds. 

Incidental capture primarily occurs in gillnets, but also in trawls, traps and pots, longlines, and 

dredges (NOAA, 2009b). 

The leatherback turtle may pass through the Mid-Atlantic during migration. Concentrations may 

be found between the Gulf of Maine and Long Island (Shoop and Kenney, 1992), in coastal areas 

of New Jersey and Delaware, and around the mouth of the Delaware Bay (USACE, 1995). 
Affected Environment 

 191 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle 

The smallest sea turtle, the Kemp’s ridley turtle’s shell ranges from 0.6 to 0.8 m (2 to 3 ft) in 

size. The average Kemp’s ridley turtle weighs between 40 to 50 kg (88 to 110 lbs) (Wynne and 

Schwartz, 1999). Kemp’s ridley turtles are less widespread than many other sea turtle species, 

occurring primarily in the Gulf of Mexico and the northern half of the Atlantic Ocean, with an 

unknown portion of the population migrating to U.S. Atlantic Ocean waters (NMFS, 2007). 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are relatively common in Virginia and Maryland State waters in May 

and June, where they feed on crabs, mollusks, shrimp, and sometimes fish. In addition to 

poaching and impacts form fishery interactions, Kemp’s ridleys face natural threats such as 

destruction of nesting habitat from storm events and natural predators. 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle 

Loggerhead turtles reach 1.2 m (4 ft) in length and weigh on average approximately 115 kg (254 

lbs) (Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). Loggerhead turtles are found in temperate and subtropical 

waters and inhabit pelagic waters, continental shelves, bays, estuaries, and lagoons. Loggerheads 

are primarily benthic feeders and prefer crustaceans and mollusks. NMFS estimates that there are 

at least five western Atlantic loggerhead subpopulations, and that individuals from three of these 

are expected to occur within the project area (NMFS, 2007). 

In Maryland and Virginia waters, loggerheads are the most common sea turtle species. 

Loggerheads can be found in the Chesapeake Bay from April through November, and the Bay is 

an important summer feeding ground. Loggerheads can be found in the Bay south of Baltimore 

within all the major tributaries, along the Virginia and Maryland Atlantic coast, and in the 

lagoons and channels in the barrier island systems (Lutcavage, 1981; Lutcavage and Musick, 

1985; Byles and Dodd, 1989). The lower Chesapeake Bay estuary and the Atlantic Coastline 

provide important developmental habitat for immature sea turtles because of submergent 

vegetation beds and a rich diversity of bottom-dwelling fauna that afford cover and forage. 

Occasionally, adult females use Virginia’s ocean facing beaches as nesting sites (VDGIF, no 

date). The horseshoe crab, which favors water depths from 4 to 20 meters (13 to 67 feet), is an 

important benthic food species for the loggerhead. 

Loggerheads face the same danger as other sea turtles, including boat collisions, poaching, and 

fisheries interactions. 

Atlantic Green Sea Turtle 

Green turtles are the largest hard-shelled sea turtle, with an average span of 1 m (3.3 ft) and 

weighing 150 kg (331 lbs) (Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). Pelagic-stage hatchlings and juveniles 

eat mollusks, jellyfish, and crustaceans. As juveniles mature, the diet shifts to seagrasses and 

macroalgae. Green turtles can be found worldwide. The Atlantic population of the green sea 

turtle, which ranges from Massachusetts to Argentina, is listed as threatened under the ESA, 

while the breeding populations in Florida and on the Pacific Coast of Mexico are listed as 

endangered. Since it is difficult to differentiate between breeding populations away from the 

nesting beaches, all green sea turtles are considered endangered (NMFS, 2007). Green sea turtles 

have been occasionally encountered in the SRIPP project area but their occurrence is expected to 

be rare. 
Affected Environment 

192 

3.2.10.6 Finfish 

The shortnose sturgeon is the smallest of the three sturgeon species that occur in eastern North 

America, having a maximum known total length of 1.4 m (4.7 ft) and weight of 23 kg (50.7 lbs). 

The shortnose sturgeon is a benthic feeder and lives mainly in the slower moving riverine waters 

or nearshore marine waters, and migrates periodically into faster moving fresh water areas to 

spawn. Juveniles are believed to feed on benthic insects and crustaceans. Mollusks and large 

crustaceans are the primary food of adult shortnose sturgeon. 

Shortnose sturgeon occur in most major river systems along the eastern seaboard of the United 

States. The shortnose sturgeon is found in the Chesapeake Bay system and in South Carolina, but 

no populations are reported in Virginia or North Carolina (NOAA Office of Protected Resources, 

2009). No protected populations exist in the vicinity of the project area. 

3.2.10.7 Marine Mammals 

Humpback Whale 

Adult humpback whales grow to be about 11 to 16 m (36 to 52 ft) in length. Their body is black 

or dark gray, with very long flippers that are usually partially white (Jefferson et al., 1993). 

Humpback whales feed on a variety of invertebrates and small schooling fish including krill, 

herring, mackerel, sand lance, sardines, anchovies, and capelin. An estimated 11,570 humpback 

whales occur in the North Atlantic (Stevick et al., 2003). A Recovery Plan was published in 1991 

and is currently in effect (NMFS, 1991). 

Although humpback whales typically travel over deep, oceanic waters during migration, their 

feeding and breeding habitats are mostly in shallow, coastal waters over continental shelves. 

Humpback whales occur on the continental shelf and in deep water in the vicinity of Wallops 

Island in fall, winter, and spring as they migrate between calving and breeding grounds in the 

Caribbean and feeding grounds off the New England coast (Corkeron and Connor, 1999; Stern, 

2002). Humpback whales have recently been observed (as sightings and as strandings) along the 

Mid-Atlantic States from New Jersey to North Carolina, primarily during the winter months. 

These areas may represent a supplemental winter feeding area for humpback whales (Barco et 

al., 2002). 

Fin Whale 

The adult fin whale can reach 24 m (79 ft) in length, making it the second largest whale species 

after the blue whale. Fin whales feed on a variety of small, schooling prey such as herring, 

capelin, sand lance, squid, krill, and copepods (Kenney et al., 1985; NMFS, 2006a). The fin 

whale is listed as endangered under the ESA and is managed by the NMFS. NOAA estimates 

that there are about 2,250 individual fin whales in the U.S. Atlantic waters, though the accuracy 

of this number is unclear (Waring et al., 2007). A Draft Recovery Plan for fin whales is currently 

available for review (NMFS, 2006a). 

Fin whales are found in deep, offshore waters of all major oceans, primarily in temperate to polar 

latitudes (NOAA, 2009a). Off the U.S. Atlantic coast, sightings are almost exclusively limited to 

continental shelf waters from the southern Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina 

(CETAP, 1982; Hain et al., 1992). Survey data from Cape Hatteras to Nova Scotia (dated 1978 

to 1982) suggest that fin whales prefer mid-depths, with 65 percent of sightings in the 21 to 100 
Affected Environment 

 193 

m (69 to 330 ft) range. The mid-shelf in the MAB appears to be a seasonally important area for 

fin whales. Density off the mouth of Delaware Bay is highest in winter and summer and highest 

in spring off Chesapeake Bay (Hain et al., 1992). The fin whale may occur offshore of Wallops 

Island during these times. 

Right Whale 

North Atlantic right whales can reach up to 18 m (59 ft) in length. Right whales feed on 

zooplankton, particularly large copepods. The North Atlantic right whale is one of the most 

endangered large whale species (Perry et al., 1999; IWC, 2001). According to the North Atlantic 

Right Whale Consortium (NARWC), the North Atlantic right whale is not showing any signs of 

recovering from historical whaling. The NARWC estimates there are only approximately 350 

individuals left (NARWC, 2009). A Recovery Plan is in effect for the North Atlantic right whale. 

Originally published in 1991, it was recently revised in 2004 (NMFS, 2005). 

Right whales migrate from their calving grounds off the coast of Florida and Georgia towards 

their feeding grounds in New England and Canada during the spring and early summer months 

and would be expected to pass through the project area during this time (Winn et al., 1986). 

According to the NARWC, the migration routes and wintering grounds of most right whales are 

not known (NARWC, 2009). 

Right whales seasonally transit Mid-Atlantic waters between November and April, with peaks in 

December, March, and April. Knowlton et al. (2002) analyzed survey data, satellite tag data, 

whale strandings, and opportunistic sightings from the Mid-Atlantic migratory corridor 

(Georgia/South Carolina border to waters off southern New England). Most sightings (94 

percent) were within 56 km (35 mi) of shore, with over half (64 percent) within 18.5 km (11.5 

mi) of shore. Right whales preferred shallow waters, with 80 percent of all sightings in depths 

<27 km (17 mi), and 93 percent in depths <45 km (28 mi) (Knowlton et al., 2002). Of the ports 

cited in the study, Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay are closest to Wallops Island. Sightings 

near Chesapeake Bay occurred in October through December, February, and March. There are 

few sightings from Delaware Bay (one each in October, December, May, and July), making it 

difficult to discern any patterns of occurrence there (Knowlton et al., 2002). 

Sperm Whale 

The sperm whale is the largest toothed whale species. Adult females may grow to lengths of 11 

m (36 ft), while adult males can be as long as 16 m (52 ft) and weigh three times as much as the 

female (NOAA, 2009a). The sperm whale is distinguished by its extremely large head which can 

take up as much as 35 percent of its body length. The sperm whale prefers large squid but will 

also eat large demersal and mesopelagic sharks, skates, and fishes (NOAA, 2009a). The best 

available estimate for sperm whales in the U.S. North Atlantic is 4,702 individuals (NOAA, 

2009a). Sperm whales are listed as endangered under the ESA. A Draft Recovery Plan for sperm 

whales was written and is available for review (NMFS, 2006b). 

Sperm whales spend most of their time at great depths, and are capable of dives that last over an 

hour at depths of 1,000 m (3,280 ft). Sperm whales are abundant east and northeast of Cape 

Hatteras in the winter. In spring, the distribution shifts northward to east of Delaware and 

Virginia, but is widespread (NOAA, 2009a). Sperm whales may occur landward of the shelf 

break in the vicinity of the project area during all seasons. 
Affected Environment 

194 

Sei Whale 

The sei whale can reach lengths of about 12-18 m (40-60 ft) and weigh 45,000 kilograms 

(100,000 pounds). Sei whales have a long, sleek body that is dark bluish-gray to black in color 

and pale underneath (NOAA, 2009a). In the North Atlantic, the sei whale’s major prey species 

are copepods and krill (Kenney et al., 1985). While there are no estimates for the North Atlantic 

population of sei whales, NOAA estimates that the worldwide population is about 80,000 

individuals (NOAA, 2009a). Sei whales are listed as endangered under the ESA. A Recovery 

Plan for this species was written and is awaiting legal clearance (Waring et al., 2009). 

The sei whale can be found worldwide, though they appear to prefer temperate waters in the 

mid-latitudes (NOAA, 2009a). In the Atlantic Ocean, the sei whale is primarily seen on Georges 

Bank (Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). The distribution and movement patterns of sei whales are 

not well known, but they may occur in the vicinity of the project area year round, more likely 

however, they occur in deeper offshore waters (Rice, 1998; Perry et al., 1999). 

Blue Whale 

The blue whale is the largest animal ever known to have lived on Earth. Adult blue whales range 

from 23 to 27 m (75 to 89 ft) and can weigh over 150,000 kg (330,000 lbs) (NOAA, 2009a). 

Blue whales have a long, sleek body and have a mottled grey color pattern that appears light blue 

when seen through the water (NOAA, 2009a). It is estimated that less than 1,500 individuals 

currently exist in the North Atlantic (Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). The blue whale is listed as 

endangered under the ESA and a Recovery Plan for this species was published in 1998 (Reeves 

et al., 1998). 

The overall distribution of blue whales in the North Atlantic extends from the subtropics to 

Baffin Bay and the Greenland Sea. Blue whales are most frequently sighted in the waters off 

eastern Canada, with the majority of recent records from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where they 

are present throughout most of the year. They are most common during the summer and fall 

feeding seasons and typically leave by early winter to avoid ice entrapment. Although they are 

rare in the shelf waters of the eastern U.S., blue whales have been occasionally sighted off Cape 

Cod, Massachusetts. Although it is believed this region may represent the current southern limit 

of the blue whales’ feeding range (NOAA, 2009a), they could occur within the SRIPP project 

area. 

Manatee 

West Indian manatee and Florida manatee are large grayish marine mammals that grow to be 

about 2.5 to 4.5 m (8 to 15 ft) long and 1,600 kg (3,530 lbs). Manatees prefer warm, tropical 

waters. In the West Atlantic Ocean, the manatee is most common in the Florida peninsula and 

south east Georgia, but range from the Texas gulf coast all the way to Rhode Island (Wynne and 

Schwartz, 1999). Sightings as far north as Virginia (Waring et al., 2002) and Rhode Island are 

rare and considered extralimital. It is highly unlikely, but still possible, that the manatee would 

be encountered within the project area. 

3.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The following sections provide background information on the social and economic 

characteristics of Wallops Island and the surrounding area. The majority of the data presented 
Affected Environment 

 195 

was collected from the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Census 2000 data, with 

supplemental information gathered from WFF and local sources. 

3.3.1 Land Use 

Wallops Island consists of 1,680 ha (4,150 ac), most of which is marshland, and includes launch 

and testing facilities, blockhouses, rocket storage buildings, assembly shops, dynamic balancing 

facilities, tracking facilities, U.S. Navy facilities, and other related support structures. Wallops 

Island is zoned as agricultural by Accomack County. The marsh area between Wallops Mainland 

and Wallops Island is designated as undeveloped in the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Wallops 

Mainland consists mostly of marshland and is bordered by agricultural land to the west, Bogues 

Bay to the north, and an estuary to the south. 

Wallops Island is geographically proximate to a number of areas managed for conservation 

purposes. Northeast of Wallops Island is Assateague Island, managed by the USFWS as part of 

the CNWR. Immediately south is Assawoman Island, also a part of CNWR. Further south, a 

majority of the remaining undeveloped barrier islands are owned and managed by the Nature 

Conservancy as components of the Virginia Coast Reserve. 

The mainland areas west of Wallops Island consist of rural farmland and small villages and are 

regulated by local county government and several town councils (NASA, 2008a). Corn, wheat, 

soybeans, cabbage, potatoes, cucumbers, and tomatoes are examples of the commodities 

produced on the surrounding farms. Area businesses include fuel stations, retail stores, markets, 

and restaurants. 

3.3.2 Recreation 

Virginia’s Eastern Shore is a popular tourist destination. Many tourists and vacationers visit 

Accomack County throughout the late spring, summer, and early fall. Regional attractions 

include the Assateague Island National Seashore and CNWR. Winter hunting season draws 

people to hunt local game including dove, quail, deer, fox, and many types of geese and ducks. 

The Wallops Island shoreline is also a popular location for local fishermen who fish from their 

boats in the nearshore environment. 

Recreational boating occurs occasionally on the open ocean throughout the project area, 

depending on season and weather conditions. Recreational boating typically occurs during 

summer months in the area. Travel between the most popular cruising destinations along the 

Virginia coast does not require traversing the project area. Large recreational vessels may 

sometimes use the area, but there are few vessels of this type and their presence is uncommon. 

The most popular diving sites off the coast of Virginia are shipwrecks and five artificial reefs. 

Popular shipwreck diving destinations occur at depths between 15 m and 49 m (50 ft and 160 ft). 

However, despite the presence of potential offshore diving locations, in a statewide survey, 

diving was not given as a significant reason for recreational boating among boat owners 

(Responsive Management, 2000). 

3.3.3 Fisheries 

Commercial and Recreational Fisheries 

WFF is located on one of several Atlantic Ocean barrier islands that contribute to a diverse 

marine ecosystem. This ecosystem supported what historically was a robust local recreational 
Affected Environment 

196 

and commercial fishing industry on Chincoteague Island and in the region. Over the last 60 

years, however, the economy of commercial fishing has gradually diminished, although some 

parts of the commercial fishing industry have seen improvement since the 1990s. Diseases 

destroyed much of the oyster harvesting potential, and this change spurred the establishment of 

the clam aquaculture industry throughout Chincoteague. Since the 1990s, clam farming has 

become increasingly important to the island’s economy, producing close to $30 million annually 

and increasing average employment rates in the area by 13 percent (based on 2005-2006 data). 

Commercial fishing, along with agriculture and forestry industries, makes up more than 6 

percent of the Chincoteague labor force (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The Draft Chincoteague 

Comprehensive Plan establishes as one of its primary objectives: “To maintain the protections 

afforded by these barrier islands from storm events and to protect the diverse and unique ecology 

of the areas that serves as the basis for the Town’s economy...” (Town of Chincoteague, 2009). 

A popular recreational fishing spot, Blackfish Bank Shoal, is located approximately 8 km (5 mi) 

east of Assateague Island and approximately 11 km (7 mi) northeast of the Wallops Island 

shoreline. Blackfish Bank Shoal has been developed as an artificial reef (by sinking subway cars 

on the shoal) through the efforts of the Town of Chincoteague and the Chincoteague Island 

Charterboat Association. Blackfish Bank’s artificial reef is the closest artificial reef to the 

proposed SRIPP borrow sites – the next closest are two artificial reefs, both approximately 32 

km (20 mi) away: Parramore Reef, located southwest of the proposed SRIPP borrow sites, and 

Jackspot artificial reef to the northwest. 

2009 SRIPP Survey 

In April and May 2009, guides and recreational fishermen1 in Chincoteague, Wachapreague, and 

Ocean City were surveyed to determine their use of Blackfish Bank Shoal, Unnamed Shoal A, 

and the Wallops Island shoreline. At the time of the survey, Unnamed Shoal B had not been 

selected as a potential borrow site therefore was not include in the survey. The survey was 

designed to assess commercial and recreational fishermen’s perceptions of potential impacts on the 

fishing industry from SRIPP activities. The fishermen were encountered by visiting known ports 

of entry in Chincoteague, VA; Wachapreague, VA; and Ocean City, MD, from April 7–10, 2009. 

The harbormaster at Chincoteague and the Chincoteague Fisheries Cooperative were also 

contacted, as were fishermen and staff at the various marinas and bait and tackle shops in all 

three towns (NASA, 2009d). A total of 66 responses were received during the survey. 

Slightly less than half the survey respondents (30) indicated that they did fish in the study area. 

Eighty-six percent of survey respondents who reported fishing in the area indicated they fished 

there at least in the spring and summer, with several respondents also fishing the area in the fall. 

About 30 percent of the same survey respondents reported fishing in the area all year. Thirty-six 

of the respondents (55 percent) reported fishing within 8 km (5 mi) of either Blackfish Bank 

Shoal or the Wallops Island shoreline. Of those 36 respondents, 24 said they fished at Blackfish 

Bank Shoal (NASA, 2009d). 

 

1

 Survey respondents who indicated that they are “guides/commercial/recreational” fishermen, meaning they own 

and/or operate charter boats are categorized as “guides” rather than “commercial” fishermen. This is to distinguish 

charter activities from fishermen who are associated with commercial fisheries, even though the guides are 

technically commercial fishermen for licensing purposes. Commercial fishermen were also included in the study, 

but they were largely unresponsive and are not discussed here. 
Affected Environment 

 197 

According to the 2008 NOAA permit database, 13 commercial fishing vessels are registered with 

Chincoteague as their home port city and 8 vessels are registered with Wachapreague as their 

home port city. Three vessels were identified as having Ocean City as their principal port, though 

those vessels had Norfolk as their home port city. According to NMFS Northeast Regional 

Office, the majority of vessels that list their home port in the vicinity of the project area had 

permits for bluefish, black sea bass, scup, squid/mackerel/butterfish, and summer flounder, 

indicating those are the most commonly harvested species in the area. The VMRC tracks finfish 

and shellfish landings in Virginia waters. This provides information on the economic 

contribution to the Accomack County as well as an inventory of aquatic life in county waters. 

According to the 2008 updated Accomack County Comprehensive Plan (Accomack County, 

2008), 1,066,604 kilograms (2,351,459 pounds) of finfish were sold dock-side in 1992 at a value 

of $1,209,789. Total landings for shellfish were 383,719 kilograms (845,956 pounds) with an 

economic value of $1,258,308. The economic value of the landings represents 4 percent of all 

landings in Virginia. This information was obtained from mandatory reporting by fishermen in 

the area. 

Subsistence Fishing 

According to VMRC, there is no available information suggesting that subsistence fishing takes 

place within the SRIPP project area (Travelstead, pers. comm., 2010). 

3.3.4 Population 

In 2006, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that the population of the Commonwealth of Virginia 

was about 7.6 million, and Accomack County’s population was 39,345, with a population 

density of 218 people per km2 (84.2 people per mi2) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The population 

growth rate in Accomack County between 2000 and 2006 was approximately 2.7 percent (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2008a). 

The village of Assawoman, approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) to the southwest, is the closest 

residential community to Wallops Island. The towns of Wattsville and Atlantic are the closest 

incorporated communities to Wallops Island and are located approximately 13 kilometers (8 

miles) and 8 kilometers (5 miles) northwest of Wallops Island, respectively. There is no specific 

census data available for Wattsville because it is an unincorporated residential area. 

Chincoteague Island, Virginia, is approximately 13 kilometers (8 miles) northeast of Wallops 

Island. The Town of Chincoteague is the most densely populated area in Accomack County, with 

a resident population of 4,317 people. Area populations fluctuate seasonally. During the summer 

months the population increases due to tourism and vacationers who visit the nature reserve and 

beaches of Assateague Island. Daily populations often reach up to 15,000 in the summer months. 

Special events, such as the annual pony swim and roundup/auction, sponsored by the 

Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Department in July, draw crowds of up to 40,000. 

3.3.5 Employment and Income 

This section provides general background information on employment and income data for the 

WFF region. Information includes employment, unemployment, income, and poverty 

characteristics of the region compiled by the 2000 U.S. Census, the Virginia Employment 

Commission (VEC) and by Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Eastern Shore Chamber of 

Commerce, 2007). The section also includes employment statistics for WFF itself. 
Affected Environment 

198 

In 2008, the monthly unemployment rates in Virginia were as low as 4.1 percent and as high as 7.0 

percent (VEC, 2009a). In 2008, Accomack County was approximately average in the Delmarva 

region in terms of unemployment rates. The total labor force of Accomack County is 19,375 

people, 18,202 of whom are employed, resulting in an average annual unemployment rate of 6.1 

percent (VEC, 2009b). Employment fluctuates seasonally in Accomack County and the Town of 

Chincoteague, with decreased unemployment occurring from June through October (VEC, 

2009b). Overall, the unemployment rates in Virginia and Accomack County have been declining 

since 2000 (VEC, 2009a; VEC, 2009b). 

Table 25 lists the distribution by broad occupational categories for Virginia, Accomack County, 

and Chincoteague, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Table 25: Occupational Distribution (percent) 

Category Virginia Accomack 

County Chincoteague 

Management, professional, and related 

occupations 38 24 26 

Sales and office occupations 26 22 26 

Production, transportation, and material 

moving occupations 13 20 9 

Service occupations 14 17 17 

Construction, extraction, and maintenance 

occupations 10 11 15 

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 1 6 7 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

Table 26 shows the income and poverty rates of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Accomack 

County, and Chincoteague. Accomack County and Chincoteague both have a higher percentage of 

families below the poverty level and a lower per capita income than Virginia as a whole; 

however, Accomack County and Chincoteague do not include major urban centers. 

Table 26: Income and Poverty 

Region Median Household

Income (2007) 

Per Capita Income

(2007) 

Percent of Families Below

Poverty Level (2007) 

Virginia $59,575 $41,727 11.9 

Accomack County $36,616 $24,342 23.4 

Chincoteague $36,566 $24,549 13.4 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a 

In 2008, WFF employed a total of 1,485 people; 1,027 of those supported NASA (including 238 

civil servants and 789 contractors), MARS employed 3 full-time people, and the remainder 

worked for either NOAA or the U.S. Navy (NASA, 2008a). The VEC reported that in 2008 

NASA was the fourth largest employer in Accomack County; other large employers on the 
Affected Environment 

 199 

Eastern Shore are Perdue Farms (1,900 employees) and Tyson Foods (950 employees) (VEC, 

2009b). 

Employment categories at WFF consist largely of managerial, professional, and technical 

disciplines with higher than regional average salaries. The mean salary of NASA employees for 

fiscal year 2008 was $88,047, while the median salary is in the $80,000-$90,000 range (NASA, 

2008a). The median family income for Accomack County in 2008 was $41,845. Due to the wide 

gap between salaries of WFF employees and most area residents, the facility contributes 

considerably to the local economy (NASA, 2009a). 

3.3.6 Health and Safety 

Three local emergency health services are located in the vicinity of WFF. WFF has its own 

health unit which operates from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; after-hours emergency medical care is 

provided by Emergency Medical Services staff of the WFF Fire Department. The Chincoteague 

Medical Center on Chincoteague Island and the Atlantic Medical Center in Oak Hall, VA, also 

provide emergency assistance, and both are located within 8 km (5 mi) of WFF. Four hospitals 

are also located in the region, all within 64 km (40 mi) of WFF. These hospitals include: 

 Atlantic General Hospital in Berlin, MD; 

 McCready Memorial Hospital in Crisfield, MD; 

 Peninsula Regional Medical Center in Salisbury, MD; and 

 Shore Memorial Hospital in Nassawadox, VA. 

The Peninsula Regional Medical Center in Salisbury serves as the regional trauma center for the 

Delmarva Peninsula. If additional trauma care is needed, Sentara Norfolk General Hospital is 19 

minutes away (by helicopter) from the Shore Memorial Hospital in Nassawadox, VA. Accomack 

and Northampton County Health Departments offer clinical services. Worcester, Somerset, and 

Wicomico Counties also have health departments. Five nursing homes on Virginia’s Eastern 

Shore and eight nursing homes on Maryland’s Lower Eastern Shore are available to the 

surrounding communities. 

The WFF Fire Department provides emergency services to the neighboring community and has a 

Mutual Aid Agreement with the Accomack-Northampton Fireman’s Association for any outside 

assistance needed at WFF (NASA, 2008a). There are 24-hour fire and protection services, and 

personnel are also trained as first responders for hazardous materials, waste, and oil spills. There 

are 21 existing Fire and Rescue stations in Accomack County. The local fire companies closest 

to Wallops are in the towns of Atlantic, Chincoteague, and New Church, VA. 

WFF maintains a security force that is responsible for the internal security of the base and 

provides 24-hour-per-day protection services. One entrance gate serves as the control and 

monitoring point for Wallops Mainland and Wallops Island, combined. 

3.3.7 Cultural Resources 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, (P.L. 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) as 

amended, outlines Federal policy to protect historic sites and values in cooperation with other 

nations, Tribal Governments, States, and local governments. Subsequent amendments designated 

the State Historic Preservation Officer as the individual responsible for administering State-level 

programs. The NHPA also created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the 
Affected Environment 

200 

Federal agency responsible for providing commentary on Federal activities, programs, and 

policies that affect historic resources. 

Section 106 and Section 110 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) outline 

the procedures to be followed in the documentation, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts for 

cultural resources. The Section 106 process applies to any Federal undertaking that has the 

potential to affect cultural resources. This process includes identifying significant historic 

properties that may be affected by an action and mitigating adverse effects to properties listed, or 

eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (30 CFR 60.4). Section 

110 of the NHPA outlines the obligations Federal agencies have in regard to historic resources 

under their ownership. 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies take into consideration the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties and to allow the ACHP the opportunity to comment on such 

undertakings. As defined in the NHPA, “historic properties” are one of five resource types—

buildings, structures, object, sites, or districts—that are listed in or eligible for listing in the 

NRHP. Resources less than 50 years of age are not generally eligible for listing in the NRHP, but 

may be if they are of exceptional importance. Accordingly, to be in compliance with Section 106 

of the NHPA, NASA must consider the effects of the proposed undertaking on all properties that 

are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP—both those owned by NASA within the 

boundaries of WFF, as well as those located outside of WFF that may be affected. 

In November 2003, NASA prepared a Cultural Resources Assessment of Wallops Flight Facility, 

Accomack County, Virginia that examined each of the three land areas of the facility within 

WFF’s property boundaries: Wallops Main Base, Wallops Mainland, and Wallops Island 

(NASA, 2003b). The study was completed to assist NASA in meeting its obligations under 

Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA. For planning purposes, this study evaluated properties 

constructed prior to 1955, using 1955–2005 as the youngest applicable 50-year period. 

Additionally, the cultural resources assessment (CRA) established a predictive model for 

understanding the archaeological potential over the entire WFF property. 

3.3.7.1 Terrestrial 

Archaeology 

The CRA determined that the cultural resources at WFF consist of six archaeological sites, two 

of which are historic sites on Wallops Island (Figures 39 and 40); and a total of 166 structures 

that are at least 55 years old, 25 of which are located on Wallops Island. In a letter dated 

December 4, 2003, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) concurred with the 

recommendations of the CRA and VDHR accepted the predictive model for archaeology at 

WFF, noting that many of the areas with moderate to high archaeological potential are unlikely 

to be disturbed by future construction or site use. 

Affected Environment 

202 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Affected Environment 

204 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Affected Environment 

 205 

In anticipation of the need for shoreline restoration measures, NASA conducted a pedestrian 

survey of 6.2 km (3.85 mi) of beach/coastline on Wallops Island on September 18, 2006. The 

purpose of the archaeological survey was to identify any potentially significant cultural 

resources, including both aboveground resources, i.e., historic structures, and archaeological 

sites, which may contribute to knowledge of the cultural resources heritage of Accomack 

County. During the survey, field archaeologists searched for all significant cultural materials 

within the project area. No significant cultural remains or archaeological sites were discovered 

during this evaluation. Based upon this information, no further archaeological evaluation of the 

beachfront was necessary. 

In anticipation of the need for slurry pits for installation of geotextile tubes, NASA conducted a 

limited cultural resources survey along 2.98 km (1.85 mi) of beach on January 22, 2007. This 

survey included a portion of beachfront that was revealed by the predictive model to have 

moderate potential for the presence of historic archaeological sites. During the survey, field 

archaeologists searched for all significant cultural materials within the geotextile tubes project 

area. No significant cultural remains or archaeological sites were discovered during this 

evaluation. An architectural historian identified and evaluated three buildings on the beach 

within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The Tracking Camera Turret with Dome (WFF #Z-35, 

VDHR #001-0027-0122), was previously determined to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP in 

the Historic Resources Survey and Eligibility Report for Wallops Flight Facility (2004). The two 

other buildings—the Launch Pad Terminal Building (WFF #Z-42) and Launch Control Center 

(WFF #Z-40)—were evaluated and found to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP. Based upon 

the findings of the cultural resources survey of the APE, NASA determined no further 

archaeological evaluation of this beachfront was necessary and that no historic properties would 

be affected by the installation of the geotextile tubes. NASA submitted this determination to 

VDHR in a letter dated January 24, 2007 (see Appendix F). In a response letter dated January 25, 

2007, VDHR concurred with NASA’s determination that the proposed undertaking would have 

no adverse effect on historic properties and stated that no further consultation or work was 

required. 

Aboveground Resources 

Following the initial 2003 reconnaissance survey task, an intensive-level historic resource survey 

and historic research were conducted to develop a historic context for WFF. This context 

provided the necessary information with which to make NRHP eligibility determinations for the 

surveyed buildings and structures constructed prior to 1956. The findings were presented in the 

Historic Resources Survey and Eligibility Report for Wallops Flight Facility (NASA, 2004). The 

historic context developed for the report, in conjunction with field observations, served as the 

basis of evaluation for the buildings and structures determined to be (or soon to be) 50 years of 

age or older at Wallops. Of the 124 buildings assessed that pre-date 1956, 25 still exist on 

Wallops Island. 

Two resources—the Wallops Coast Guard Lifesaving Station (VDHR #001-0027-0100; WFF# 

V-065) and its associated Coast Guard Observation Tower (001-0027-0101; WFF# V-070)—

were determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP and Virginia Landmarks Register (NASA, 

2004). The other surveyed resources were determined not to be NRHP eligible because they 

lacked the historical significance or integrity necessary to convey significance. 
Affected Environment 

206 

In a letter dated November 4, 2004, the VDHR concurred with the findings and determinations in 

the Historic Resources Survey and Eligibility Report, confirming that the Wallops Coast Guard 

Lifesaving Station is eligible for listing in the NRHP, with the Observation Tower as a 

contributing structure to the historic property (NASA, 2004). NASA has determined that the 

Wallops Coast Guard Lifesaving Station is located inside the explosive hazard arc of a nearby 

rocket motor storage facility and as a result, is planning the demolition or removal of the 

Lifesaving Station and Observation Tower. In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, 

NASA and VDHR are currently negotiating an MOA to resolve the effects of demolition or 

removal. 

Since the 2004 report, no additional identification and evaluation of above-ground historic 

properties has been conducted at WFF. Accordingly, as the inventory of facilities age, there will 

be a need to survey buildings as they turn 50 and update the 2004 study. 

3.3.7.2 Underwater 

Virginia regulates and permits activities in Commonwealth waters from the shoreline out to 5.5 

km (3 nautical miles [nmi]). BOEMRE regulates and permits activities within Federal waters 

(outside 5.5 km [3 nmi]) of the OCS for projects that would potentially disturb the sand and 

gravel resources on the ocean floor. NASA, however, has been designated as the lead Federal 

agency for Section 106 compliance. 

Cultural Resources Study of Unnamed Shoal A and Unnamed Shoal B 

Between March and September 2009, NASA conducted a cultural resources study within a 5.2-

km2

 (2-mi2) block on each of the two proposed SRIPP offshore borrow sites (NASA, 2009c) 

(Appendix F). The primary objective of this study, which included archival research and a 

remote sensing survey, was to identify maritime related cultural resources, particularly 

submerged watercraft, and buried prehistoric sites within the two survey areas. This survey was 

undertaken in consultation with BOEMRE, and in accordance with guidelines established in 

MMS Notice to Lessee (NTL) 2005-G07 (MMS, 2005). 

Survey operations were conducted from a 14 m (46 ft) research vessel, and the survey array 

consisted of a Hemisphere Crescent R130 Digital Global Positioning System (DGPS), a 

Geometrics G882 marine cesium magnetometer, an Odom Hydrotrac digital echo sounder, and a 

600 kHz Marine Sonics side scan sonar system. Survey control and data quality control were 

achieved with Hypack’s Hypack 2009a survey software. Magnetic and acoustic (side scan sonar, 

sub bottom profiler, and echo sounder) bathymetric data were reviewed during data collection for 

anomalies, and reviewed a second time during post-processing efforts using the Hypack (version 

2009a) data review module and Golden Software’s Surfer (Version 8). These software programs 

were used to assess the duration, amplitude, and complexity of individual magnetic disturbances, 

and to plot the positions of these anomalies within the survey areas to better understand spatial 

patterning and their association with acoustic and bathymetric anomalies. 

Archaeologists maintained field notes on the locations of modern sources of ferrous material 

such as discarded or lost fishing equipment (clamming and crab trawls, anchors, or other 

jettisoned debris). Acoustic imaging data (Side scan sonar and sub bottom profiler) were 

reviewed for anomalous returns that could be associated with significant submerged cultural 
Affected Environment 

 207 

resources. Acoustic images and magnetic contouring were checked against bathymetric data for 

potential correlation. 

The sub bottom profiler data was reviewed in conjunction with the other remote sensing 

instruments in order to map out the extent of the objects encountered. The sub bottom profiler 

did not record any buried cultural resources or geomorphic features associated with prehistoric 

actives. 

Sub bottom profiler data indicated that sediment patterns varied little between Unnamed Shoal A 

and Unnamed Shoal B; both shoals are comprised of relatively homogenous sand (similar grain 

sizes throughout the shoal). This sediment homogeneity has likely resulted from long term grain 

size sorting by currents, wave action, and large storm events. This sediment sorting has reduced 

the potential for these shoals to contain intact maritime cultural resources and prehistoric 

features. 

A total of 28 magnetic anomalies and 30 acoustic anomalies (side scan sonar) were recorded 

during the remote sensing survey of both shoals. Unnamed Shoal A contains 18 side scan sonar 

anomalies and 24 magnetic anomalies, which yielded five target clusters for further analysis. 

Unnamed Shoal B contained 12 side scan sonar anomalies, four magnetic anomalies, and no 

target clusters. 

The greatest amount of ferrous material was detected in Unnamed Shoal A, which is located 

approximately 2.4 km (1.5 mi) east of Blackfish Bank Shoal. The acoustic and magnetic 

anomalies on Unnamed Shoal A are consistent with debris that originated from two sources: 1) 

sport and commercial fishermen, who often lose anchors, chains, wire rope sections, trawls and 

general flotsam, and 2) barges that have transported and dropped a variety of ferrous debris to 

create an artificial reef on Blackfish Bank Shoal. Some of these objects have slowly migrated 

east and then “hung up” on the shoals, which is supported by the fact that there are far fewer 

anomalies at Unnamed Shoal B, which is over 3 km (2 mi) east of Unnamed Shoal A. The 

greater the distance from the more commonly trafficked and fished areas, the lower the number 

of recorded ferrous materials and acoustic anomalies. 

Data analysis, when coupled with the commercial and recreational fishing that takes place at or 

near Unnamed Shoal A and Unnamed Shoal B, indicated that none of the detected anomalies 

have potential to represent significant submerged cultural resources. 

Cultural Resources Study of Proposed Breakwater and Groin Locations 

A cultural resources study was conducted in August 2009 to identify maritime related cultural 

resources, particularly submerged watercraft, and buried archaeological sites within the survey 

areas (Appendix G). The survey consisted of four tasks: remote sensing of the proposed 

breakwater location, a scientific diving survey of the proposed groin location, a pedestrian 

survey of the Wallops Island shoreline, and archaeological monitoring of geotextile tube 

installation on the shoreline. A total of 37 ha (92 ac) was evaluated during the survey efforts. 

The archaeological predictive model presented in the CRA identified the potential to encounter 

pre-historic and historic sites on WFF (which was approved by VDHR in a letter dated 

December 4, 2003), including the Atlantic coast shoreline and near shore waters. This report 

indicated that there was a moderate potential to encounter significant historic resources on this 

portion of WFF. 
Affected Environment 

208 

No significant cultural resources were identified during the Phase I pedestrian survey of the 

Wallops Island shoreline, the archaeological monitoring of geotextile tube placement, and the 

scientific diving survey of the proposed groin location. A total of five target groups were 

identified during the remote sensing survey of the proposed breakwater. These target groups 

consisted of magnetic or acoustic anomalies that may be potentially associated with adjacent 

anomalies based upon magnetic signature, duration of magnetic signal response or side scan 

sonar data that records an image of an anomaly in close proximity to recorded magnetic 

anomalies. Analysis of the target groups indicates that none of the target groups have the 

potential to represent significant submerged cultural resources. They instead represent debris 

associated with the previous structure (evidenced by wooden piling and steel cable) that was 

demolished or debris that was dumped at the location of the proposed breakwater. The 

archaeological studies undertaken for the SRIPP did not identify any significant cultural 

resources. 

3.3.8 Environmental Justice 

The goal of environmental justice from a Federal perspective is to ensure fair treatment of people 

of all races, cultures, and economic situations with regard to the implementation and 

enforcement of environmental laws and regulations, and Federal policies and programs. EO 

12898, Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations, (and the February 11, 1994, Presidential Memorandum providing additional 

guidance for this EO) requires Federal agencies to develop strategies for protecting minority and 

low-income populations from disproportionate and adverse effects of Federal programs and 

activities. The EO is “intended to promote non-discrimination in Federal programs substantially 

affecting human health and the environment.” 

Accomack County is on the lower end of income measures in the region, with a 2005 median 

family income of $32,837. As a result, the county is also on the higher end of poverty levels in 

the region based on U.S. Census Bureau data reports. The per capita income in Accomack 

County in 2007 was reported to be $18,468, with an estimated 18 percent of people below the 

poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a). The per capita income in the Commonwealth of 

Virginia in 2007 was reported to be $28,255, with an estimated 9.9 percent of people below the 

poverty level statewide (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008b). 

In order to ensure compliance with EO 12898, NASA prepared an Environmental Justice 

Implementation Plan (EJIP) in 1996. NASA evaluated the demographic information in the 

vicinity of WFF and identified areas that have a higher concentration of minority persons and 

low-income persons based on federal guidelines. The EJIP also includes an evaluation of all 

programs at WFF, including tenant activities that could potentially affect human health and the 

environment. The EJIP demonstrates that NASA will continue to incorporate environmental 

justice in all its activities and monitor all programs to determine any potential environmental 

justice impacts on persons in the area. Minority communities are defined as those exceeding a 50 

percent minority population. Table 27 provides a review of Accomack County Census data used 

to determine the baseline for the facility’s EJIP. 
Affected Environment 

 209 

Table 27: Environmental Justice Concerns – by Census Tract, Accomack County, VA 

Tract Location Percent Minority 

2000 

Percent Low 

Income 2000 

Percent 

Poverty 2000 

9901 MD/VA line south 

including Fisher’s Point 

1.97 51.53 12.80 

9902 MD/VA line south 

including Wallops Island 

to Assawoman Inlet 

41.75 49.96 16.38 

9903 West of 9902 and 9904, 

MD/VA line south to 

Ann’s Cove Road 

24.66 55.94 19.28 

9904 East of Mears Station 

Road, South of 9902 

south to Horseshoe Lead 

59.14 51.61 27.14 

Source: NASA, 2008a 

As seen in Table 27, census tract 9904 is considered to be a minority community. All four census 

tracts are higher than state average poverty level, though only tracts 9903 and 9904 exceed the 

average poverty level for the county. Figure 41 shows the distribution of minority persons by 

census block. 

Chincoteague Island, at approximately 13 km (8 mi) northeast of Wallops Island, is the closest 

populated area to the seaward side of Wallops Island. No minority or low-income communities 

exist on the portion of Chincoteague Island that lies within a 4-km (2.5-mi) radius of Wallops 

Island. Assateague Island has no year-round residents, as it is comprised of several protected 

parks controlled by Assateague Island National Seashore, Assateague State Park, and CNWR. 

EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,

encourages Federal agencies to consider the potential effects of Federal policies, programs, and 

activities on children. The closest day care centers, schools, camps, nursing homes, and hospitals 

are addressed within the EJIP. 

No nursing homes, hospitals, or schools are located near WFF. The closest hospital, McCready 

Memorial Hospital in Crisfield, MD, is located approximately 32 km (20 mi) northwest of 

Wallops Island. One public campground, Trail’s End, is located approximately 13 km (8 mi) 

northwest of the Wallops Island launch pads. One day care center, Emma’s World Daycare & 

Preschool, is located approximately 9 km (5.5 mi) northwest of central Wallops Island. The 

closest schools are: Arcadia High School, located approximately 10 km (6 mi) northwest of 

central Wallops Island, and Kegotank Elementary School, located 6 km (4 mi) west of central 

Wallops Island. 

3.3.9 Transportation 

3.3.9.1 Land-Based 

The Eastern Shore of Virginia is connected to the rest of the State by the Chesapeake Bay 

Bridge-Tunnel. The primary north-south route that spans the Delmarva Peninsula is U.S. Route 

13, a four-lane divided highway. Local traffic travels by arteries branching off U.S. Route 13. 
Affected Environment 

210 

Activities at Wallops Island and Wallops Mainland generate traffic along Route 803. Primary 

access to WFF is provided by Route 175, a two-lane secondary road. Traffic in the region varies 

with the seasons. During the winter and early spring, traffic is minimal; during the summer and 

early fall, traffic increases due to the number of tourists in the area. 

Wallops Main Base and Wallops Mainland are connected by approximately 10 km (6 mi) of the 

paved, two-lane Route 679. A NASA-owned road, bridge, and causeway link Wallops Mainland 

to Wallops Island. Hard surface roads provide access to most buildings at WFF and are 

maintained by NASA and its tenants. Most organizations at WFF own and maintain a variety of 

vehicles ranging from sedans and vans to trucks. There is no public transportation on the facility. 

Many WFF employees carpool to and from the facility. 

Commercial air service to the area is provided through the Norfolk International Airport, about 

145 km (90 mi) to the south, and the Salisbury Regional Airport, about 64 km (40 mi) to the 

north. Air service is also available approximately 40 km (25 mi) south of WFF through the 

Accomack County Airport in Melfa, which normally provides flights during daylight hours. 

Surface transportation from the airports to WFF is by private rental vehicles, government 

vehicles, and commercial bus or taxi. In addition, ground transportation to the Salisbury Airport 

is occasionally provided by a WFF Shuttle Bus for WFF employees. Chartered and private 

aircraft that have the appropriate clearance may land at the WFF Airport for business purposes. 

Air-freight services are available from the Salisbury Regional Airport. 

Rail freight service is provided to the Delmarva Peninsula by Bay Coast Railroad, although no 

rail freight service is available directly to WFF. The closest railhead to WFF (and typically the 

one most frequently used for unloading cargo) is the LeCato site in New Church, approximately 

11 km (7 miles) to the southwest of WFF. Cargo transported to the area by rail is offloaded and 

hauled over-the-road to its ultimate destination at WFF. No rail passenger service is available to 

WFF. Eleven motor freight carriers that serve the eastern United States are authorized to provide 

service to the Accomack-Northampton District, and therefore, WFF. 

3.3.9.2 Maritime 

Commercial, recreational, and military maritime traffic all use the area off the coast of Virginia, 

one of the busiest areas in the world for maritime traffic. Traffic Separation Schemes (TSSs), 

specified in 33 CFR, are one-way ship traffic lanes marked by buoys. The purpose of the TSS 

system is to prevent vessels from striking each other. The nearest TSS lanes to the project area 

are the southernmost approaches of the Delaware Bay, which are approximately 44 miles north 

of Unnamed Shoal B, and the northernmost lanes of the Chesapeake Bay approach, which are 

approximately 65 miles south of Blackfish Bank Shoal, The triangle-shaped Wallops Island 

Approach Zone is found at the mouth of the Chincoteague Inlet. This zone is designated to 

encourage boaters to exercise caution while entering and exiting the Inlet, a popular waterway 

for recreational and fishing boats. 

In addition, the USCG designates Regulated Navigation Areas (RNAs) to control vessel traffic 

by specifying times of vessel entry, movement, or departure to, from, within, or through ports, 

harbors, or other waters. The closest RNA to the project area is in the Chesapeake Bay Entrance, 

near Hampton Roads, VA; the SRIPP study area is also outside of this RNA. A Private Aid to 

Navigation (PATON) permit would need to be obtained from the USCG to place temporary 

buoys for dredging activities (USCG, 2009b). 

Affected Environment 

212 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Affected Environment 

 213 

Military and Government Traffic 

The VACAPES is the location of maritime combat testing and training for the Navy. This 94,875 

km2 (27,661 square nautical miles [nmi2]) area of the Atlantic Ocean extends from Rehoboth 

Beach, DE, to Cape Fear, NC. The boundary starts 6 km (3 nmi) off the coast and terminates 

approximately 278 km (150 nmi) east in certain areas. The Navy also harbors approximately 67 

vessels in the Port of Virginia, located in Norfolk, up to 10 of which are typically operating in 

the VACAPES area on any given day. These vessels include submarines and surface vessels like 

aircraft carriers. However, the submarine transit lanes are over 111 km (60 nmi) southeast of the 

Chincoteague Shoals area. Operations involving the use of the surface vessels vary widely, from 

several hours up to two weeks (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2009). Data from a study 

conducted by R.J. Filadelfo for the Center for Naval Analyses from February 2000 to January 

2001 reported that the total number of Navy ships on the east coast within 370 km (200 nmi) was 

12 at any given time (NOAA/NMFS, 2008). In addition to the Navy, USACE and USCG vessels 

are regularly found in the SRIPP study area (NOAA/NMFS, 2008). The USCG issues periodic 

notices to mariners regarding information about navigation, hazards to navigation, and 

navigational safety, which can be obtained on their Web site. 

Commercial Traffic 

Numerous small harbors are located throughout Accomack and Northampton Counties, which 

are used primarily for commercial and recreational boats. Commercial ocean cargo shipments are 

typically offloaded at the Port of Baltimore, MD, or Cape Charles, VA, and transferred to 

commercial trucks or rail for transport to WFF. A sea-based option also exists, utilizing 

Chincoteague Inlet and offloading cargo at one of two boat docks at WFF (one on Wallops Main 

Base and one on the north end of Wallops Island). Commercial cargo, container ships, and 

tankers pass by the Virginia barrier islands daily en route to destinations such as the Port of 

Baltimore, MD, and the Port of Virginia. 

From February, 2000 to January, 2001, commercial traffic density averaged about 202 ships 

within 93 km (50 nmi) of the coast, and increased to 266 ships within 100 nmi, and 358 ships 

within 370 km (200 nmi). In terms of spatial distribution, commercial ship traffic is relatively 

uniform along the coast, with certain concentrations around major port areas (Filadelfo, 2001). 

Recreational Traffic 

Fishing and recreational boating traffic occurs throughout the SRIPP study area in the inlets of 

Wallops and Assateague Islands, and at offshore shoals and artificial reefs year round. However, 

the majority of recreational and fishing traffic occurs in the spring and summer. 

In April and May 2009, guides and recreational fishermen in Chincoteague, Wachapreague, and 

Ocean City were surveyed to assess their use of the SRIPP project area, and were asked to 

indicate if they utilized Wallops Island shoreline, Blackfish Bank Shoal (located 11 km [7 mi] 

from the Wallops Island shoreline), Unnamed Shoal A (15 km [10 mi] offshore), or any 

combination of the above, for commercial, recreational, or guided fishing (NASA, 2009d). At 

the time of the survey, Unnamed Shoal B (21 km [13 mi] offshore) had not been identified as a 

potential SRIPP borrow site, so no data for it was collected in this survey. Of the 66 surveys that 

were collected, 14 respondents indicated that they used Unnamed Shoal A for recreational 
Affected Environment 

214 

fishing and/or guide use. Twenty-one of the respondents indicated that they used the Wallops 

Island shoreline for recreational fishing and/or guide use. 

The VDEQ’s 161 km (100 mi) long Seaside Water Trail runs between the Eastern Shore of 

Virginia National Wildlife Refuge at Cape Charles and Chincoteague Island. The trail is utilized 

by recreational boaters and kayakers. The “Wisharts Point Landing to Curtis Merritt Harbor” leg 

of the trail is approximately 11 km (7 mi) long and originates on the western shore of Bogue’s 

Bay, crosses Chincoteague Inlet, and ends on the southern tip of Assateague Island. 

Chincoteague Inlet, located between Assateague Island and Wallops Island, is considered to be 

the most trafficked natural inlet by both commercial and recreational fishing boats on the 

Atlantic coast (The Local Fisherman, 2009). 
Environmental Consequences 

 215 

CHAPTER FOUR: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

Chapter 4 presents the potential impacts on existing resources described in Chapter 3 that may 

result from the alternatives described in Chapter 2. This chapter contains discussions on potential 

impacts on resources under the three main categories of Physical Environment, Biological 

Environment, and Social and Economic Environment. 

Chapter 4 focuses on addressing the type, context, intensity, and duration of the project-related 

environmental impacts for each resource area included in this PEIS. The impacts can be 

described in different ways including: 

 Type (beneficial or adverse) 

 Context (site-specific, local, or regional) 

 Intensity (negligible, minor, moderate, or substantial) 

 Duration (short- or long-term) 

The levels of impacts and their specific definitions vary based on the resource that is being 

evaluated. For example, the scale at which an impact may occur (local, regional, etc.) would be 

different for wetland impacts as compared to economic resources. 

Under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), significant impacts are those that have the potential to 

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Human environment is a 

comprehensive phrase that includes the natural and physical environments and the relationship of 

people to those environments (40 CFR Section 1508.14). Whether an alternative significantly 

affects the quality of the human environment is determined by considering the context in which 

it would occur, along with the intensity of the action (40 CFR Section 1508.27). 

Additionally, mitigation measures that would reduce the potential for an impact are identified in 

Chapter 5. 

4.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

4.2.1 Bathymetry 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

activities and emergency repairs such as hauling in additional rock to add to the existing seawall, 

hauling and placing sand on the beach or behind the existing seawall or geotextile tubes, 

installing sheet piling in or near the high tide level, or emergency geotextile tube installation 

would occur. Sand would only come from upland sources, so no impacts on bathymetry would 

occur as a result of emergency and maintenance activities. Due to the dynamic nature of offshore 

environments, bathymetry would continue to change in response to physical processes such as 

waves, wind, and tides. Water depths immediately seaward of the existing seawall may increase 

due to wave reflection and continued undermining of the seawall. Direct adverse effects on the 

bathymetry in the area immediately east of the seawall would continue. 
Environmental Consequences 

216 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

The extension of the existing rock seawall would limit shoreline retreat along the additional 

1,400 m (4,600 ft) of the extension. During Year 1 of the SRIPP, the seawall extension without 

beach fill would result in direct impacts on nearshore bathymetry by fixing the shoreline position 

and preventing natural maintenance of beach and nearshore slopes (effectively resulting in 

lowering of the bathymetric profile). In Year 2 when beach fill is placed (sand placement would 

first occur in the area of the new seawall extension), the nearshore bathymetric profile would be 

raised, reversing the impacts of the seawall extension from Year 1. The bathymetric profile after 

the initial beach fill would extend seaward underwater for an additional 52 m (170 ft) (Figure 16) 

from the newly constructed beach. Direct long-term beneficial impacts on bathymetry in the 

nearshore environment east of Wallops Island would occur by restoring a beach profile at the 

shoreline. 

Dredging activities would result in direct long-term changes to the bathymetry of the selected 

offshore borrow site. The crest of Unnamed Shoal A is approximately 8 m (25 ft) below MSL 

with the adjacent troughs approximately 20 m (70 ft) below MSL. The crest of Unnamed Shoal 

B is approximately 9 m (30 ft) deep (see Figures 23-25). Dredging would be conducted in a 

manner to remove a uniform thickness of material from the chosen borrow area. Dredging could 

deepen parts of the shoal within the proposed borrow area by approximately 3 m (10 ft) during 

each dredging event (dredging for initial fill and each renourishment cycles). 

CSA International et al. (2009) and Dibajnia and Nairn (in press) provided an evaluation of the 

potential effects of dredging on shoals in the mid-Atlantic. After removal of material from a 

shoal, the shoal would reform itself with a smaller volume of sand. For shoals in water deeper 

than 10 m (33 ft), the volume removed by dredging is not compensated by the material outside 

the shoal. The reformed shoal may attain the same height as that of the pre-dredge shoal under 

certain dredging scenarios based on the volume extracted and local hydrodynamic conditions. 

There is no indication that there is a critical threshold for dredging that once exceeded, ridge and 

shoal features deflate and lose their morphologic integrity (CSA International, Inc. et al., 2010; 

Dibajnia and Nairn, in press). 

Within the borrow area, dredging would remove sediment at least several meters deep, therefore 

increasing the water depths. Dredging may occur once in a given area of a shoal or multiple 

times. The area impacted within the borrow site during a typical renourishment event would 

depend on the volume of sand needed and the thickness of material dredged. Although the limits 

of the offshore shoals are difficult to define, NASA estimates that the proposed 5.2 km2

 (2 mi2) 

borrow site area covers approximately 70 percent of the total surface area of Unnamed Shoal A. 

The proposed 5.2 km2

 (2 mi2) borrow area covers approximately 33 percent of the total surface 

area of Unnamed Shoal B. Therefore, the SRIPP would result in direct, long-term impacts on the 

bathymetry at either of the shoals. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

For the seawall construction and beach fill, impacts would be the same as those described under 

Alternative One. The construction of a groin structure would result in long-term site-specific 

changes to bathymetry at the construction site. Indirect impacts resulting from changes to the 

physical oceanographic processes due to the groin structure are anticipated and are discussed in 

Sections 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.3.4. The impacts of dredging activities under Alternative Two are the 

same as those described under Alternative One. 
Environmental Consequences 

 217 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

For the seawall construction and beach fill, impacts would be the same as those described under 

Alternative One. The construction of a nearshore breakwater structure would result in long-term 

site-specific changes to bathymetry at the construction site. Additional changes may occur in the 

nearshore bathymetry due to movement of finer sand transported from the newly placed beach 

fill through tidal wave action. Impacts on sediment transport from the construction of the 

breakwater structure would occur and are discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.3.4. The impacts 

of dredging activities under Alternative Three are the same as those described under Alternative 

One. 

4.2.2 Geology and Geomorphology 

4.2.2.1 Virginia Barrier Island System 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented, but emergency 

measures may still be implemented to protect at-risk infrastructure. Impacts on sediments, 

including compaction and displacement, would be caused by the equipment used to reach 

facilities to perform emergency operations. In addition, without a beach to provide a source of 

sand, the island’s ability to create and maintain natural dunes is limited. As mentioned in Chapter 

2, emergency measures could include hauling in additional rock to add to the existing seawall, 

hauling and placing sand on the beach or behind the existing seawall or geotextile tubes, 

installing sheet piling in or near the high-tide level, or emergency geotextile tube installation, 

which would result in changes to topography and effect shoreline processes at Wallops Island. 

Erosion of the shoreline south of the end of the existing seawall would continue. Using the 2005 

LiDAR-mapped shoreline, USACE used GENESIS to estimate the amount of shoreline erosion 

that would occur at Assawoman Inlet if the SRIPP was not implemented. The results are based 

on 10 years of estimates. The USACE modeling predicted that between 2.8 m (9.3 ft) and 3.4 m 

(11.3 ft) per year of the shoreline south of the seawall (no loss of the shore would occur north 

because there is no beach) at Assawoman Inlet would be eroded (Appendix A). Table 28 shows 

results of USACE GENESIS modeling that estimated volumes of erosion within an area 3.2 km 

(2 mi) south of the existing seawall in one year, two years, and 10 years; the 95 percent 

confidence limits are shown along with the average erosion volumes. The values shown in Table 

27 are not gross or net sediment transport rates, rather they represent the amount of sediment 

eroded, or lost, within the geographic region modeled (between the existing southern end of the 

seawall on Wallops Island and 3.2 km [2 mi] south of the southern end of the seawall). 

Table 28: Erosion Volumes South of Existing Seawall 

Minimum1 Average Maximum 

1 year 55,000 m3

 

(72,000 yd3

) 

73,000 m3

 

(96,000 yd3

) 

92,000 m3

 

(120,000 yd3

) 

2 years 116,000 m3

 

(152,000 yd3

) 

143,000 m3

 

(187,000 yd3

) 

170,000 m3

 

(223,000 yd3

) 

10 years 617,000 m3

 

(807,000 yd3

) 

680,000 m3

 

(889,000 yd3

) 

742,000 m3

 

(970,000 yd3

) 1

The minimum and maximum values represent the 95 percent confidence interval
Environmental Consequences 

218 

Continual loss of the shoreline south of the seawall would result in critical infrastructure on 

Wallops Island remaining at-risk from storm damages. Because the central portion of Wallops 

Island does not currently contain a beach, the no further erosion would occur but the seawall 

would be exposed to on-going storms and would need periodic maintenance and repair. The 

northern part of Assawoman would continue to experience erosion. 

Existing and previous structures, such as groins and the seawall, have been implemented to 

reduce shoreline retreat on Wallops Island and have disturbed the natural sediment transport 

processes. These structures limited shoreline retreat, but have also resulted in the complete 

erosion of the beach seaward of the seawall and prevented long-term natural maintenance of the 

gently sloping nearshore and beach systems that would have existed under natural conditions. 

These structures have also prevented overwash processes from occurring, which serve to 

maintain beach and dune systems. Continuing to prevent the beach and dune system from 

responding to changing conditions would likely result in the loss of surface area on the landward 

side of Wallops Island, resulting in island narrowing as the sea level rises, although the timescale 

over which this would occur is uncertain. 

As discussed in the existing conditions of Chapter 3, the shoreline in the vicinity of Wallops 

Island is not in a state of static equilibrium, and based on past trends of sediment transport and 

erosion in the region, it is reasonable to assume that substantial changes would continue to occur. 

The changes that would occur under the No Action Alternative would be the same as those 

described for the existing conditions in Section 3.1.4.3. 

Effects of Sea-Level Rise

For coastal engineering projects, including the SRIPP, prediction of sea-level rise is a necessary 

component of the project design. The anticipated sea-level rise at Wallops Island and 

surrounding areas was calculated using USACE guidelines (USACE, 2009d). The guidelines 

recommend that projects take into account three different methods to include the possibility of 

sea-level rise: 1) adaptive management, which allows for future modifications to the project after 

the effects of sea-level rise can be confirmed; 2) facilitating future modifications, which means 

that projects will be designed for the current sea level, but are still adaptable to future rises; and 

3) design for the future, which means that the current project is also designed based on an 

estimate of future sea levels (NRC, 1987). 

Available data on global and relative MSL trends, the effect of existing infrastructure, LiDARmapped topography, and computer modeling were all examined. These data were used to 

calculate the range of water level rise in the SRIPP project area, which is estimated to be 

between 0.25 m (0.84 ft) and 0.78 m (2.53 ft) during the 50-year life span of the SRIPP 

(USACE, 2010a). This range of sea-level rise values determined by USACE is attributed to the 

low and high scenarios from the three plausible variations in eustatic sea level to the year 2100 

(NRC, 1987). See Appendix A for more detailed information on the methodology the USACE 

used to calculate sea-level rise values. 

Sea-level rise is anticipated to increase the vulnerability of Wallops Island shoreline to storms by 

contributing to shoreline erosion. When a beach area is eroded, it no longer functions as 

effectively in protecting inland areas from the waves and flooding associated with storms. In 

their 1991 report to Congress, FEMA estimated that U.S. Coastal Zones would experience a 36-

58 percent increase in annual damages for a 0.3 m (1 ft) rise in sea level, and a 102-200 percent 

increase for a 0.9 m (3 ft) rise (FEMA, 1991). In addition, according to a study by Komar and 
Environmental Consequences 

 219 

Allan (2008), wave height has gradually increased over a 30-year period, which is believed to be 

associated with the rise in frequency and intensification of hurricanes due to climate change. 

Therefore, the Wallops Island shoreline will be even more acutely affected by wave overtopping 

and flooding associated with storm events. 

Sea-level rise will likely reduce the rate of southwesterly growth of Fishing Point and the 

accretion on the north end of Wallops Island (USACE, 2010a). It may cause any shoreline 

breaches in the Tom’s Cove area to be more likely and more frequent. The shoreline that is 

“fixed” by the seawall would become increasingly underwater due to rising sea levels. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Sand Placement and Seawall Extension 

Implementation of the beach fill component would result in significant changes to the Wallops 

Island shoreline. The initial beach fill would extend the existing shoreline a total distance of 73 

m (240 ft) (Figure 16) to the underwater seaward extent of the fill, 21 m (70 ft) of which would 

be the aboveground beach. The initial beach fill would create a beach profile with a 1.8-m-high 

(6-ft-high) berm and a 4.3-m-high (14-ft-high) dune at the seawall (Figure 16). Because there is 

no beach along the 6.0-km (3.7-mi) fill area proposed under the SRIPP, the Proposed Action 

would result in elevating the sediments along the Wallops Island shoreline between the northern 

end of the rock seawall and the southern end of the existing geotextile tubes. The renourishment 

fills would restore the shoreline to the same position that would exist after the initial fill is 

completed. 

Beach nourishment would be done so that the beach is restored to a comparable sediment type (a 

similar percentage of sand, silt, and clay), grain size, and color as the existing beach material. 

Between renourishment cycles, beach fill sand would erode as part of the dynamic nature of the 

ocean environment. The frequency of beach renourishment cycles may vary depending on the 

severity and frequency of storm events. 

Because of the height of the dune and seawall, the beach fill and seawall extension would 

continue to prevent overwash processes from occurring on Wallops Island, which would likely 

result in the loss of surface area on the landward side of Wallops Island and island narrowing as 

the sea level rises, although the timescale over which this would occur is uncertain. 

Construction activities related to the seawall extension would disturb surface sediments on the 

beach. Construction activities would cause erosion in the short-term in the areas where heavy 

equipment is operating on the beach. Other adverse impacts on sediments include potential spills 

or leaks of pollutants from vehicles. BMPs including vehicle and equipment fueling and spill 

prevention and control would be implemented to reduce potential impacts on soils and sediments 

during excavation, construction, and beach fill work. 

The seawall extension would serve as a last line of defense to protect critical infrastructure if the 

fill placed seaward of the seawall were to be eroded. The existing seawall and proposed 

extension would result in a “fixed” shoreline if the sand seaward of it were to completely erode. 

Impacts on the Shoreline from Seawall Extension

The fact that sand behind the seawall extension would be retained instead of eroded (erosion in 

the area of the seawall extension would occur under No Action Alternative) would lead to the 

potential to exacerbate the erosion on the adjacent shoreline south of the extension. The USACE 
Environmental Consequences 

220 

conducted modeling (methodology discussed under the No Action Alternative of this section) to 

estimate the potential effects of the seawall extension on the 3.2 km (2 mi) stretch of shoreline 

south of the existing seawall during the period of time after the extension is constructed and 

before the beach fill occurs (i.e., SRIPP Years 1 and 2). The USACE also modeled the erosion of 

this area 10 years after construction of the extension assuming no beach fill were to occur, to 

estimate potential impacts from a worst-case scenario. 

NASA is committed to the implementation schedule shown in Table 9 with the seawall 

construction occurring in Year 1 and the initial beach fill starting in Year 2. However, the 

modeling also looked at the effect of delays in implementation of the beach fill after a seawall 

extension was constructed. While any delay is unlikely, if one were to occur, it would most 

likely mean that there was a 2-year time period between seawall extension construction and 

beach fill placement. Longer delays, which would be a worst-case scenario, were assessed as a 

10-year period between seawall construction and beach fill placement. Therefore, the modeling 

looked at 1-year, 2-year, and 10-year shoreline impacts. 

The USACE modeling predicted that after construction of the 1,400-m (4,600-ft) seawall 

extension, between 3.0 m (9.7 ft) and 4.2 m (13.7 ft) per year of the shoreline at Assawoman 

Inlet would be eroded over a 10-year period assuming no beach fill were to occur (Appendix A). 

Table 29 shows that the average shoreline change rate (negative values indicate erosion) at 

Assawoman Inlet attributed to construction of the seawall would be less than the variability in 

the change rate caused by yearly changes in the wave climate; stormy years are expected to cause 

greater shoreline change than the seawall extension in years of normal waves. It is expected that 

any negative impacts would be mitigated following beach fill placement. 

Table 29: Average Shoreline Change Rate at Assawoman Inlet 

Total Shoreline Change Rate 

meters (feet)/year 

Shoreline Change Rate Attributed 

to Seawall Construction 

meters (feet)/year 

 Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum

No Seawall Extension 

(No Action Alternative) 

-2.8 

(-9.3) 

-3.1 

(-10.3) 

-3.4 

(-11.3) n/a n/a n/a 

Seawall Extension -3.0 

(-9.7) 

-3.6 

(-11.7) 

-4.2 

(-13.7) 

-0.03 

(-0.1) 

-0.4 

(-1.4) 

-0.8 

(-2.7) 

Table 30 shows results of USACE GENESIS modeling that estimated volumes of erosion within 

an area 3.2 km (2 mi) south of the existing seawall in one year, two years, and 10 years after 

construction of the 1,400 m (4,600 ft) seawall extension; the 95 percent confidence limits are 

shown along with the average erosion volumes. The values shown in Table 30 are not gross or 

net sediment transport rates, rather they represent the amount of sediment eroded, or lost, within 

the geographic region modeled (between the existing southern end of the seawall on Wallops 

Island and 3.2 km [2 mi] south of the southern end of the seawall). The No Action Alternative is 

provided in Table 30 for comparison. 
Environmental Consequences 

 221 

Table 30: Erosion Volumes South of Existing Seawall 

Proposed Action 

Alternatives

No Action 

Alternative 

1 year 

Minimum1

 50,000 m3 

(66,000 yd3

) 

55,000 m3

 

(72,000 yd3

) 

Average 68,000 m3 

(89,000 yd3

) 

73,000 m3

 

(96,000 yd3

) 

Maximum 86,000 m3 

(113,000 yd3

) 

92,000 m3

 

(120,000 yd3

) 

2 years 

Minimum 102,000 m3

 

(134,000 yd3

) 

116,000 m3

 

(152,000 yd3

) 

Average 126,000 m3 

(165,000 yd3

) 

143,000 m3

 

(187,000 yd3

) 

Maximum 151,000 m3 

(197,000 yd3

) 

170,000 m3

 

(223,000 yd3

) 

10 years2

Minimum 452,000 m3

 

(591,000 yd3

) 

617,000 m3

 

(807,000 yd3

) 

Average 493,000 m3 

(645,000 yd3

) 

680,000 m3

 

(889,000 yd3

) 

Maximum 534,000 m3 

(699,000 yd3

) 

742,000 m3

 

(970,000 yd3

) 1

The minimum and maximum values represent the 95 percent confidence interval 

2

Assumes no beach fill would occur to estimate potential impacts of a worst-case scenario 

Figure 42 shows model predictions of shoreline positions for the portion of the GENESIS grid 

that is south of the existing seawall, a distance of about 3.2 km (2 mi). Each shoreline is an 

average of the results of 20 model runs that were driven with the 20 different 4-year wave blocks 

discussed in Chapter 3. To minimize clutter, the 95 percent confidence interval shorelines are not 

included in these figures. 
Environmental Consequences 

222 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Figure 42: Shoreline Positions in Response to Seawall Extension without Beach Fill 

During this interim period before the beach fill is completed (SRIPP Year 1 and part of Year 2), 

direct short-term adverse impacts on the Wallops Island and Assawoman Island shorelines would 

occur from construction of the seawall extension. Construction of the seawall extension would 

prevent erosion of sand on its landward side, thereby resulting in lower erosion volumes when 

compared to the No Action Alternative (Table 30). However, the seawall extension would reduce 

the amount of sand eroding from Wallops Island and thereby added into the longshore sediment 

transport system. 

Once the beach fill is completed, some of the beach fill material would pass to the south, which 

would help alleviate the erosion problem on Assawoman Island. The majority is expected to pass 

to the north and accumulate on the north end of Wallops Island. 

Therefore, the short-term adverse impacts during Year 1 would be mitigated in the long-term and 

beneficial impacts on Wallops Island, Assawoman Island, and potentially other islands to the 

south would occur from the addition of sand to the longshore sediment transport system. 

Impacts on the Shoreline from Beach Fill

Figure 43 shows the estimated shoreline positions from at Year 2 to Year 14. Though it is 

intended that renourishment should occur at the end of Year 5, the USACE analysis was carried 

out to Year 14 without renourishment to help determine if adverse impacts occur to adjacent 

beaches if renourishment intervals are postponed or cancelled. Figure 43 shows that by Year 4, 
Environmental Consequences 

 223 

in many places the shoreline has retreated to near the minimum shoreline for storm damage 

protection, and thus, this is intended to be shortly before renourishment. By Year 12, the entire 

initial fill has been removed from the south end of the project; however, by Year 14, there is still 

fill in front of the seawall. 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Figure 43: Shoreline Positions over Time for Alternative One 

In summary, under Alternative One, the rate of erosion on the southern end of Wallops Island 

and the northern end of Assawoman Island would be reduced due to additional sand available for 

transport after beach fill is completed. Because the nodal zone of longshore sediment transport is 

located in the vicinity of the southern end of Wallops Island, in any given year, sediment that is 

placed on the beach would be dislodged and transported south, potentially being deposited on 

Assawoman Island and other barrier islands to the south. However, due to the uncertainty of the 

nodal zone, the sediment that is placed on the beach could also be transported primarily north in 

any given year. 

Over the lifetime of the SRIPP, the seawall extension and beach fill would have long-term direct 

beneficial impacts on geology and the Wallops Island shoreline by mitigating the current rate of 

shoreline retreat. Continued beach nourishment would add to this benefit by providing ongoing 

mitigation of shoreline retreat. 

Growth of the Southern Tip of Fishing Point

The SRIPP would not affect the sediment transport processes that will continue to cause changes 

at Fishing Point. The influx of sediment supply from beach fill operations may affect inlet 

Location of 

Assawoman 

Inlet (closed)

South end of 

existing seawall
Environmental Consequences 

224 

dynamics, which in turn may affect sediment transport processes along the westward tip of 

Fishing Point. The growth of the southern tip of Fishing Point would be the same as predicted for 

existing conditions (discussed under Section 3.1.4.3). 

Narrowing of the Tom’s Cove Isthmus

The SRIPP would not affect the sediment transport processes that will continue to create the 

changes at Tom’s Cove Isthmus. The isthmus separating Tom’s Cove from the Atlantic Ocean is 

narrowing primarily because the Atlantic Ocean shoreline is eroding. This is expected to 

continue whether offshore shoals proposed under the SRIPP are dredged or not. The USACE 

modeling results indicated that mining either Unnamed Shoal A or B would not produce 

significant changes compared with the current conditions. Furthermore, dredging Unnamed 

Shoal A (the preferred source for the initial fill) would produce the fewest changes in the Tom’s 

Cove area. The changes and impacts on Tom’s Cove Isthmus would be the same as those 

predicted for the existing conditions (discussed under Section 3.1.4.3). 

Changes in Wallops Island Shoreline Orientation and Chincoteague Inlet Migration

The northern end of Wallops Island is currently accreting rapidly due to sediment being 

delivered there from two directions: 1) north along the Wallops Island shoreline, and 2) by the 

westward drift of Chincoteague Inlet ebb shoals. Over the short term, sediment may be stored in 

swash bars, the ebb tidal delta, or the ebb/flood tidal ramp. Over the long term, it is probable that 

the sediment will be carried into Chincoteague Inlet by tidal currents and sequestered in flood 

shoals. This mechanism will act to slow down the rate of sediment accumulation that would 

otherwise occur on northern Wallops Island. 

With implementation of the SRIPP, the northern end of Wallops Island would continue to 

accrete, and would likely accrete at a faster rate than under existing conditions due to the 

presence of additional sand in the longshore sediment transport system from the beach fill. 

The sediment accumulation on north Wallops Island may tend to push Chincoteague Inlet to the 

east, which appears to already be occurring as documented on recent aerial photographs of the 

western tip of Assateague Island. However, future Chincoteague Inlet locations can be strongly 

affected by USACE dredging decisions, and whether attempts are made to maintain the inlet 

channel in a fixed location or to dredge whatever is found to be the current channel location. The 

sediment accumulation on north Wallops Island is changing the current north-south shoreline 

orientation to one that is much more east-west. The amount of material proposed to be mined 

from the north end of Wallops Island is intended to be equal to the excess that is being deposited 

there. This is expected to help stabilize the location of Chincoteague Inlet and is not expected to 

provide a force that helps shift the inlet to the west. While it is recognized that inlets are dynamic 

features, removal of this sand is expected to (if anything) help stabilize the inlet. 

Effects of Sea-Level Rise

Impacts on Fishing Point and the accretion on the north end of Wallops Island and the Tom’s 

Cove area due to sea-level rise would be the same as those described under the No Action 

Alternative. The SRIPP would help to protect Wallops Island infrastructure from the effects of 

sea-level rise by providing additional shoreline and a newly constructed 4.3-m-high (14-ft-high) 

dune along the proposed beach fill. The USACE accounted for sea-level rise in this project by 

including an additional amount of material at each renourishment event that would raise the 

entire fill profile by an amount equal to the projected amount of sea-level rise (USACE, 2010a). 

This additional volume is shown on Figure 16 in blue. See the discussion under the No Action 
Environmental Consequences 

 225 

Alternative within this section [Section 4.2.2.1] for more information on the methodology and 

predicted rates used by USACE for the characterization of sea-level rise. 

Dredging Offshore Borrow Sites 

Impacts on the Proposed Shoals

Impacts on Unnamed Shoal A and Unnamed Shoal B are discussed in Section 4.2.2.2, Offshore 

Sand Shoals, below. 

Impacts on Assateague Island

As material is removed from a shoal and the water depth changes, the resulting change in wave 

refraction can significantly affect the longshore sediment transport on adjacent beaches. The 

USACE followed MMS (2001) guidelines to model the potential impacts on the Assateague 

Island shoreline through the use of STWAVE (STeady-state spectral WAVE model) and the 

CERC (Coastal Engineering Research Center) sediment transport formula (USACE, 2010a). 

STWAVE is a wave refraction model used to transform representative offshore waves to a nearbreaking depth. The refracted wave data were then used in the CERC formula to calculate 

sediment transport rates along the shoreline (within individual grid points). Bathymetry data used 

in the STWAVE model were obtained from the National Ocean Survey hydrographic surveys 

that are available in electronic format from the Geophysical Data System (version 4.0) developed 

by the National Geophysical Data Center. Bathymetric surveys collected in the 1960s through 

the 1990s were used where available, with earlier survey data used to fill gaps in the more recent 

bathymetry coverage. 

The results of the modeling effort were used to compare existing conditions to post-dredging 

conditions and determine if a significant change in longshore sediment transport rates, and thus 

potential impacts on the Assateague Island shoreline, would occur. A summary of the USACE 

modeling effort and results are discussed below. 

The borrow sites would be dredged several times to supply material for the initial beach 

nourishment and each of the renourishment cycles. The greatest potential for change in wave 

refraction would occur once the entire volume was removed; therefore, wave refraction using the 

existing bathymetry was modeled and then wave refraction with the entire volume removed from 

the shoal was modeled. 

Material can be removed from the borrow site in variety of ways. For STWAVE modeling, two 

material removal techniques were chosen: 

1. The “Plane Method” involving removal of the highest points within a borrow site down 

to an elevation that provided an adequate volume of material. This method would have 

the effect of turning a rounded mound of sediment into one or more flat areas. 

2. The “Contour Method,” in which the same depth of material would be removed from all 

points within the borrow site. This would have the effect of dropping the contour 

everywhere within the borrow site by a constant amount. 

The Plane Method is assumed to be the one that would have the greatest shoreline impacts, and 

the Contour Method is assumed to be moderately close to what might reasonably be used by a 

dredging contractor. Although the quantity of sand proposed for removal at one time (initial fill 

or renourishment fill) would not likely exceed 2.4 million m3

 (3.2 million yd3), the modeling was 

performed for removal of the entire 50-year SRIPP lifespan sand placement volume (i.e., 
Environmental Consequences 

226 

7,646,000 m3 [10,000,000 yd3] for Alternative One) from the 5.2 km2 (2 mi2) study area as a 

conservative approach. The effects of these two methods on Unnamed Shoal A and Unnamed 

Shoal B are shown on Figures 44 and 45. 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Figure 44: Unnamed Shoal A: Plane and Contour Dredge Method Profiles 
Environmental Consequences 

 227 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Figure 45: Unnamed Shoal B: Plane and Contour Dredge Method Profiles 

The USACE modeling was based on site-specific wave characteristics by considering temporal 

(inter-annual) and spatial variability in wave conditions. According to MMS (2001), “the 

methodology used to evaluate borrow site impacts provides a reliable quantitative technique for 

developing acceptable site-specific limits associated with changes in sediment transport 

potential.” 

The results of the USACE modeling effort are presented as numerical values that correspond to 

the change in sediment transport potential in response to dredging (see Appendix A [USACE, 

2010a] for modeling results). The results are compared with a pre-determined threshold value to 

determine whether or not the difference in longshore sediment transport along the Assateague 

shoreline would be directly attributable to dredging. If model results are larger than the predetermined threshold value, then shoreline change directly attributable to the SRIPP would likely 

occur, and would therefore be considered a significant impact (MMS, 2001). Values less than the 

threshold only indicate that dredging for the SRIPP cannot be distinguished from naturally 

occurring longshore sediment transport, and therefore the SRIPP would not result in significant 

impacts on the Assateague Island shoreline. 

The results of the sediment transport modeling under the Plane Methods and Contour Methods 

for dredging of both Unnamed Shoal A and Unnamed Shoal B showed that the pre-determined 

threshold value is not crossed anywhere along the Assateague shoreline. Therefore, the proposed 

excavation depths (which correlate with sediment volumes) under both dredging scenarios would 

be acceptable. 

Because the natural variability in shoreline changes along the coast, certain portions of the 

Assateague Island shoreline will be more tolerant of alterations to the wave climate and 
Environmental Consequences 

228 

associated sediment transport patterns. Because the Tom’s Cove Isthmus is a naturally 

vulnerable area to changes in longshore sediment transport (as described under shoreline change 

of the No Action Alternative), if any minor shoreline changes were to occur, they would likely 

be seen in this area of Assateague Island. Because Chincoteague Shoal is large and shallow, it 

greatly modifies the nearshore wave climate, and helps to reduce the shoreline impacts of 

dredging activities that would occur farther seaward of Chincoteague Shoal on either of the two 

shoals proposed as SRIPP borrow sites. The modeling results showed that when comparing 

Unnamed Shoal A with Unnamed Shoal B, no significant difference in the shoreline impacts 

from the dredging of either site exist. 

Use of North Wallops Island as Borrow Site 

The removal of sand from the north end of Wallops Island would lower topography within the 

footprint of the excavated areas. Because the accretion area on the north end of Wallops Island is 

expected to grow in response to the initial and renourishment beach fills, the impacts from 

sediment removal at the north end of Wallops Island would be mitigated by the re-deposition of 

sediment that would come from the addition of new sand on the beach. Therefore, while the use 

of the north Wallops Island beach as a sand source would result in direct, short-term adverse 

impacts on the shoreline in the period of a few months to years after excavation activities, in the 

long-term (i.e., lifetime of the SRIPP), use of this area is not anticipated to result in significant 

changes to the shoreline. Disturbance to surface sediments outside of the excavation areas would 

also result from activities associated with the movement and transfer of excavated sediments 

from the north end of Wallops Island to the areas designated for sand placement. 

The accumulation of material at the north end of Wallops Island from both the south (northward 

transport along Wallops Island) and east (westward transport across Chincoteague ebb shoal) is 

causing Chincoteague Inlet to migrate to the east. The amount of material proposed for removal 

from the north end of Wallops Island would be similar to the excess that is being deposited, 

which is expected to help stabilize the location of Chincoteague Inlet and is not expected to 

provide a force that helps shift the inlet to the west. While it is recognized that inlets are dynamic 

features, removal of this sand is expected to, if anything, help stabilize the inlet. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative Two, seawall construction, initial beach fill, and renourishment activities 

would be the same as Alternative One; however, a slightly smaller volume of fill would be 

placed on the beach during both initial fill and renourishment cycles (see Table 7). The USACE 

accounted for sea-level rise under Alternative Two by including an additional amount of material 

at each renourishment event that would raise the entire fill profile by an amount equal to the 

projected amount of sea-level rise (USACE, 2010a). The effects of sea-level rise on Wallops 

Island would be the same as described under Alternative One. 

Approximately 2/3 of the proposed groin structure (80 m [265 ft]) would be installed within the 

beach once the fill has been placed. The groin would be specifically designed to let some sand 

pass through the structure and was modeled as such. If there were no beach fill, the groin would 

exacerbate the downdrift erosion on Assawoman Island; however, because the SRIPP includes a 

beach fill component, overall, more sand would be moving onto the north end of Assawoman 

Island than is occurring at present. According to the modeling results, the combination of the 

groin with beach fill would result in accretion of sand on the north end of Assawoman Island. 
Environmental Consequences 

 229 

The greatest amount of erosion and accretion would occur immediately adjacent to the groin and 

would exponentially decrease with distance from the groin. 

Activities related to groin construction would disturb surface sediments on the beach, but these 

impacts would be temporary and minor. In the long-term, the groin would help to retain sand on 

the Wallops Island shoreline so that erosion and sediment transport from Wallops Island would 

be reduced and the beach created by the SRIPP would stay in place longer than under Alternative 

One. NASA would implement the same types of mitigation measures as described for seawall 

construction under Alternative One. 

Figure 46 shows the estimated shoreline positions from Year 2 to Year 14. Though it is intended 

that renourishment should occur at the end of Year 5, the USACE analysis was carried out to 

Year 14 without renourishment to help determine if adverse impacts occur to adjacent beaches if 

the renourishment intervals are postponed or cancelled. Figure 46 shows that by Year 4, in many 

places the shoreline has retreated to near the minimum shoreline for storm damage protection, 

and thus, this is intended to be shortly before renourishment. By Year 12, the entire initial fill has 

been removed from the south end of the project; however, by Year 14, there is still sediment in 

front of the seawall. 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Figure 46: Shoreline Positions over Time for Alternative Two 

Location of 

Assawoman 

Inlet (closed)

South end of 

existing seawall

Project North End 

Project South 

End (Groin)
Environmental Consequences 

230 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative Three, seawall construction, initial beach fill and renourishment activities 

would be the same as Alternative One; however, a slightly smaller volume of fill would be 

placed on the beach during both initial fill and the renourishment cycles (see Table 7). The 

USACE accounted for sea-level rise under Alternative Three by including an additional amount 

of material at each renourishment event that would raise the entire fill profile by an amount equal 

to the projected amount of sea-level rise (USACE, 2010a). The effects of sea-level rise on 

Wallops Island would be the same as described under Alternative One. 

The construction of a nearshore breakwater structure would result in a build-up of sediment 

along the shoreline perpendicular to the breakwater (Figure 47). Temporary and minor adverse 

effects on sediments are anticipated in the immediate vicinity of the breakwater during the 

construction period. 

The breakwater would be specifically designed to let some sand pass through the structure and 

was modeled as such. If there were no beach fill, the breakwater would exacerbate the downdrift 

erosion on Assawoman Island; however, because the SRIPP includes a beach fill component, 

overall, more sand would be moving onto the north end of Assawoman Island than is occurring 

at present. According to the modeling results, the combination of the breakwater with beach fill 

would result in accretion of sand on the north end of Assawoman Island. The greatest amount of 

erosion and accretion would occur immediately adjacent to the breakwater and would 

exponentially decrease with distance from the breakwater. 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Figure 47: Shoreline Positions over Time for Alternative Three 

Location of 

Assawoman 

Inlet (closed)

South end of 

existing seawall

Project North End 

Project South End 

(Breakwater)
Environmental Consequences 

 231 

4.2.2.2 Offshore Sand Shoals 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented. Maintenance and 

emergency repairs to structures and the seawall would continue as necessary, but those activities 

would not involve work in open water. Therefore, no impacts on the geology or sediments of the 

offshore sand shoals would occur. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative One, dredging activities would result in changes to the volume, shape, and 

elevation of the sediments at the proposed borrow sites. Dredging at the proposed borrow sites 

would be conducted in a manner that is generally consistent with the recommendations made in 

two recent MMS publications examining the dredging of offshore shoals in the mid-Atlantic 

(CSA International, Inc. et al., 2009; Dibajnia and Nairn, in press). These recommendations 

include; targeting depocenters for extraction, avoiding active erosional areas, shallow dredging 

over large areas rather than deep pits, dredging shoals in less than 30 m of water, and avoiding 

longitudinal dredging over entire length of shoal. NASA’s EFH consultation with NMFS 

contains more detail about proposed dredging methods (Appendix J). 

As described in Section 2.5.7.2, NASA would target specific zones of the shoals for dredging to 

the extent practicable. NASA estimates that the 5.2 km2

 (2 mi2) study area covers approximately 

70 percent of the total surface area of Unnamed Shoal A. The 5.2 km2

 (2 mi2) study area covers 

approximately 33 percent of Shoal B. Shoal volumes are shown in Table 31. For the initial fill 

volume Zone A-1 (Figure 18) would be targeted and would comprise approximately 2.1 km2 (0.8 

mi2) or 30 percent of Shoal A. Zone A-2, which would only be utilized in an off-nominal 

condition for initial fill, covers approximately 1.6 km2 (0.6 mi2), or approximately 22 percent of 

Shoal A. Zones B-1 and B-2, which would be considered for use during renourishment, are 

approximately 2.2 km2 (0.9 mi2) and 1.8 km2 (0.7 mi2), respectively. 

Roughly 20 percent of the Shoal A’s total volume would be removed if only Shoal A was used to 

obtain fill material over the lifetime of the SRIPP. Because Unnamed Shoal A would be used for 

the initial fill, Unnamed Shoal B would have less total volume removed over the SRIPP lifetime. 

Therefore, roughly 7 percent of Shoal B’s volume would be removed if it was used to obtain the 

entire SRIPP renourishment volumes. Therefore, the SRIPP would result in direct, long-term 

adverse impacts on the volumes of sand at either of the proposed shoals. Removal of shoal 

sediments would result in long-term adverse impacts on site-specific and regional geology. 

Table 31: Offshore Borrow Site Impacts 

Borrow Area Area Impacted by 

Initial Fill Only1

Area Impacted over 

Lifetime of SRIPP2 

Estimated Total 

Shoal Volume 

Maximum Volume That 

Could Be Removed Over 

SRIPP Lifetime 

Unnamed 

Shoal A 

210 ha 

(515 ac) 

520 ha 

(1,280 ac) 

52 million m3 

(68 million yd3

) 

9,990,000 m3

 

(13,066,250 yd3

) 

Unnamed 

Shoal B3

0 ha 

(0 ac) 

520 ha 

(1,280 ac) 

100 million m3

 

(132 million yd3

) 

6,933,000 m3

 

(9,067,500 yd3

) 1

Dredging for initial fill is targeting a 0.8 mi2 area of Shoal A, but may extend over a greater area of shoal. See Figure 18 or Appendix J 

for more detail. 

2 The total area that may be dredged over the lifetime of the SRIPP. 

3

Because Unnamed Shoal A would be used for the initial fill (dredge volume is 3,057,500 m3 [3,998,750 yd3]), the maximum volume 

represents the amount of sand required for the nine renourishment cycles. 
Environmental Consequences 

232 

In addition, the bottom substrate at and near either of the borrow sites may be modified in several 

ways. A change in the hydrological regime as a consequence of altered bathymetry may result in 

a change of depositional patterns at the site, and therefore a change in sediment grain size. 

Exposure of the underlying sedimentary units may also change the depositional patterns by 

exposing material that has different textural and compositional properties than the existing 

bottom substrate. 

Bottom substrate at a distance from the borrow site may also be modified by the deposition of 

fine-grained sediments in benthic and surface plumes generated by dredging activities. 

Sediments contained within plumes produced from the disturbance and resuspension of bottom 

sediments (benthic plume), and from discharges of the dredging vessel and equipment (surface 

plume), would settle out from the water column and be deposited at a distance from the dredge 

site. The deposition of resuspended sediments may result in a layer of sediment that differs from 

the existing substrate. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

For the seawall construction, initial sand placement, and renourishment activities, impacts would 

be the same as those described under Alternative One. However, the volume of sand needed for 

renourishment activities would be less, because construction of a groin would reduce shoreline 

erosion rates locally. Construction of a groin would result in site-specific changes to the geology 

of the nearshore environment immediately east of Wallops Island due to the potential changes in 

the shoreline and longshore sediment transport (discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.3.4 

respectively). The changes would be long-term, although they could be reversed if the groin was 

later removed. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

For the seawall construction, initial sand placement, and renourishment activities, impacts would 

be the same as those described under Alternative One. However, the volume of sand needed for 

renourishment activities would be less, because construction of a nearshore breakwater would 

reduce shoreline erosion rates locally. Construction of a breakwater would result in site-specific 

changes to the geology of the nearshore environment immediately east of Wallops Island due to 

the potential changes in the shoreline and longshore sediment transport (discussed in Sections 

4.2.2.1 and 4.2.3.4 respectively). The changes would be long-term, although they could be 

reversed if the breakwater was later removed. 

4.2.3 Physical Oceanography and Coastal Processes 

4.2.3.1 Tides 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

activities and emergency repairs would occur at unknown locations on Wallops Island as 

necessary. The No Action Alternative would not result in any changes to tides in the project area. 

Proposed Action Alternatives

The range of the tides would not be altered by SRIPP activities under any of the Proposed Action 

Alternatives. 
Environmental Consequences 

 233 

4.2.3.2 Waves 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

activities and emergency repairs would occur at unknown locations on Wallops Island as 

necessary. Without the construction of the seawall extension and the placement of beach fill, the 

zone of breaking waves would encroach farther inland and closer to WFF infrastructure and 

assets over time. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

As waves move shoreward from deeper water and propagate over the offshore dredged area, the 

height, direction, and other characteristics of the waves would change. A reduction in wave 

height due to deeper water depths within the borrow area is expected, especially with larger, 

longer period waves. The changes in wave characteristics due to dredging can significantly 

increase or decrease the transport of sand along the shoreline, resulting in localized erosion and 

accretion. Because wave conditions and shoreline change are intricately linked, Section 4.2.2.1 

describes the potential effects on the shorelines as a result of changing the wave conditions by 

dredging the entire volume of sand from either of the shoals. Modeling results showed that when 

comparing Unnamed Shoal A with Unnamed Shoal B, there would be no significant difference 

in the wave climatology from the dredging of either site. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on waves from offshore dredging under Alternative Two would be the 

same for Alternative One. The construction of a groin would have localized impacts on the wave 

climate in the project area by reducing wave energy on the opposite side of where the waves 

strike the groin. The groin would trap sand being transported along the shoreline as shown in 

Figure 7. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on waves from offshore dredging under Alternative Three would be the 

same for Alternative One. The construction of an offshore detached breakwater would reduce 

wave energy in the area between the breakwater and the shoreline resulting in sediment 

deposition on the beach as shown in Figure 8. 

4.2.3.3 Currents 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

activities and emergency repairs would occur at unknown locations on Wallops Island as 

necessary. With the absence of in-water activity, there would be no impact on currents in the 

project area. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Increasing the shoal depth with dredging would lead to decreased current velocity, sediment 

convergence, and infilling at the shoal. Although local current velocities immediately 

downstream of dredged areas may temporarily change, the magnitude of change and the size of 

the footprint are expected to be relatively small. Alterations of near-bed currents may result in 
Environmental Consequences 

234 

local and short-lived changes in sediment transport pathways in the immediate vicinity of the 

borrow areas, but the pathways are expected to return to pre-dredging conditions following 

infilling (Byrnes et al., 2003). Infilling rates and sediment deposited in borrow depressions are 

expected to reflect natural variations, including storm characteristics and source material.

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on currents from offshore dredging as discussed under Alternative One 

would be the same for Alternative Two. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on currents from offshore dredging as discussed under Alternative One 

would be the same for Alternative Three. 

4.2.3.4 Longshore Sediment Transport 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

activities and emergency repairs would occur at unknown locations on Wallops Island as 

necessary. With the absence of in-water activity, there would be no project related impacts to 

longshore sediment transport in the project area. 

Nevertheless, as USACE (2010a) reported, the shoreline in the vicinity of Wallops Island is not 

in a state of static equilibrium, and it is not unreasonable to assume that substantial changes 

would continue to occur on decadal time scales, as compared with the slower time scales of more 

typical beaches. Fishing Point at the southern tip of Assateague Island is continuing to grow to 

the southwest at a rate of approximately 50 m (150 ft) per year. If this trend continues over the 

next 50 years, the tip will grow to the southwest by about 2.3 km (1.5 mi). This will more 

strongly shelter the Wallops Island shoreline from ocean waves approaching from the northeast, 

and will shift the transport divergent nodal zone which is currently on the north end of 

Assawoman Island to the south by roughly the same distance. 

Longshore gross and net sediment transport rates for existing conditions are shown on Figures 28 

and 29 in Section 3.1.5.4. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Sand Placement and Seawall Extension 

Placement of fill on the beach would add additional sand to the nearshore system. In comparing 

the net sediment transport rates modeled by the USACE (Appendix A) just prior to 

renourishment under Alternative One (Year 4 on Figure 48) to the No Action Alternative 

(existing conditions—see Figure 29), it is seen that the nodal point is shifted approximately 1.5 

km (1 mi) to the north of its present estimated location and that maximum transport rates 

substantially exceed present conditions. 
Environmental Consequences 

 235 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Figure 48: Net Sediment Transport Rates over Time for Alternative One 

Figure 48 shows how net transport rates vary from SRIPP Year 2 (partial beach fill) through 

Year 14. Though it is intended that renourishment should occur at the end of Year 5, the USACE 

analysis was carried out to Year 14 without renourishment to help determine if adverse impacts 

would occur on adjacent beaches if renourishment intervals are postponed or cancelled. Figure 

48 shows that substantial accretion would occur adjacent to both the north and south ends of the 

project through Year 2. Figure 49 shows the projected Year 5 shoreline positions with 95 percent 

confidence limits. At the south end of the project, over time, the net transport approaches a 

constant rate that is in excess of the current conditions. Accretion would occur at the north end of 

the project though the rate of accretion (without renourishment) decreases over time. Gross 

sediment transport rates were higher than for existing conditions, but after beach fill, varied little 

year to year (USACE, 2010a). 

South end 

of existing 

seawall

North end of 

existing 

seawall

Assawoman 

Inlet (closed)

Approximate 

location of 

nodal point 

for existing 

conditions 

Approximate 

location of 

nodal point for 

Alternative One

Transport Direction 

<North 0 South>

Green lines represent 

approximate boundary of 

nodal zone in Year 5
Environmental Consequences 

236 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Figure 49: Shoreline Position in Year 5 for Alternative One 

With implementation of the SRIPP, long-term beneficial direct impacts would occur on the 

longshore sediment transport system in the vicinity of Wallops Island due to the addition of sand 

from the beach fill. 

Dredging Offshore Shoals 

Longshore sediment transport within the project area is largely controlled by coastal 

geomorphology such as the current location and growth of Fishing Point and the overall wave 

climate of the region. As discussed in Section 4.2.2.1, no significant changes to the longshore 

sediment transport system are anticipated from dredging either of the two proposed SRIPP 

borrow sites; therefore, adverse impacts on Assateague Island are not anticipated. As indicated in 

Section 4.2.2.1, the results USACE (2009a) modeling showed that when comparing Unnamed 

Shoal A with Unnamed Shoal B, no significant difference in longshore sediment transport and 

shoreline impacts from the dredging exist between the two shoals. The SRIPP would not affect 

the sediment transport processes that will continue to create the changes at Fishing Point. In 

addition, the SRIPP would not affect the sediment transport processes that will continue to create 

the changes at Tom’s Cove Isthmus. 

South end 

of existing 

seawall

North end of 

existing 

seawall

Assawoman 

Inlet (closed)
Environmental Consequences 

 237 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on longshore sediment transport from offshore dredging as discussed under 

Alternative One would be the same for Alternative Two. When comparing the net sediment 

transport rates just prior to renourishment under Alternative Two (Year 4 on Figure 50) to the No 

Action Alternative (existing conditions—see Figure 29), it is seen that the nodal point is shifted 

approximately 1.5 km (1 mile) to the north of its present estimated location and that maximum 

transport rates substantially exceed present conditions. 

Figure 50 shows how net transport rates vary from SRIPP Year 2 (partial beach fill) through 

Year 14 with implementation of beach fill, seawall extension and a groin. Though it is intended 

that renourishment should occur at the end of Year 5, the USACE analysis was carried out to 

Year 14 without renourishment to help determine if adverse impacts would occur on adjacent 

beaches if renourishment intervals are postponed or cancelled. Figure 50 shows that substantial 

accretion would occur adjacent to both the north and south ends of the project through Year 2. 

Figure 51 shows the projected Year 5 shoreline positions with 95 percent confidence limits. At 

the south end of the project, over time, the transport rate approaches a constant rate that is in 

excess of the current conditions. Accretion would occur at the north end of the project though the 

rate of accretion (without renourishment) decreases over time. 

While the transport rates would not be identical between Alternatives One and Two, and the 

groin would likely result in slightly lower rates of sediment transport within the local area around 

the groin, the modeling did not show a significant difference in the net sediment transport rates 

when comparing Alternative Two (groin) with Alternative One (no sand retention structure). 

With implementation of the SRIPP, long-term beneficial direct impacts would occur on the 

longshore sediment transport system in the vicinity of Wallops Island due to the addition of sand 

from the beach fill and construction of a groin to help retain sediment on the Wallops Island 

shoreline. 
Environmental Consequences 

238 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Figure 50: Net Sediment Transport Rates over Time for Alternative Two 

South end 

of existing 

seawall

North end of 

existing 

seawall

Assawoman 

Inlet (closed)

Approximate 

location of 

nodal point 

for existing 

conditions 

Approximate 

location of 

nodal point for 

Alternative Two

Green lines represent 

approximate boundary of 

nodal zone in Year 5

Transport Direction 

<North 0 South>
Environmental Consequences 

 239 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Figure 51: Shoreline Position in Year 5 for Alternative Two 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on currents from offshore dredging as discussed under Alternative One 

would be the same for Alternative Three. As for Alternative One, when comparing the net 

sediment transport rates just prior to renourishment under Alternative Three (Year 4 on Figure 

52) to the No Action Alternative (existing conditions—see Figure 29), it is seen that the nodal 

point is shifted approximately 1.5 km (1 mi) to the north of its present estimated location and that 

maximum transport rates substantially exceed present conditions. 

Figure 52 shows how net transport rates vary from SRIPP Year 2 (partial beach fill) through 

Year 8 with implementation of beach fill, seawall extension and a nearshore breakwater. Though 

it is intended that renourishment should occur at the end of Year 5, the USACE analysis was 

carried out to Year 8 without renourishment to help determine if adverse impacts would occur on 

adjacent beaches if renourishment intervals are postponed or cancelled. Figure 52 shows that 

substantial accretion would occur adjacent to both the north and south ends of the project 

through Year 2. Figure 53 shows the projected Year 5 shoreline positions with 95 percent 

confidence limits. At the south end of the project, over time, the transport rate approaches a 

constant rate that is in excess of the current conditions. Accretion would occur at the north end of 

the project though the rate of accretion (without renourishment) decreases over time. 

South end 

of existing 

seawall

North end of 

existing 

seawall

Assawoman 

Inlet (closed)
Environmental Consequences 

240 

While the transport rates would not be identical between Alternatives One and Three, and the 

breakwater would likely result in slightly lower rates of sediment transport within the local area 

around the breakwater, the modeling did not show a significant difference in the net sediment 

transport rates when comparing Alternative Three (breakwater) with Alternative One (no sand 

retention structure). Net sediment transport rates with installation of a breakwater are very 

similar to the rates anticipated for construction of a groin under Alternative Two. 

With implementation of the SRIPP, long-term beneficial direct impacts would occur on the 

longshore sediment transport system in the vicinity of Wallops Island due to the addition of sand 

from the beach fill and construction of a breakwater to help retain sediment on the Wallops 

Island shoreline. 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Figure 52: Net Sediment Transport Rates over Time for Alternative Three 

South end 

of existing 

seawall

North end of 

existing 

seawall

Assawoman 

Inlet (closed)

Approximate 

location of nodal 

point for existing 

conditions 

Approximate 

location of nodal 

point for 

Alternative Three

Green lines represent 

approximate boundary of 

nodal zone in Year 5

Transport Direction 

<North 0 South>
Environmental Consequences 

 241 

Source: USACE, 2010a 

Figure 53: Shoreline Position in Year 5 for Alternative Three 

4.2.3.5 Cross-Shore Sediment Transport 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

activities and emergency repairs would occur at unknown locations on Wallops Island as 

necessary. With the absence of in-water activity, there would be no project related impacts to 

cross-shore sediment transport in the project area. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

The dredged areas on Shoal A and B would fill gradually over time; however, this would occur 

from local sediment transport and the deep troughs landward of Shoals A and B would isolate the 

Assateague Island shoreline and its nearshore profile from the dredging effects. Geological 

evidence supporting this includes a study by Field (1979) which showed that the linear sand 

ridges on the inner continental shelf off of the Maryland coast are formed from the reworking of 

ancient (inherited) geologic environments by modern marine processes and that they are mobile 

(southerly migration at variable rates). However, Field (1979) makes a case that these detached 

shoreface ridges, while once part of a barrier system, have become segmented and isolated on the 

South end 

of existing 

seawall

North end of 

existing 

seawall

Assawoman 

Inlet (closed)
Environmental Consequences 

242 

inner continental shelf. As such, these sand bodies have a high preservation potential and 

consequently, a low cross-shore sediment transport potential. 

Given the geometry of the shoals, their distances from shore and the sheltering/buffering action 

provided by Blackfish Bank Shoal, any effect that may occur on cross-shore transport would likely 

be small and indistinguishable from the natural variability in the system. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on currents from offshore dredging as discussed under Alternative One 

would be the same for Alternative Two. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on currents from offshore dredging as discussed under Alternative One 

would be the same for Alternative Three. 

4.2.4 Water Resources 

4.2.4.1 Surface Water and Water Quality on Wallops Island 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

activities and emergency repairs would occur. It is anticipated that the No Action Alternative 

would have temporary impacts on surface water resources from the use of construction vehicles 

and heavy machinery on the beach if a spill or leak occurred. The heavy equipment and 

construction activities may result in the introduction of petroleum products, heavy metals, or 

other contaminants to nearshore waters. Construction-related impacts would be temporary, and 

would not likely be adverse because any accidental release of contaminants or liquid fuels would 

be addressed in accordance with the existing WFF ICP emergency response and clean-up 

measures. Implementation of BMPs for vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, and 

spill prevention and control measures would reduce potential impacts on surface water during 

construction. 

Saltwater intrusion into the marshes on Wallops Island resulting from storm surges may increase 

due to sea-level rise and climate change. Saltwater intrusion would result in effects on surface 

water quality on the northern and southern end of Wallops Island more immediately and directly 

than the more developed central portion of Wallops Island where there are fewer marshes and a 

seawall. Because saltwater intrusion is a natural process, it is difficult to classify the effects as 

beneficial or adverse; however, if storm surges become more frequent and larger, the effects of 

during- and post-storm saltwater intrusion may create long-term impacts on the marsh 

environment. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

No work would be done within surface waters on Wallops Island. However, Alternative One 

could have temporary impacts on the nearshore environment and surface water resources due to 

the presence of construction vehicles on existing roads and also during the use of heavy 

machinery on the beach or at the north end of Wallops Island. These construction activities may 

result in the introduction of petroleum products, heavy metals, or other contaminants to 

nearshore waters. Construction-related impacts would be temporary, and would not likely be 

adverse because any accidental release of contaminants or liquid fuels would be addressed in 
Environmental Consequences 

 243 

accordance with the existing WFF ICP emergency response and clean-up measures. 

Implementation of BMPs for vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance and spill 

prevention and control measures would reduce potential impacts on surface water during 

construction. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on surface waters and the mitigation measures discussed under Alternative 

One would be the same for Alternative Two. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on surface waters and the mitigation measures discussed under Alternative 

One would be the same for Alternative Three. 

4.2.4.2 Wetlands 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

activities and emergency repairs would occur at unknown locations on Wallops Island as 

necessary. Emergency repairs may result in adverse impacts on wetlands or Virginia-owned 

subaqueous bottom lands in the nearshore environment depending on the location and scope of 

the emergency action. If work is done within either of these areas, State and Federal permits 

would be required. The permit process for work proposed within wetlands or subaqueous bottom 

land requires the submission of a JPA to the VMRC under regulation authority contained in 

§§28.2-103 and 28.2-1307 of the Code of Virginia. The review process takes into account 

various local, State and Federal statutes governing the disturbance or alteration of environmental 

resources. The VMRC acts as an information clearinghouse and provides the application to local 

wetland boards, VDEQ, and the USACE for independent yet concurrent reviews. Based on the 

comments received from the concurrent reviews, the VMRC determines the type of permit(s) 

required to proceed with the project. In cases where a permit for emergency actions is required, 

the VMRC can issue a general wetlands permit to address catastrophic erosion situations that are 

attributable to specific storm events or natural calamity and thus streamline the permit process. 

Any necessary permits required for work involving maintenance, repair, or emergency actions in 

wetlands or subaqueous bottom land would be obtained by NASA prior to implementation. Long 

term adverse indirect impacts on wetlands could occur from the prevention of island overwash. 

Through overwash, sediments would be pushed to the west side of Wallops Island, acting to 

build marsh on the west side over time. Structural emergency actions could prevent overwash 

and reduce the amount of sediment that would be otherwise available on the west side of the 

island, potentially leading to a long-term loss of salt marsh. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative One, there would be no impacts on wetlands because no wetlands are located 

within the construction footprint for any project activities, including the northern part of Wallops 

Island and the southern portion of Wallops Island in the vicinity of the proposed seawall 

extension. Long term adverse indirect impacts on wetlands could occur from the prevention of 

island overwash. Through overwash, sediments would be pushed to the west side of Wallops 

Island, acting to build marsh on the west side over time. The construction of an elevated sand 

berm and dune would prevent overwash and reduce the amount of sediment that would be 
Environmental Consequences 

244 

otherwise available on the west side of the island, potentially leading to a long-term loss of salt 

marsh. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative Two, there would be no impacts on wetlands because no wetlands are located 

within the construction footprint for any project activities, including the northern part of Wallops 

Island and the southern portion of Wallops Island in the vicinity of the proposed seawall 

extension. Long term adverse indirect impacts on wetlands could occur from the prevention of 

island overwash. Through overwash, sediments would be pushed to the west side of Wallops 

Island, acting to build marsh on the west side over time. The construction of an elevated sand 

berm and dune would prevent overwash and reduce the amount of sediment that would be 

otherwise available on the west side of the island, potentially leading to a long-term loss of salt 

marsh. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative Three, there would be no impacts on wetlands because no wetlands are 

located within the construction footprint for any project activities, including the northern part of 

Wallops Island and the southern portion of Wallops Island in the vicinity of the proposed seawall 

extension. Long term adverse indirect impacts on wetlands could occur from the prevention of 

island overwash. Through overwash, sediments would be pushed to the west side of Wallops 

Island, acting to build marsh on the west side over time. The construction of an elevated sand 

berm and dune would prevent overwash and reduce the amount of sediment that would be 

otherwise available on the west side of the island, potentially leading to a long-term loss of salt 

marsh. 

4.2.4.3 Marine Waters 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

activities and emergency repairs would occur. It is anticipated that the No Action Alternative 

could have temporary impacts on nearshore marine water resources from the use of construction 

vehicles and heavy machinery on the beach if a spill or leak occurred. The heavy equipment and 

construction activities may result in the introduction of petroleum products, heavy metals, or 

other contaminants to nearshore waters. Construction-related impacts would be temporary, and 

would not likely be adverse because any accidental release of contaminants or liquid fuels would 

be addressed in accordance with the existing WFF ICP emergency response and clean-up 

measures. Implementation of BMPs for vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, and 

spill prevention and control measures would reduce potential impacts on surface water during 

construction. Therefore, the No Action Alternative is not anticipated to significantly impact 

marine water quality. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Sand Placement 

There would be increased, localized turbidity associated with the beach nourishment operations 

in the nearshore environment from placement of the fill and from anchoring of the dredge and 
Environmental Consequences 

 245 

pump-out station. Nearshore turbidity impacts from fill placement are directly related to the 

quantity of fines (silt and clay) in the nourishment material. 

The medium sized sand grains of the offshore borrow sites should allow for a short suspension 

time and containment of sediment during and after placement activities. The beach fill consists 

of beach quality sand of similar grain size and composition as indigenous beach sands. Turbidity 

impacts would be short-term and spatially limited to the vicinity of the dredge outfall pipe, the 

pump-out station, and dredge anchor points. No other water quality parameters are anticipated to 

be substantially impacted during beach fill operations. NASA would obtain all necessary permits 

for sediment placement in the nearshore environment, which may include a VMRC permit, a 

Virginia Water Protection Permit/401 certification from the VDEQ, and USACE Section 404 

permit. An evaluation report based on Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA, Guidelines for 

Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material, would be submitted to permitting 

agencies to address impacts associated with Alternative One. Under these guidelines, dredged or 

fill materials should not be discharged into the aquatic ecosystem unless it can be demonstrated 

that the discharge will not have an unacceptable impact from either individual or in combination 

with known and/or probable impacts from other activities affecting the ecosystem. 

The contractor would be responsible for proper storage and disposal of any hazardous material 

such as oils and fuels used during the dredging and beach nourishment operations. The EPA and 

USCG regulations require the treatment of waste (e.g., sewage, graywater) from dredge plants 

and tender/service vessels and prohibit the disposal of debris into the marine environment. The 

dredge contractor would be required to implement a marine pollution control plan to minimize 

any direct impacts to water quality from construction activity. No accidental spills of diesel fuel 

from the dredge plant or tender vessels are expected. Personnel would implement USCGapproved safety response plans or procedures outlined in WFF’s ICP to prevent and minimize 

any impacts associated with a spill. 

Offshore Borrow Sites 

Temporary impacts on marine waters would occur at the borrow site. Dredging in the borrow 

area would result in short-term adverse effects on marine water quality, including localized 

increases in turbidity and slight decreases in dissolved oxygen at the location of the drag head 

and in the surrounding sediment plume. Suspended sediment concentrations would be elevated 

during and for a period (several hours) after dredging operations. 

Another source of suspended sediment is the hopper overflow. As dredged sediment settles onboard, water is released back to the ocean so that transported sediment contains less water. 

Suspended sediment at the drag head is generally localized and close to the bottom; however, the 

hopper overflow usually produces a “dynamic” plume (where highly turbid water forms a 

turbidity plume or current through the water column), a passive phase, and sometimes a nearbottom “pancaking” or laterally spreading turbidity current phase (W.F. Baird and Associates, 

2004). Dredges are often equipped with under-hull release of overflow sediment and antiturbidity valves, which reduce the extent of suspended sediment plumes generated by the 

overflow process. 

Operations using hopper dredges tend to be discontinuous and associated plumes would be 

dispersed over a larger area. Hopper dredges trigger a small plume at the seabed from the 

draghead and a larger surface plume from the discharge of overspill of water with suspended 
Environmental Consequences 

246 

sediment from the hopper (MMS, 1999). The length and shape of the surface plume generated by 

the overspill depends on the hydrodynamics of the water and the sediment grain size. 

Although the volume of discharged material is much higher during construction aggregate 

dredging, findings from studies of these operations from overseas provide information on the 

potential behavior of turbidity plumes from dredging for beach restoration material (MMS, 

1999). Detailed investigation of these types of operations off the coast of the United Kingdom 

found that most sediments in the plume settle out within 300 to 500 m (984 to 1,640 ft) from the 

dredge over a period of roughly 20 to 30 minutes and that suspended sediment concentrations 

returned to concentrations close to background level within an hour after completion of dredging 

(Hitchcock et al., 1999). The distance and time increased with decreasing sediment size. 

Because the sediment on Shoals A and B is well-sorted medium sand with low silt and clay 

content, turbidity plumes would be localized and short-lived. Hitchcock et al. (1999) reported 

that far field (i.e., > 500 m [1,640 ft]) visible plumes that extend beyond the boundaries of 

suspended sediment are comprised of organic compounds such as fats, lipids, and carbohydrates 

agitated by the dredging process. Because the size of far field plume would depend on weather 

and tidal currents, the exact extent cannot be estimated; however, impacts on water quality are 

not expected to be substantial. 

Since the dominant substrate at the borrow site is sand, it is expected to settle rapidly and cause 

less turbidity and oxygen demand than finer-grained sediments. No appreciable effects on 

dissolved oxygen, pH, or temperature are anticipated because the dredged material (sand) has 

low levels of organics and low biological oxygen demand. Additionally, dredging activities 

would occur within the open ocean where the hydrodynamics of the water column are subject to 

mixing and exchange with oxygen rich surface waters. Ripple marks seen on the surface of both 

Unnamed Shoals A and B during the 2009 benthic video survey are evidence that wave energy 

reaches the seafloor and mixing of the water column occurs there. It is anticipated that 

Alternative One would have minor, short-term impacts on marine waters at either offshore 

borrow site. 

North Wallops Island Borrow Site 

Although no work would be done within surface waters during excavation activities at the north 

Wallops Island borrow site, the nearshore marine environment could be affected if a spill or leak 

from construction vehicles or heavy machinery occurred. Construction-related impacts would be 

temporary, and would not likely be adverse because any accidental release of contaminants or 

liquid fuels would be addressed in accordance with the existing WFF ICP emergency response 

and clean-up measures. Implementation of BMPs for vehicle and equipment fueling and 

maintenance, and spill prevention and control measures would reduce potential impacts on 

surface water during construction. Therefore, excavation activities are not anticipated to 

significantly impact marine water quality. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on marine waters and the mitigation measures discussed under Alternative 

One for dredging of either offshore shoal, or for use of the north Wallops Island borrow site, 

would be the same for Alternative Two, however the extent of impacts would be slightly less due 

to the need for less fill material. In addition, there is potential for short-term adverse water 

quality impacts in the nearshore and beach environment during construction of the groin if a 
Environmental Consequences 

 247 

vessel or construction equipment were to spill its fuels or other substances that could 

contaminate the ocean environment. The WFF ICP emergency response and clean-up measures 

would be implemented in the event of a spill. Toxic concentrations would be localized and 

temporary due to the mixing and dilution associated with wave movement. Short-term increases 

in turbidity during construction of the groin would occur.

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on marine waters and the mitigation measures discussed under Alternative 

One for dredging of either offshore shoal, or for use of the north Wallops Island borrow site, 

would be the same for Alternative Three, however to a lesser degree due to a smaller amount of 

material needed for beach fill. In addition, there is potential for short-term adverse water quality 

impacts in the nearshore environment during construction of the breakwater if a vessel were to 

spill its fuels or other substances that could contaminate the ocean environment. The WFF ICP 

emergency response and clean-up measures would be implemented in the event of a spill. Toxic 

concentrations would be localized and temporary due to the mixing and dilution associated with 

wave movement. Short-term increases in turbidity during construction of the breakwater would 

occur. 

4.2.5 Floodplains 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

and emergency repair activities would occur. Because the entire island is within the 100-year 

floodplain, there are no practicable alternatives to conducting maintenance and repair activities 

within the floodplain. It is anticipated that the No Action Alternative would have no impact on 

floodplains. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Wallops Island is located entirely within the floodplain; therefore, all SRIPP activities on land 

would take place within the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. No practicable alternatives to 

work in the floodplain exist. The functionality of the floodplain on Wallops Island, provided both 

by the wetlands on the island and the area of the island itself, would not be reduced by the 

SRIPP. NASA would ensure that its actions comply with EO 11988, Floodplain Management, 

and 14 CFR 1216.2 (NASA Regulations on Floodplain and Wetland Management) to the 

maximum extent possible. Since the Proposed Action would involve federally funded and 

authorized construction in the 100-year floodplain, this PEIS also serves as NASA’s means for 

facilitating public review as required by EO 11988. 

The 1.8-m-high (6-ft-high) berm, the 4.3-m-high (14-ft-high) dune at the seawall (shown 

conceptually on Figures 15 and 16), the seawall extension, and the new beach itself would 

provide some flooding reduction from ocean waters for Wallops Island facilities (USACE, 

2010a). The approach of the SRIPP design is that the beach fill alone would provide storm 

damage reduction against smaller, more frequent storms, leaving the seawall intact to protect 

against the largest storms expected over the lifetime of the project. The SRIPP would not include 

storm damage reduction as a result of flooding from the back bays and waterways on the north, 

west, and south sides of Wallops Island. Substantial, long-term direct impacts on the floodplain 

as a result of the beach fill and seawall extension would occur under Alternative One.
Environmental Consequences 

248 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative Two, the impacts on floodplains would be the same as those described for 

Alternative One. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative Three, the impacts on floodplains would be the same as those described for 

Alternative One. 

4.2.6 Coastal Zone Management 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

and emergency repair activities would occur. Maintenance activities may require a permit from 

VMRC for work within the coastal zone. Wallops Island is exempt from CBRA. It is anticipated 

that the No Action Alternative would have minimal impact on the coastal zone because NASA 

would ensure that any project activities comply with the enforceable policies of the Virginia’s 

Coastal Resources Management Program. 

Proposed Action Alternatives

SRIPP activities within the coastal zone would have reasonably foreseeable effects on coastal 

resources. Based upon the information and analysis in this PEIS and the Federal Consistency 

Determination (Appendix H), NASA determined that the proposed SRIPP activities are 

consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the Virginia 

Coastal Resources Management Program (Table 32). VDEQ concurred with NASA’s 

determination in its April 14, 2010 letter (Appendix H). 

Table 32: Federal Consistency Determination 

Virginia Policy Consistent? Analysis 

Fisheries 

Management 

Yes There would be short-term site-specific adverse effects on fish 

habitat within the fill placement area due to temporary burial of 

existing benthic habitat and increased levels of turbidity during 

and immediately after sand placement. Benthic habitats would 

recover post-project. No impacts on commercial or recreational 

fishing are anticipated. The proposed action would not violate 

the provisions outlined in Code of Virginia § 28.2-200 through 

28.2-713 and Code of Virginia § 29.1-100 through 29.1-570. 

Subaqueous Lands 

Management 

Yes The creation of a beach along Wallops Island would affect 

existing subaqueous areas in the nearshore ocean environment. 

Elevated turbidity in marine waters would occur during and 

immediately after beach fill. The newly created beach profile 

would extend approximately 21 meters (70 feet) above water 

from the existing shoreline and continue for a maximum of 52 

meters (170 feet) underwater, resulting in a new bathymetric 

profile in the subaqueous lands immediately east of Wallops 

Island. Permits would be obtained from VMRC to ensure 

compliance with CZM policies. 
Environmental Consequences 

 249 

Virginia Policy Consistent? Analysis 

Wetlands 

Management 

Yes Project activities would not directly impact wetlands. 

Dunes Management Yes Project activities would involve the creation of a beach and 

dunes along 6 kilometers (3 miles) of the Wallops Island 

shoreline over the top of the existing seawall. No destruction of 

existing dunes would occur. Permits would be obtained from 

VMRC to ensure compliance with CZM policies. 

Non-point Source 

Pollution Control 

Yes Construction activities could temporarily increase non-point 

source runoff to the Atlantic Ocean during the duration of the 

project. NASA would implement appropriate BMPs to 

minimize the impact. All land-disturbing activities would be 

conducted on the existing beach (seawall construction and use 

of north Wallops Island for beach renourishment) and newly 

created beach. 

Point Source 

Pollution Control 

Yes The project would not involve a new point source discharge to 

Virginia waters. 

Shoreline Sanitation Yes The project would not involve the construction of septic tanks. 

Air Pollution 

Control 

Yes Use of equipment for construction of the seawall extension, 

movement of sand placed on the newly created beach, and 

excavation of sand at the north end of Wallops Island along 

with barge operations for dredging and transport of sand would 

result in emissions. NASA would minimize adverse impacts to 

air quality by implementing BMPs. The project would not 

violate Federal or Virginia air quality standards. 

Coastal Lands 

Management 

Yes The proposed project would not include land development 

activities that would impact the Chesapeake Bay or its 

tributaries. 

4.2.7 Air Quality 

All of the activities associated with the Proposed Action Alternatives would occur in an 

attainment area for all criteria pollutants; therefore, there is no requirement to perform a General 

Conformity evaluation, which is applicable only to areas designated as non-attainment or 

maintenance areas. Additionally, it is not necessary to conduct a PSD Applicability Analysis, as 

there are no stationary emission sources associated with any of the Proposed Action Alternatives. 

Subsequently, the WFF State operating permit would not be affected or need to be modified. 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, activities would remain at present levels as described in 

Section 3.1.9 (calendar year 2008 WFF GHG emissions tables) and there would be no additional 

impacts to air quality and no increase in GHG emissions. 
Environmental Consequences 

250 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Seawall Extension 

Prior to the construction of the seawall extension, the rock material would need to be brought 

onto WFF, transported from a specified location (i.e., the New Church, VA, railhead, as the 

material would initially be transported by train) and stockpiled on the beach near the barge 

loading area. Emission calculations include those associated with the transport of rock by heavyduty diesel trucks to an unloading site on the beach. Depending on weather conditions and road 

conditions/type, these trucks may generate fugitive particulates (i.e., dust) while traveling on 

roads from the railhead to Wallops Island. However, these emissions would be minimized by 

implementing BMPs such as lower speed limits for construction-related equipment and the 

implementation of dust suppression procedures (e.g., application of water) when necessary. 

During the construction phase of this additional seawall, diesel emissions would be generated 

mostly from large construction equipment (i.e., heavy lifting equipment such as a crane and 

dozer) and a marine vessel (i.e., barge). In addition, it was assumed that the construction crew 

would drive to the work site every day in their personally owned vehicles (POVs, e.g., light-duty 

trucks), conservatively assuming that each person would drive their own vehicle. 

Calculations were performed using approved emission factors and conservative assumptions. To 

help minimize emissions under this alternative, vehicles and equipment used for all of the 

proposed construction would be maintained in good working order. Additionally, the non-road 

diesel engines are required by law to utilize low-sulfur diesel, which must meet a 500 ppm sulfur 

maximum. Idling of construction equipment would be prohibited where feasible, except for 

certain equipment (i.e., barge, crane, and loaders) for which idling is necessary and would be 

unavoidable. Virginia regulations do not impose any idling restrictions on this type of 

construction equipment. Based on the quantification of criteria emissions (Table 33) and the 

short duration of time (approximately 3 months) of operating fossil-fuel burning equipment, it is 

unlikely that these emissions would have an impact on the area’s compliance with the NAAQS. 

Table 33: Emissions from Construction Activities Associated with Seawall Extension 

Emission Sources Emissions in tons per year Emissions in metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

Personal Vehicles 

(Light-Duty Diesel 

Trucks) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 

Heavy-Duty Diesel 

Trucks 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 <0.1 1.4 

Tugboat/Barge 5.3 23.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 

Construction 

Equipment 1.4 4.6 0.5 0.3 <0.1 508.6 <0.1 <0.1 513.7 

TOTAL 6.9 27.7 1.1 0.7 0.50 510.5 <0.1 <0.1 515.7 
Environmental Consequences 

 251 

Beach Fill – Sand Placement and Dredging Operations 

Initial Beach Fill

During the initial beach fill, air emissions would result from propulsion of the barge when in 

transit between the borrow site and the mooring buoy, dredging, pumping of sand to the beach, 

placement and relocation of mooring buoys, and the placement of beach fill material. It is 

assumed that two hopper dredges would operate simultaneously. Each vessel would be equipped 

with propulsion engines totaling 8,000 horsepower (hp) and pumping/jetting engines totaling 

5,000 hp, and would carry an average of 2,300 m3 (3,000 yd3) per trip. Allowance was made for 

10 percent downtime for equipment operation due to refueling, weather, or mechanical problems. 

For Unnamed Shoal A, the one-way travel distance from the shoal site to the mooring buoy 

would be 27 km (17 mi), and the barge would make an average of 3.1 round trips per day. For 

Unnamed Shoal B, the travel distance would be 35 km (22 mi) and the barge would make an 

average of 2.6 round trips per day. The duration of dredging would be 216 days for Shoal A and 

257 days for Shoal B. 

The initial placement and relocations of the mooring buoys would be accomplished using a 

5,000-hp derrick barge, two 2,000-hp work barges, and two 1,000-hp tender tugs. Placement and 

removal would take a total of 12 hours per buoy. It was assumed that there would be 10 separate 

placements and removals over the duration of the project. Beach fill activities would require four 

215-hp bulldozers operating 24 hours per day at each of two sites where sand would be pumped 

to shore. In addition, a light all terrain vehicle (ATV) or light truck would be needed. 

Emissions for barge propulsion and tug boats were based on the EPA report entitled Current 

Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories (EPA, 2009c). 

Emissions from the pumps and generators were based on AP-42 (EPA, 2009b). The total 

estimated emissions are presented in Table 34. To help minimize emissions under this 

alternative, vehicles and equipment used for all of the proposed activities would be maintained in 

good working order. Additionally, the ATV would be subject to the non-road diesel engines 

requirements to utilize low-sulfur diesel, which must meet a 500-ppm sulfur maximum. Idling of 

equipment would be prohibited where feasible, except for the barge, for which idling is 

necessary and would be unavoidable. The Commonwealth of Virginia regulations do not impose 

any idling restrictions on this type of equipment. There would be temporary, localized increases 

in the concentration of these pollutants in the ambient air. Most of the area affected would be 

over water. Based on the quantification of criteria emissions (see Table 34) and the short 

duration of time (approximately 7 months) of operating fossil-fuel-burning equipment, it is 

unlikely that these emissions would have an impact on the area’s compliance with the NAAQS. 
Environmental Consequences 

252 

Table 34: Alternative One Emissions from Dredging and Initial Beach Fill 

Unnamed Shoal A 

Tons per year Metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

Dredging and 

Transport 84.0 664.7 22.9 20.0 9.8 27,886 0.9 0.5 28,178 

Relocate Mooring 

Buoys 0.9 7.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 339 <0.1 <0.1 344 

Beach Fill Placement 14.9 51.3 3.9 3.5 8.0 29 <0.1 <0.1 30 

TOTAL 99.7 723.6 27.1 23.8 18.0 28,255 0.9 0.5 28,552 

Unnamed Shoal B CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

Dredging and 

Transport 95.6 785.9 27.5 24.0 11.6 33,057 1.1 0.6 33,416 

Relocate Mooring 

Buoys 0.9 7.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 339 <0.1 <0.1 334 

Beach Fill Placement 17.6 61.1 4.6 4.3 9.6 35 <0.1 <0.1 35 

TOTAL 114.1 854.6 32.2 28.6 21.3 33,432 1.1 0.6 33,796 

Renourishment from Offshore Borrow Sites

In each of the nine renourishment cycles, a total of 616,000 m3 (806,000 yd3) of sand would be 

placed on the beach. With dredging operations occurring at both shoals, the duration of the 

project would be 56 days for Shoal A, and 65 days for Shoal B. The total emissions are provided 

in Table 35. Air quality impacts would be the same as for the initial beach fill, but would occur 

over a shorter duration. To minimize downtime due to weather, NASA would conduct 

renourishment activities in the more favorable summer season when possible. 

Table 35: Alternative One Emissions from Dredging and Renourishment Fill

Unnamed Shoal A 

Tons per year Metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

Dredging and 

Transport 19.2 151.9 5.2 4.6 2.2 7,025 0.2 0.1 7,098 

Relocate Mooring 

Buoys 0.8 6.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 339 <0.1 <0.1 344 

Beach Fill Placement 3.4 11.7 0.9 0.8 1.8 7 <0.1 <0.1 7 

TOTAL 23.4 170.6 6.4 5.6 4.2 7,731 0.2 0.1 7,449 

Unnamed Shoal B CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

Dredging and 

Transport 21.9 179.6 6.3 5.5 2.6 8,327 0.3 0.1 8,417 

Relocate Mooring 

Buoys 0.8 6.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 339 <0.1 <0.1 344 

Beach Fill Placement 4.0 14.0 1.1 1.0 2.2 9 <0.1 <0.1 9 

TOTAL 26.7 200.5 7.6 6.7 4.9 8,675 0.3 0.1 8,770 
Environmental Consequences 

 253 

North Wallops Island Borrow Site 

The collection of accumulated sand from the northern end of Wallops Island every 5 years for 

renourishment of the Wallops Island shoreline would result in emissions from construction crew 

POVs traveling to and from the work site. In addition, emissions from non-road construction 

equipment (e.g., excavators, bulldozers) used to collect, transport, and distribute the sand on the 

beach would occur. It is anticipated that the equipment used for the borrow site activity would 

include excavators, bulldozers, loaders, and specialized beach-going dump trucks. The excavator 

would transport the sand to a stockpile, assumed to be at the southern point of the borrow site. At 

the stockpile, the loaders would move the sand into the bed of each dump truck. Thus, the 

loaders would need to be stationary and idling continuously during this operation. The internal 

combustion engines powering all of the construction equipment and vehicles would burn diesel 

fuel. 

Borrow-site-related impacts are expected to be limited to the renourishment activity duration 

(two months) and area of the activity. Calculations were performed using approved emission 

factors and conservative assumptions. Based on the quantification of criteria emissions (Table 

36), it is unlikely that these emissions would have an impact on the area’s compliance with the 

NAAQS. 

Table 36: Emissions from North Wallops Island Renourishment Activities 

Emission 

Sources 

Emissions in tons per year Emissions in metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

Pan Excavator 0.2 0.7 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 3.6 <0.1 <0.1 3.6 

Bulldozer 1.0 3.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.9 <0.1 <0.1 1.9 

Dump Truck 1.3 0.8 0.2 0.2 <0.1 12.6 <0.1 <0.1 12.7 

Light Duty 

Trucks (POVs) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 

Loader 1.9 4.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 20.1 <0.1 <0.1 20.3 

TOTAL 4.5 9.1 1.1 0.9 0.8 38.4 <0.1 <0.1 38.8 

Summary of Alternative One Emissions 

The No Action Alternative is the baseline for comparison of air quality impacts. Depending on 

which borrow sites would be utilized for the renourishment cycles, the emissions from each 

element within this alternative (seawall construction and beach fill) are combined into different 

scenarios to help demonstrate the estimated emissions (Table 37 and Table 38). Based on the 

quantification of criteria pollutants for all elements of Alternative One, it is reasonable to 

conclude that these activities would not have a long-term adverse impact on air quality in the 

project area. 
Environmental Consequences 

254 

Table 37: Alternative One Emissions Summary for Initial Beach Fill 

Shoal Emissions in tons per year Emissions in metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

A1 106.6 756.1 28.2 24.5 18.4 36,930 1.0 0.6 37,257 

B2 121.0 887.1 33.4 29.3 21.8 43,638 1.3 0.6 41,078 1

Assuming seawall construction and initial beach fill utilizing Shoal A only. 2

Assuming seawall construction and initial beach fill utilizing Shoal B only.

Table 38: Alternative One Emissions Summary for Renourishment Beach Fill 

Borrow 

Site 

Emissions in tons per year Emissions in metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4

CO2e 

A1 25.8 188.1 7.1 6.2 4.6 9,464 0.1 0.3 9,513 

B2 29.4 221.0 8.4 7.4 5.5 11,154 0.3 0.2 11,259 

A-W.I.3 20.5 132.1 5.4 5.0 3.7 6,341 0.1 0.2 6,374 

B-W.I.4 22.9 154.1 6.3 5.8 4.2 7,468 0.2 0.1 7,538 1 Assuming renourishment utilizing Shoal A only. 

2

 Assuming renourishment utilizing Shoal B only. 

3

 Assuming half of renourishment is obtained from Shoal A and half from the north Wallops Island borrow site. 

4

 Assuming half of renourishment is obtained from Shoal B and half from the north Wallops Island borrow site. 

W.I. = Wallops Island 

Although there are no formally adopted NEPA thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, 

there are a multitude of State and regional regulatory programs requiring GHG emissions 

reductions. The Governor of Virginia issued EO 59 in 2007, which established the “Governor’s 

Commission on Climate Change” (Bryant, 2008). However, due to the absence of such 

thresholds, it is challenging to determine the level of proposed emissions that would substantially 

contribute to global climate change. 

Given the absence of science-based or adopted NEPA significance thresholds for GHGs, the 

CO2e emissions from Alternative One are compared to the EPA GHG baseline inventory of 2007 

to determine the relative increase in proposed GHG emissions. 

Table 39 summaries the annual GHG emissions from Alternative One and the most recent U.S. 

annual baseline GHG emissions. These data show the ratio of CO2e emissions resulting from 

Alternative 1 to all sources in the United States is approximately 0.047/7,150 million metric 

tonnes. CO2e emissions from this alternative would amount to approximately 6.62x10-4 percent 

of the total GHG emissions generated by the United States. GHG emissions from Alternative 

One are the highest of all proposed alternatives; therefore, it can be assumed that under any of 

the other alternatives, the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions would not be substantial. 

Table 39: Alternative One Construction Emissions for Wallops Mainland/Island 

Scenario/Activity Emissions 

Alternative One1 (metric tonnes per year) 47,325 

U.S. 2007 Baseline Emissions2 (106 metric tonnes per year) 7,150 

Proposed Emissions as a % of U.S. Emissions 6.62x10-4

Source: EPA, 2009b

1

Total emissions for Alternative One assume of use of Shoal A only for initial and 

renourishment fills, and Wallops Island construction emissions 

2

Baseline emissions include all rocket launches from WFF during 2007 
Environmental Consequences 

 255 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Seawall Extension 

The construction activities and emissions associated with the seawall extension would be the 

same as outlined under Alternative One. 

Groin 

Similar to construction of the seawall extension, the groin construction would require similarsized rocks, which would also be transported by heavy-duty trucks from the same train depot 

location. However, the number of vehicle trips would be less due to the smaller size of the groin 

compared to the seawall extension. 

Similar to Alternative One, calculations were performed using approved emission factors and 

conservative assumptions. Construction activities for this alternative include those associated 

with the seawall extension and groin. Mitigation of emissions would be similar to Alternative 

One. Based on the quantification of criteria (Table 40) and the short duration (approximately 1 

month) of operating fossil-fuel burning equipment for the groin construction, it is unlikely that 

these emissions would have an impact on the area’s compliance with the NAAQS. 

Table 40: Emissions from Groin Construction Activities 

Emission 

Sources 

Emissions in tons per year Emissions in metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4

CO2e 

Personal Vehicles 

(Light-Duty 

Diesel Trucks) 

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Trucks 

0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 

Tugboat/Barge 7.4 29.4 1.2 0.9 1.0 1,049.2 <0.1 <0.1 1078.6 

Construction 

Vehicles 

1.9 6.3 0.6 0.5 0.6 1,048.7 <0.1 <0.1 1078.0 

TOTAL 9.5 35.8 1.9 1.4 1.6 2,098.1 0.2 <0.1 2,156.8 

Beach Fill 

Initial Beach Fill 

With dredging operations occurring at both shoals, the duration of the project would be 197 days 

for Shoal A and 234 days for Shoal B. The total emissions are provided in Table 41. Air quality 

impacts would be the same as for the Alternative One initial beach fill. 
Environmental Consequences 

256 

Table 41: Alternative Two Emissions from Dredging and Initial Beach Fill 

Renourishment from Offshore Borrow Sites

With dredging operations occurring at both shoals, the duration of the project would be 49 days 

for Shoal A and 58 days for Shoal B. The total emissions are given in Table 42. The air quality 

impacts would be the same as for the initial beach fill, but would occur over a shorter duration. 

Renourishment activities would be carried out in the more favorable summer season when 

possible, thus avoiding downtime due to weather. 

Unnamed Shoal A 

Tons per year Metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e

Dredging and 

Transport 76.6 606.0 20.9 18.2 8.9 25,414 0.8 0.5 25,679

Relocate Mooring 

Buoys 0.9 7.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 339 <0.1 <0.1 344

Beach Fill 

Placement 13.6 46.7 3.5 3.2 7.4 27 <0.1 <0.1 27

TOTAL 91.0 660.3 24.8 21.7 16.4 25,780 0.8 0.5 26,051

Unnamed Shoal B CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e

Dredging and 

Transport 87.2 716.3 25.0 21.9 10.5 30,126 1.0 0.5 30,453

Relocate Mooring 

Buoys 0.9 7.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 339 <0.1 <0.1 344

Beach Fill 

Placement 16.1 55.7 4.2 3.9 8.7 32 <0.1 <0.1 32

TOTAL 104.1 779.6 29.5 26.1 19.4 30,498 1.0 0.5 30,830
Environmental Consequences 

 257 

Table 42: Alternative Two Emissions from Dredging and Renourishment Fill 

North Wallops Island Borrow Site 

Impacts from borrow site activities associated with sand removal from north Wallops Island 

would be slightly less than those described under Alternative One. 

Summary of Alternative Two Emissions 

The No Action Alternative is the baseline for comparison of air quality impacts. Depending on 

what sources would be utilized for one of the renourishment activities, the emissions from each 

element within this alternative are combined into different scenarios to help demonstrate the 

estimated emissions (Table 43 and Table 44). Based on the quantification of criteria pollutants 

for all elements of Alternative Two, it is reasonable to conclude that these activities would not 

have a long-term adverse impact on air quality in the project area. It is not possible to address 

the significance of potential impacts from GHG emissions, and therefore no significance 

conclusion or mitigation can be made or adopted due to the lack of regulatory guidance for that 

determination to be sound (Jones and Stokes, 2007). 

Table 43: Alternative Two Emissions Summary for Initial Beach Fill 

Shoal Emissions in tons per year Emissions in metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

A1 100.4 696.1 26.7 23.1 18.1 35,329 1.1 0.5 35,678 

B2 113.6 815.4 31.4 37.5 21.0 41,444 0.3 0.6 41,547 1

Assuming groin, seawall extension, and initial beach fill utilizing Shoal A only. 2

Assuming groin, seawall extension, and initial beach fill utilizing Shoal B only. 

Unnamed Shoal A 

Tons per year Metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

Dredging and 

Transport 17.2 136.1 4.7 4.1 2.0 6,292 0.2 0.1 6,358

Relocate Mooring 

Buoys 0.8 6.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 339 <0.1 <0.1 344

Beach Fill Placement 3.0 10.5 0.8 0.7 1.6 7 <0.1 <0.1 7

TOTAL 21.0 153.5 5.8 5.1 3.8 6,638 0.2 0.1 6,709

Unnamed Shoal B CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e

Dredging and 

Transport 19.6 160.9 5.6 4.9 2.4 7,459 0.3 0.1 7,540

Relocate Mooring 

Buoys 0.8 6.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 339 <0.1 <0.1 344

Beach Fill Placement 3.6 12.5 0.9 0.9 2.0 8 <0.1 <0.1 8

TOTAL 24.0 180.3 6.8 6.0 4.4 7,806 0.3 0.1 7,892
Environmental Consequences 

258 

Table 44: Alternative Two Emissions Summary for Renourishment Beach Fill 

Borrow 

Site 

Emissions in tons per year Emissions in metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

A1 23.2 169.2 6.4 5.6 4.2 8,517 0.2 0.1 8,581 

B2 26.5 198.8 7.5 6.6 4.9 10,031 0.3 0.1 10,126 

A-W.I.3 18.3 118.7 4.9 4.5 3.3 5,7051 <0.1 <0.1 5,749 

B-W.I.4 20.5 138.4 5.6 5.2 3.8 6,716 <0.1 <0.1 6,779 1

Assuming renourishment utilizing Shoal A only. 

2

Assuming renourishment utilizing Shoal B only. 

3

Assuming half of renourishment is obtained from Shoal A and half from the north Wallops Island borrow site. 

4

Assuming half of renourishment is obtained from Shoal B and half from the north Wallops Island borrow site. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension 

Seawall Extension 

The construction activities, and subsequent emissions, associated with the seawall extension 

would be the same as outlined under Alternative One. 

Breakwater 

Similar to construction of the seawall extension, the breakwater construction would require 

similar-sized rocks, which would also be transported by heavy-duty trucks from the same train 

depot location. However, the number of vehicle trips would be less due to the smaller size of the 

breakwater compared to the seawall extension. Although the breakwater could be constructed 

entirely from land or from barges in the ocean, the ocean-construction scenario was used in the 

emissions analysis. Equipment that would likely be used for the breakwater construction from 

the ocean is anticipated to include dump trucks, a tugboat and barge, and a crane. The internal 

combustion engines powering the construction equipment and vehicles would burn diesel fuel. 

Similar to Alternative One, calculations were performed using approved emission factors and 

conservative assumptions. The construction activities for this alternative include those associated 

with the seawall extension and breakwater. The mitigation of emissions would be similar to 

Alternative One. Based on the quantification of criteria emissions (Table 45) and the short 

duration (approximately 1 month) of operating fossil-fuel burning equipment for this 

construction, it is unlikely that these emissions would have an impact on the area’s compliance 

with the NAAQS. 
Environmental Consequences 

 259 

Table 45: Emissions from Breakwater Construction Activities 

Emission 

Sources 

Emissions in tons per year Emissions in metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

Personal Vehicles 

(Light-Duty 

Diesel Trucks) 

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

0.4 

<0.1 <0.1 

0.4 

Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Trucks 

0.2 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 1.6 

Tugboat/Barge 6.6 28.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 

Construction 

Vehicles 

1.7 5.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 752.2 <0.1 <0.1 758.5 

TOTAL 8.5 34.4 1.3 0.9 1.0 754.5 <0.1 <0.1 760.8 

Beach Fill 

Initial Beach Fill 

With dredging operations at both shoals, the duration of the project would be 192 days for Shoal 

A and 228 days for Shoal B. The total emissions are given in Table 46. The air quality impacts 

and mitigation strategies would be the same as for the Alternative One beach fill. 

Table 46: Alternative Three Emissions from Dredging and Initial Beach Fill 

Renourishment from Offshore Borrow Sites

With dredging operations occurring at both shoals, the duration of the project would be 47 days 

for Shoal A and 57 days for Shoal B. The total emissions are given in Table 47. The air quality 

impacts would be the same as for the initial beach fill, but would occur over a shorter duration. 

Unnamed Shoal A 

Tons per year Metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

Dredging and Transport 74.5 590.0 20.4 17.8 8.7 24,743 0.8 0.4 25,001 

Relocate Mooring Buoys 0.9 7.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 339 <0.1 <0.1 344 

Beach Fill Placement 13.1 45.5 3.4 3.2 7.2 26 <0.1 <0.1 26 

TOTAL 88.5 643.1 24.1 21.2 16.0 25,108 0.8 0.5 25,372 

Unnamed Shoal B CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

Dredging and Transport 84.9 697.5 24.4 21.4 10.3 29,331 1.0 0.5 29,649 

Relocate Mooring Buoys 0.9 7.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 339 <0.1 <0.1 344 

Beach Fill Placement 15.7 54.1 4.1 3.7 8.5 31 <0.1 <0.1 31 

TOTAL 101.4 759.2 28.8 25.4 18.9 29,701 1.0 0.5 30,023 
Environmental Consequences 

260 

Table 47: Alternative Three Emissions from Dredging and Renourishment Fill 

North Wallops Island Borrow Site 

The impacts from borrow-site activities associated with sand removal from north Wallops Island 

would be slightly less than those described under Alternative One. 

Summary of Alternative Three Emissions 

The No Action Alternative is the baseline for comparison of air quality impacts. Depending on 

what sources would be utilized for one of the renourishment activities, the emissions from each 

element within this alternative are combined into different scenarios to help demonstrate the 

estimated emissions (see Table 48 and Table 49). Based on the quantification of criteria 

pollutants for all elements of Alternative Three, it is reasonable to conclude that these activities 

would not have a long-term adverse impact on air quality in the project area. It is not possible to 

address the significance of potential impacts from GHG emissions, and therefore no significance 

conclusion or mitigation can be made or adopted due to the lack of regulatory guidance for that 

determination to be sound (Jones and Stokes, 2007). 

Table 48: Alternative Three Emissions Summary for Initial Beach Fill 

Shoal Emissions in tons per year Emissions in metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

A1 97.0 677.5 25.5 22.1 17.0 33,119 0.9 0.8 33,421 

B2 109.9 793.6 30.1 26.3 19.9 39,072 1.1 0.5 39,430 1

Assuming groin, seawall extension, and initial beach fill utilizing Shoal A only. 2

Assuming groin, seawall extension, and initial beach fill utilizing Shoal B only.

Unnamed Shoal A 

Tons per year Metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

Dredging and Transport 16.7 132.5 4.6 4.0 2.0 6,127 0.2 0.1 6,191 

Relocate Mooring Buoys 0.8 6.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 339 <0.1 <0.1 344 

Beach Fill Placement 3.0 10.2 0.8 0.7 1.6 6 <0.1 <0.1 7 

TOTAL 20.5 149.7 5.6 4.9 3.7 6,473 0.2 0.1 6,541 

Unnamed Shoal B CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

Dredging and Transport 19.1 156.6 5.5 4.8 2.3 7,459 0.2 0.1 7,342 

Relocate Mooring Buoys 0.8 6.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 339 <0.1 <0.1 344 

Beach Fill Placement 3.5 12.2 0.9 0.8 1.9 8 <0.1 <0.1 8 

TOTAL 23.3 175.7 6.6 5.9 4.3 7,806 0.3 0.1 7,694 
Environmental Consequences 

 261 

Table 49: Alternative Three Emissions Summary for Renourishment Beach Fill 

Borrow Site Emissions in tons per year Emissions in metric tonnes per year 

CO NOx VOC PM SOx CO2 N2O CH4 CO2e 

A1 22.6 165.1 6.2 5.4 4.1 8,303 0.2 0.1 8,367 

B2 25.7 193.7 7.3 6.5 4.7 9,778 0.3 0.1 9,873 

A-W.I.3 18.0 116.1 4.8 4.4 3.4 5,564 0.1 <0.1 5,607 

B-W.I.4 20.1 135.2 5.5 5.1 3.9 6,547 0.2 <0.1 6,611 1

Assuming renourishment utilizing Shoal A only. 

2

Assuming renourishment utilizing Shoal B only. 

3

Assuming half of renourishment is obtained from Shoal A and half from the north Wallops Island borrow site. 

4

Assuming half of renourishment is obtained from Shoal B and half from the north Wallops Island borrow site. 

4.2.8 Noise 

The following text describes potential impacts on the airborne noise environment. Potential 

underwater noise impacts on marine mammals are described in Section 4.3.10. 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, project-specific short-term impacts on noise would occur 

during maintenance and emergency repair activities. Impacts on noise would be dependent on the 

type, length, and frequency of the activities, but are not anticipated to be significant. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

There are no adjacent sensitive noise receptors, such as residential areas, churches, schools, and 

recreation areas close enough to Wallops Island to be affected by noise generated from SRIPP 

activities. 

Under Alternative One, there would be temporary increases in noise levels from the operation of 

heavy equipment on Wallops Island, especially in the beach area during construction of the 

seawall, moving the beach fill into place, or during sediment removal at the north Wallops Island 

borrow site. However, none of the project activities would occur near occupied facilities, so 

noise impacts on WFF employees and tenants would be minimal. Additionally, SRIPP activities, 

including haul trucks traveling on Wallops Island roads, are not anticipated to be outside the 

range of existing noise levels from vehicles, airplanes, and barges at WFF. NASA would comply 

with local noise ordinances and State and Federal standards and guidelines for potential impacts 

on humans caused by construction activities in order to mitigate potential impacts on NASA 

personnel. 

OSHA limits noise exposure for workers to 115 dB for a period of no longer than 15 minutes in 

an 8-hour work shift, and to 90 dB for an entire 8-hour shift. Workers near activities producing 

unsafe noise levels, both on land and water, would be required to wear hearing protection 

equipment. Therefore, impacts on the occupational health of construction workers as a result of 

construction noise are not expected. 

Ambient underwater sound levels at the offshore borrow sites would increase during dredge 

operations. Much of the sound produced during filling of the hopper is associated with propeller 

and engine noise with additional sounds emitted by pumps and generators. 
Environmental Consequences 

262 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative Two, the types of impacts and mitigation measures would be the same as 

described under Alternative One; however increased noise levels at the south end of Wallops 

Island would continue for a longer period of time compared to Alternative One due to 

construction of the groin in that area. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative Three, the types of impacts and mitigation measures would be the same as 

described under Alternative One; however, increased noise levels at the south end of Wallops 

Island would continue for a longer period of time compared to Alternative One due to 

construction of the breakwater in that area. 

4.2.9 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts from hazardous materials and hazardous waste are 

possible because existing infrastructure containing storage areas or accumulation points would 

continually be at risk from wave overtopping and flooding (especially during severe storm 

events), as well as continued shoreline retreat. NASA would likely remove hazardous materials 

and hazardous wastes from Wallops Island more frequently and prior to threatening weather to 

lessen potential impacts from hazardous materials and hazardous waste. 

Maintenance or emergency repair activities may include the use of hazardous materials and 

hazardous waste generation (i.e., solvents, hydraulic fluid, oil, and antifreeze). With 

implementation of safety measures and proper procedures for the handling, storage, and disposal 

of hazardous materials and wastes during construction activities, no adverse impacts are 

anticipated during construction. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Construction activities would include the use of hazardous materials and hazardous waste 

generation (i.e., solvents, hydraulic fluid, oil, and antifreeze). With implementation of safety 

measures and proper procedures for the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials 

and wastes during construction activities, no adverse impacts are anticipated during construction. 

The short- and long-term effects of an accident on the environment would vary greatly 

depending upon the type of accident and the substances involved. NASA has implemented 

various controls to prevent or minimize the effects of an accident involving hazardous materials 

on NASA property, including the following: 

 Preparation of an ICP 

 Preparation of emergency plans and procedures designed to minimize the effect an 

accident has on the environment 

 Maintenance of an online database of hazardous materials and the associated buildings 

where they are stored or used, which would be updated to include the new facilities 

 Annual training for all users of hazardous materials 
Environmental Consequences 

 263 

Implementation of Alternative One would have a beneficial impact by restoring the shoreline and 

increasing the distance between breaking waves and hazardous materials critical storage areas 

and accumulation points. No impacts on ASTs or USTs are anticipated under Alternative One 

because the tanks are not located within the project area. In the event of a petroleum or chemical 

release during construction activities, or the disturbance or movement of an AST or UST, NASA 

would notify VDEQ. Section 62.1-44.34:19.1 of the Code of Virginia requires an operator of a 

facility with a total aboveground storage capacity of more than 4,997 liters (1,320 gallons) of oil, 

or an operator of an individual AST with a storage capacity of more than 2,498 liters (660 

gallons) of oil to register the facility or AST. ASTs with a storage capacity of 2,498 liters (660 

gallons) of oil or less are exempt from registration. NASA would ensure that contractors 

providing ASTs to the work site have registered the ASTs as necessary to comply with Section 

62.1-44.34:19.1 of the Code of Virginia.

When barge operators and any SRIPP contractors are operating vessels that are carrying 

hazardous waste materials, NASA would ensure that the contractors are in compliance with 49 

CFR Part 176 – Carriage by Vessel. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The types of hazardous materials and hazardous waste management impacts, minimization and 

mitigation measures, and regulations for Alternative Two are the same types as those described 

under Alternative One. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The types of hazardous materials and hazardous waste management impacts, minimization and 

mitigation measures, and regulations for Alternative Three are the same types as those described 

under Alternative One. 

4.2.10 Munitions and Explosives of Concern 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative the SRIPP would not be implemented but emergency measures 

may still be implemented to protect at-risk infrastructure. It is not anticipated that MEC would 

constitute a safety hazard in the areas near the shoreline where maintenance or emergency repair 

activities would occur. However, MEC (both UXO and DMM) from the former National 

Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)/NASA EOD Area (Figure 34) may migrate to the 

Atlantic Ocean if further beach erosion occurs in the project area (USACE, 2007). Therefore, the 

No Action Alternative would result in potentially adverse impacts as it relates to MEC. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

MEC are not anticipated to be encountered on the Wallops Island shoreline in the area of seawall 

construction or beach fill. It is anticipated that shoreline erosion would increase to the south of 

the seawall extension, which includes the area known as the former NACA/NASA EOD Area. 

MEC (both UXO and DMM) may migrate to the ocean if further beach erosion occurs in this 

area (USACE, 2007). The SRIPP beach fill would reduce the potential of MEC migration into 

the ocean. 

During offshore dredging activities, MEC are not anticipated to be encountered on Unnamed 

Shoal A or B. If MEC is inadvertently encountered during dredging and accidentally placed on 
Environmental Consequences 

264 

the Wallops Island shoreline, NASA personnel would notify the WFF Security office, who 

would arrange to have them properly removed. 

There is a potential that MEC would be encountered during excavation of the north Wallops 

Island borrow site. As described in Chapter 3, historic military activities in that area have 

resulted in a high probability of encountering MEC in the nearshore environment and on the 

northern end of Wallops Island. As seen on Figure 34, the sea target impact and the small arms 

range safety fan overlap the accreting shoreline of north Wallops Island. 

To minimize the risk of adverse impacts from UXO in this area, an MEC Avoidance Plan that 

addresses the potential hazards would be prepared. A visual and magnetic survey of the area to 

locate MEC would be completed and potential hazards removed prior to excavation. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Impacts related to MEC would be the same as described under Alternative One. No MEC is 

anticipated to be encountered in the area of the groin. Construction of a groin would reduce the 

rate of shoreline erosion, minimizing the possibility of MEC migration into the ocean via beach 

erosion. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Impacts related to MEC would be the same as described under Alternative One. No MEC is 

anticipated to be encountered in the area of the breakwater. Construction of a breakwater would 

reduce the rate of shoreline erosion, minimizing the possibility of MEC migration into the ocean 

via beach erosion. 

4.3 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

4.3.1 Vegetation 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

and emergency repair activities would occur. Vegetation associated with the dune and swale 

zones and the shrub, thicket, and maritime forest areas located at the southern end of the island 

would continue to be at-risk as the shoreline continues to retreat. The ongoing accretion at the 

northern end of Wallops Island would continue to provide substrate for the establishment and 

development of vegetative communities. 

Increased overwash events would impact coastal vegetation on Wallops Island. Apart from the 

physical destruction of plants by overwash processes, fluctuations in the elevation of the water 

table and variations in groundwater salinity, both spatially and temporally, would have an 

adverse impact on vegetation patterns. Overwash events would erode and strip vegetation in 

some areas and deposit sediment on other areas, burying vegetation. 

The No Action Alternative could result in temporary adverse impacts on vegetation due to 

disturbance and removal for emergency repairs and maintenance activities. Impacts would be 

minimized by avoiding naturally vegetated areas and re-vegetating after construction. Over time, 

because this alternative would not prevent shoreline retreat, vegetation in the dune and shore 

environments may be adversely affected. 
Environmental Consequences 

 265 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Alternative One would reduce the factors currently contributing to the loss of vegetative beach 

habitat on Wallops Island: inundation from storms, wave energy, and loss of sand. The high 

energy environment of the beach and surf zone cannot be tolerated by the majority of vegetation, 

except for a few plants which exist in the subtidal zone, phytoplankton, macroalgae, and some 

algae attached to substructure. 

It is anticipated that under Alternative One there would be some temporary impacts on 

vegetation during the construction of the seawall and placement of beach fill for initial and 

renourishment cycles. The movement of dump trucks carrying the seawall components would 

likely disturb some vegetation in the upper beach zone, as would any equipment used during 

sand placement activities. 

Addition of sand to the shoreline would result in long-term beneficial impacts on existing 

vegetation. The presence of a beach is an important buffer for other vegetative zones on Wallops 

Island. The SRIPP would create beach and dune habitat along approximately 6.0 km (3.7 mi) of 

shoreline where none currently exists. In addition, NASA would plant the dune with American 

beachgrass and install sand fencing as a dune profile stabilization measure. Naturally occurring 

grasses would also likely repopulate the upper dune areas. Vegetative species associated with 

dune and swale systems would benefit from the expanded beach habitat that would be created 

under Alternative One. Shrub, thicket, and marine forest systems on the island would have 

additional storm damage reduction from erosion and wave action. 

During renourishment cycles from the northern part of Wallops Island, vegetation is not expected 

to be disturbed because the pan excavator and other equipment would travel along the 

unvegetated beach to reach the upland borrow site. NASA would avoid removing sand from 

vegetated areas to the extent practicable. However, minor adverse impacts may occur (e.g., 

uprooting, crushing). 

Overall, it is anticipated that Alternative One would result in beneficial impacts on Wallops 

Island vegetation by creation of new habitat where none currently exists. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative Two, the types of impacts on vegetation would be the same as those discussed 

under Alternative One; however, less beach fill volume (initial and renourishment volumes) 

would be required compared to Alternative One. Although there would be a slightly smaller 

amount of vegetative beach habitat created initially, the groin would further reduce the amount 

of wave energy reaching the beach and would reduce longshore sediment transfer from Wallops 

Island shoreline. This would help maintain the beach as both a vegetative habitat for beach 

grasses and a buffer for other vegetative zones present on Wallops Island. 

The groin would be constructed partially on land, partially in the ocean. It is anticipated that 

there would be temporary impacts on vegetation during the portion of the construction on land. 

The movement of dump trucks carrying the groin components would likely tread on vegetation 

in the upper beach zone; however, adverse effects are anticipated to be temporary and minor. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative Three, the types of impacts on vegetation would be the same as those 

discussed under Alternative One; however, less beach fill volume (initial and renourishment 
Environmental Consequences 

266 

volumes) would be required compared to Alternative One. Although there would be a slightly 

smaller amount of vegetative beach habitat created initially, the breakwater would further reduce 

the amount of wave energy reaching the beach and would reduce longshore sediment transfer 

from Wallops Island shoreline. This would help maintain the beach as both a vegetative habitat 

for beach grasses and a buffer for other vegetative zones present on Wallops Island. The 

breakwater would be constructed entirely in the ocean, so there would be no construction 

impacts on vegetation. 

4.3.2 Wildlife 

4.3.2.1 Invertebrates, Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

and emergency repair activities would occur. Based on past trends of sediment transport and 

erosion in the region, it is reasonable to assume that under the No Action Alternative substantial 

changes to Wallops Island shoreline would continue to occur. Over time, this could alter the type 

and magnitude of terrestrial wildlife habitats present on Wallops Island. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

The majority of terrestrial wildlife is found in the northern dune and swale zone and the western 

freshwater and brackish marshes of Wallops Island. Reptiles and amphibians are found among 

the vegetation of the dune and swale zone, so it is unlikely that they would be adversely affected 

by beach fill and seawall construction activities since these would not occur in the dune and 

swale environment. Mammals inhabit the dune and swale zone, as well as the maritime forest in 

the center of the island. It is unlikely that there would be any concentration of mammals in either 

the seawall construction area, or in the beach nourishment area of the Wallops Island shoreline. 

Although they may occasionally venture into the upper beach zone, they would become startled 

by SRIPP-related noises and activity, and would quickly vacate the area. 

Temporary adverse impacts on upper beach invertebrates, such as ghost crabs, on existing 

portions of the beach may occur during implementation of Alternative One. Bulldozing to shape 

the beach has been shown to reduce the populations of ghost crabs by over 50 percent up to three 

months after construction activities have ended (Peterson et al., 2000). After the initial 

construction of the new beach, ghost crabs would be expected to recolonize the area. The length 

of time it would take for reestablishment of background densities would be dependent on a 

number of factors such as the time of year construction activity ends and weather events. Ghost 

crabs spawn from April through July in the mid-Atlantic. From roughly October through April, 

they “hibernate” in their burrows (Leber 1982). Hobbs et al. (2008) reported that high-energy 

weather events reset ghost crab populations that had been reduced by off-road vehicle traffic. As 

a result, storm events after beach fill events may facilitate recolonization of the beach from 

spring through fall. Regardless, as a relatively small area of existing beach would be affected by 

the initial beach construction, effects would not be substantial. 

Renourishment and dune maintenance would likely be more disruptive to upper beach 

invertebrates as they would be expected to inhabit the newly created beach and would then be 

subject to effects such as displacement, disruption of feeding, reduction in prey base, crushing, or 

burial. Given their seasonal distribution, greater impacts may be realized from spring through 
Environmental Consequences 

 267 

fall. In addition, ghost crabs are primarily nocturnal and feed on the foreshore and therefore may 

be more susceptible the effects of construction activities at night. If renourishment and 

maintenance activities were conducted at a frequency that would allow for species recovery, 

effects would be short-term (on the order of several months). However, a persistent need to 

renourish or mechanically maintain the upper beach or dune could counteract recovery, with the 

geographic extent of effects based upon how much of the beach must be re-worked. 

Reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates would also experience adverse impacts to their habitat 

during future renourishment cycles if sand is borrowed from the unvegetated beach of north 

Wallops Island. However, these adverse impacts would be temporary and highly localized. 

Terrestrial species found inland in vegetated areas may become startled by construction-related 

noises, but this would be temporary and would only last the duration of the construction. 

Excavation of the north Wallops Island borrow site could also potentially result in the loss of 

nesting habitat for the diamondback terrapin. Although the impact would likely be temporary due 

to accretion on the north end of Wallops Island, the area may remain unsuitable as habitat until 

more natural elevations are re-established by shoreline processes. If more frequent renourishment 

cycles are needed than currently planned, the beach area may not fully recover as a viable 

nesting area for terrapins. However, because there are other known nesting habitats for terrapins 

on Wallops Island, impacts are not expected to be substantial. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on terrestrial wildlife discussed under Alternative One would be the same 

for Alternative Two. However, because less beach fill volume (initial and renourishment 

volumes) would be required compared to Alternative One, there would be fewer barge trips, less 

material obtained from north Wallops Island and less potential for disturbance to invertebrates 

through smothering or habitat loss. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on terrestrial wildlife discussed under Alternative One would be the same 

for Alternative Three. However, because less beach fill volume (initial and renourishment 

volumes) would be required compared to Alternative One, there would be fewer barge trips, less 

material obtained from north Wallops Island and, therefore, less potential for disturbance to 

invertebrates through smothering or habitat loss. 

4.3.2.2 Birds 

Impacts on shorebirds, seabirds and other migratory birds known to breed, nest, and forage along 

the shoreline of Wallops Island are discussed in this section. Impacts on threatened and 

endangered bird species are addressed in Section 4.3.10. 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

and emergency repair activities would occur. Based on past trends of sediment transport and 

erosion in the region, it is reasonable to assume that under the No Action Alternative substantial 

changes to the Wallops Island shoreline would continue to occur. This would adversely affect 

shorebirds, seabirds, and migratory birds by decreasing the amount of beach habitat. 
Environmental Consequences 

268 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Nearshore and On-shore Impacts 

Impacts on shorebirds, seabirds and migratory birds known to breed, nest, and forage along the 

shoreline of Wallops Island are anticipated. Temporary noise disturbances from both the 

construction machinery used for seawall extension, movement of beach sand, excavation of the 

north Wallops Island borrow site, and the dredges are expected to adversely affect birds; 

however, these noise levels would be similar to existing noise from daily operations, including 

occasional flights and rocket launches on Wallops Island. Birds which are startled by 

construction and dredge noise are likely to temporarily leave the immediate area, which could 

disrupt nesting and foraging activities, and lead to nest predation. The continued presence of 

birds at WFF, even with the noise from flight and launch operations over the past few decades, 

suggests that short-term noises have not significantly disturbed birds on the island. 

Another potential adverse impact to birds is the disturbance of beach habitat during the 

placement of sand on Wallops Island shoreline. The placement of sediment on the shoreline may 

temporarily disturb the breeding, nesting, and feeding activities of seabirds. During beach 

nourishment, the large amount of sand placed on the beach is anticipated to smother some prey 

species such as crabs and worms, which inhabit the surface layer of sand. Additionally, the surf 

zone serves as a nursery and feeding grounds for several species of surf fishes (including 

pompano, kingfish, spot, and juvenile flounders) that prey upon these benthic invertebrates, and 

in turn are preyed upon by seabirds. A reduction in the availability of surf zone fishes would 

adversely affect foraging seabirds. However, studies by Nelson (1985, 1993) and Hackney et al., 

(1996) report an infaunal recovery time ranging from 2 to 7 months following beach 

nourishment. Therefore, no long-term adverse affects to seabird foraging capabilities are 

anticipated. 

Studies of the effects of beach nourishment on shorebird populations have reported variable 

results. For example, Peterson et al. (2006) reported that shorebird (primarily sanderling) use of a 

filled beach at Bogue Banks, North Carolina was reduced by 70 percent on filled beaches for 

several months after project completion. They postulated that reduction in shorebird use was in 

response to a decrease in prey (primarily coquina clam, Donax spp.) abundance and possibly 

much coarser than native sediment that was placed on the beach. Grippo et al. (2007) examined 

the effects of beach renourishment projects over a two-year study on waterbird and shorebird 

communities in Brunswick County, North Carolina. No significant effect on total waterbird and 

shorebird abundance was found, and waterbirds actually increased in number due to the creation 

of additional beach habitat. Although fewer food resources were present while the benthic 

communities recovered, no significant differences in feeding activity were observed, although 

this could have been due to the highly transient nature of the birds. 

A beneficial effect of the project would be that the newly constructed beach could potentially 

create suitable shorebird nesting habitat. Because the created beach would have a sand dune 

behind it, washover events (that typically create preferred shorebird nesting, feeding, and 

roosting habitat) would be less frequent than on a natural beach. However, despite a lack of 

washover, the elevated, sparsely vegetated beach on Wallops Island could be beneficial to beach 

nesting species during times when other barrier island beaches in the area would be more subject 

to nest inundation and storm washout. 
Environmental Consequences 

 269 

Currently there is no beach along the existing seawall. As such, there is no beach habitat for 

birds. Initial placement of beach fill would have little or no impact on birds within the areas 

where beach does not exist at the present time. 

There would be potential impacts on birds during the renourishment phases of the project after 

the initial beach fill has been placed and habitat and benthic prey populations have had time to 

develop. The time of year that renourishment is conducted would play a role in dictating the 

intensity of potential adverse effects. For example, conducting renourishment during the spring 

could adversely affect the settlement (transition from living in the water column to living on the 

bottom) of coquina clams that are important prey items for shorebirds; along North Carolina 

beaches, the first recruits (young individuals that recently transitioned from larvae to juveniles) 

of the year have been observed during this time frame (Reilly and Bellis, 1983). Coquina clams 

are an important food source to a number of shorebirds, including Sanderlings, Red Knots, and 

Willets. Renourishment activities during the summer months would likely be the most disturbing 

to nesting and foraging shorebirds and could result in inadvertent crushing or burial of nests, 

startling, and burial of food sources. Both coquina clams and mole crabs (Emerita spp.) reach 

peak larval abundance in the summer (Diaz, 1980). Conducting work in the fall would not have 

the same potential direct impacts to nesting shorebirds, however it could have a pronounced 

effect on mole crabs, which experience a fall (in addition to spring) recruitment (settling of 

larvae on the beach). Diminished fall recruitment could have effects lasting into the following 

season as fewer females would be available to produce eggs the following spring, indirectly 

affecting the numerous waterbirds (including Least Terns, Laughing Gulls, and Willets) that feed 

upon them (Dolan et al., 2004). As nesting birds would no longer be present within the project 

area and as it is hypothesized that both coquina clams and mole crabs migrate offshore with the 

movement of sand during the winter (Edwards and Irving, 1943), conducting renourishment 

work in winter months (November – March) would have the fewest adverse effects on 

shorebirds. At this time, NASA has not decided the time of year that renourishment would occur; 

however to minimize impacts on shorebirds it would continue to monitor the Wallops Island 

beach in accordance with its Protected Species Monitoring Plan (NASA, 2010c) to establish 

shorebird use trends on the new beach during the times of peak activity (spring – fall). During 

the planning phase for future renourishment cycles, a variety of factors would be considered, 

including shorebird use of the beach (temporal and geographic) and magnitude of the required 

renourishment event. NASA would consult with USFWS and VDGIF in planning all future 

renourishment cycles to minimize impacts on shorebirds. 

Removal of sand from north Wallops Island would likely have the most detrimental long-term 

effects on shorebird foraging and nesting. In recent years, north Wallops Island has supported a 

large shorebird population likely due to its gently sloped sand flats, tidal pools, and distance 

from WFF mission operations. Excavation and movement of sand from this area could result in 

mortality or burial of food sources (discussed above), thereby reducing the value of the area to 

feeding shorebirds until infaunal recovery, which could take several months. If the need is 

identified for renourishment at a greater frequency than the project design of 5 years, infaunal 

recovery could be interrupted, further impacting the birds’ ability to obtain necessary food on 

north Wallops Island. Coupled with the newly replenished beach large areas of shoreline could 

be devoid of an adequate prey base for extended periods of time. This impact could lead to 

shorebirds needing to fly elsewhere to find food. Uniform grading of the area could also remove 

ephemeral tidal pools, which are highly attractive foraging areas for a number of shorebird 

species, including Piping Plovers (discussed in Section 4.3.10) and Red Knots. According to 
Environmental Consequences 

270 

VDGIF, up to 25 percent of Virginia’s weekly Red Knot population occurred on Wallops Island 

during spring migration in recent years (Watts and Truitt, unpubl. data), demonstrating the 

importance of this area to migrating shorebirds. As such, continued use of the north borrow site 

without adequate recovery time could present adverse impacts to Red Knots in particular. 

Impacts on nesting shorebird species could include reduced nest viability from flooding and 

washout due to the resulting lower beach elevations. The habitat value of north Wallops Island to 

shorebird species is high, and as such, NASA would only excavate sand for future renourishment 

outside of plover and sea turtle nesting season (March 15 through November 30 or the last date 

of potential sea turtle hatchling emergence based on when the last eggs were laid). Additionally, 

during planning for this component of the SRIPP, NASA would consult with USFWS and 

VDGIF to identify more site-specific means (targeting certain areas over others) for mitigating 

impacts. 

In conclusion, although Alternative One would have direct and indirect adverse effects on 

shorebirds that inhabit the areas within and adjacent to Wallops Island, it is reasonable to expect 

that the newly created beach would offer a substantial amount of habitat for foraging and nesting. 

As such, the benefits of having 6.0 km (3.7 mi) of beach where there is currently none would 

outweigh the shorter-term adverse effects, thus presenting a net positive benefit to those species. 

Offshore Borrow Sites 

Aerial seabird surveys conducted by USFWS in 2001 and 2003 (Forsell, 2003) identified 

northern gannets, common and red-throated loons, gulls, and scoters within or adjacent to the 

offshore portion of the project area. These species of birds could be affected by dredging 

operations. Seabirds target offshore shoals as a source of prey because fish tend to school around 

shoals. During dredging operations at Unnamed Shoals A or B, noise disturbances from the 

hopper dredge are expected. These noises may cause seabirds to divert flight patterns or vacate 

the shoal area, where they sometimes feed on schooling fish and benthos. This impact could lead 

to seabirds needing to feed on other shoals in the area, which would cause them to expend more 

energy along their migratory path. 

Direct site-specific adverse effects on diving, bottom-feeding seabird species may also occur 

within the dredged area due to removal of benthic habitat and changes in shoal bathymetry. 

Dredging different shoal areas could have different effects on species that use the area for 

feeding. Removing the entire crest of the shoals could reduce upwelling (i.e., upward motion of 

sub-surface waters and benthic nutrients to surface waters) that could potentially impact foraging 

quality for gannets, gulls, and pelicans, and would increase the diving depth for many seaducks. 

Dredging the flanks of the shoals would maintain upwelling, but would reduce shallow water 

areas of the shoals, lowering the benthic foraging area available to scoters. Dredging into the 

center of the crest could maintain the upwelling, but could potentially affect sedimentation 

patterns, resulting in change of substrate and benthic food availability, and it could also increase 

the diving depth for seaducks (Forsell and Watson, 2006). Over the lifetime of the SRIPP, the 

dredging plan may involve sand removal from these general areas on Shoals A and B; therefore, 

a combination of these effects could occur. 

There would also be minor direct impacts to seabirds outside the dredging and fill footprints due 

to turbidity as a result of the dredging and fill placement operations. Seabirds use their sight to 

locate fish over the shoals, and the increased turbidity caused by dredging may temporarily 
Environmental Consequences 

 271 

impair their feeding ability. However, the sediment is expected to quickly settle from the water 

column. 

Removal of sand from the shoal(s) would lower the topography of the shoal and, as described in 

Section 4.3.7 (Finfish), may adversely affect fish populations in the area. As a result, dredging 

may indirectly affect seabird populations that prey on fish present at the shoal by altering fish 

distribution and populations. 

In conclusion, the impacts are not anticipated to be significant within a regional context given the 

hundreds of shoals and potential forage areas available to the birds within the mid-Atlantic 

region. The dredging would be shallow and limited to the top several meters of sediment on each 

shoal and would only affect a portion of each shoal’s total surface area. In addition, as described 

in Section 4.3.5, the benthic organisms within the areas affected by dredging would be expected 

to recover to pre-dredge levels within a few years. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on seabirds discussed under Alternative One would be similar to those for 

Alternative Two. However, because less beach fill volume (initial and renourishment volumes) 

would be required compared to Alternative One, there would be less sand removed from the 

offshore shoals, fewer barge trips, and therefore a reduced potential for disturbance of seabird 

breeding, nesting, and feeding activities. 

Noise generated during groin construction could cause temporary disturbance of shorebird 

nesting and foraging. The groin would provide benefits to fish-eating avifauna by introducing 

habitat for fish that would be attracted to the structure. In addition, the above water portion of the 

groin would provide potential roosting and resting area for birds. Construction of a groin may 

lead to some habitat loss due to erosion within a groin “shadow” approximately 300 m (1,000 ft) 

downdrift of the structure (see Section 4.2.2.1 for details); however, renourishing the beach 

would reduce the potential for downdrift erosion by providing continual sand on the Wallops 

Island shoreline. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on seabirds discussed under Alternative One would be similar to those for 

Alternative Three. However, because less beach fill volume (initial and renourishment volumes) 

would be required compared to Alternative One, there would be less sand removed from the 

shoals, fewer barge trips, and therefore a reduced potential for disturbance of seabird breeding, 

nesting, and feeding activities. 

Noise generated during breakwater construction could cause temporary disturbance of shorebird 

nesting and foraging, however it would likely to a lesser degree than the groin due to its location 

several hundred meters offshore. The breakwater would provide benefits to fish-eating avifauna 

by introducing habitat for fish that would be attracted to the structure. In addition, the above 

water portion of the breakwater would provide potential roosting and resting area for birds. 

Construction of a breakwater may lead to some habitat loss within a 2.5-km (1.5-mi) area 

downdrift of the structure (see Section 4.2.2.1 for details); however, renourishing the beach 

would reduce the potential for downdrift erosion by providing continual sand on the Wallops 

Island shoreline. 
Environmental Consequences 

272 

4.3.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

and emergency repair activities would occur. Maintenance and repair activities may result in 

very localized and minor increases in turbidity. These increases in turbidity may affect SAV that 

were found during an October 2009 survey of the north end of Wallops Island. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

As discussed in Chapter 3, SAV is present in small amounts in the coastal bays of Wallops, 

Assawoman, and Chincoteague Islands. Widgeon grass that was observed during the October 

2009 vegetation survey of north Wallops Island would be directly affected if removed during 

excavation, or indirectly affected by changes in water quality. Although localized increases in 

turbidity are anticipated during implementation of Alternative One in the nearshore area of 

Wallops Island, turbidity would not reach the SAV beds that are mapped approximately 11 km (7 

mi) and 8 km (5 mi) from Wallops Island. NASA would conduct vegetation surveys prior to 

excavation activities on the north end of Wallops Island and if SAV is observed would 

coordinate with appropriate agencies to ensure adequate protection. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on SAV discussed under Alternative Two would be the same for 

Alternative One. The minor additional turbidity associated with the construction of a groin in the 

southern portion of the project area would not adversely impact SAV beds located in the coastal 

bays of the region. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on SAV discussed under Alternative Three would be the same for 

Alternative One. The minor additional turbidity associated with the construction of a breakwater 

in the southern portion of the project area would not adversely impact SAV beds in the coastal 

bays of the region. 

4.3.4 Plankton 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no dredging or in-water construction activities; 

therefore, there would be no impacts on plankton. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Sand Placement Site 

Placement of sand in the surf zone would result in only minor temporary impacts on 

phytoplankton or zooplankton because this area is already subject to dynamic wave activity and 

mixing of the water column. Sand placement would result in an increase in turbidity from the 

resuspension of sediment at the discharge pipe along the beach. This turbidity would be carried 

along the shoreline and seaward. The resuspended sediment may temporarily reduce sunlight 

penetration that would adversely impact phytoplankton productivity. The resuspended sediment 

may also release organic matter that zooplankton can feed up. Burlas et al. (2001) conducted 
Environmental Consequences 

 273 

biological monitoring of a beach restoration project on the New Jersey coast and concluded that 

there was no obvious difference in the surf zone ichthyoplankton at the nourished beaches and 

nearby natural beaches. 

Offshore Borrow Sites 

Plankton are widely dispersed throughout the project area. Because phytoplankton and 

zooplankton distributions are concentrated in the upper portions of the water column and 

dredging would occur at the sediment surface, there should be only minor entrainment of 

plankton in the dredge. In addition, water release and water quality changes, such as increased 

turbidity and localized decreases in DO, may result in localized adverse impacts to plankton 

communities. Although ichthyoplankton may be entrained in the suction dredge during dredging 

operations, ichthyoplankton are not concentrated on sand shoals; therefore, no significant 

impacts on ichthyoplankton are expected under Alternative One on the two offshore sand shoals. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The impacts on the plankton from dredging of offshore shoals and placement of the sand under 

Alternative Two would be the same as those under Alternative One. The groin would occupy a 

portion of the water column in the surf zone and nearshore but would not cause a negative 

impact to the plankton. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The impacts on the plankton from dredging of offshore shoals and placement of the sand under 

Alternative Three would be the same as those under Alternative One. The breakwater would 

occupy a portion of the water column but would not cause a negative impact to the plankton. 

4.3.5 Benthos 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, beach habitat for benthos would continue to erode along the 

southern portion of Wallops Island and accrete on the northern portion. Benthic communities 

would continue to exist within the shifting beach landscape. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Offshore Borrow Sites 

Based on an initial beach fill target of approximately 2.4 million m3 (3.2 million yd3) and 

assuming a loss of 25 percent of the material during dredge and sand placement operations, a 

total of approximately 3.1 million m3

 (4 million yd3) of sand would be dredged from Shoal A. To 

be conservative, it is assumed that the entire 210 ha (515 ac) sub-area A-1 on Shoal A would be 

dredged for the initial beach fill requirements at a dredging depth of approximately 2-3 m (7-10 

ft). Shoal A covers approximately 700 ha (1,800 ac), and Shoal B covers approximately 1,600 ha 

(3,900 ac). Therefore, during the dredging for the initial beach placement approximately 30 

percent of the surface area of Shoal A would be affected. For renourishment cycles, either Shoal 

A or Shoal B would be used. Under Alternative One, each renourishment cycle would require the 

dredging of approximately 770,000 m3

 (1,007,500 yd3) of sand. Assuming a conservative 

uniform dredging depth of 2 m (7 ft), approximately 39 ha (95 ac) or approximately 6 percent of 
Environmental Consequences 

274 

the total area of Shoal A or 3 percent of the total area of Shoal B would be dredged under each 

renourishment cycle. 

Dredging sand from either offshore shoal would have a significant and immediate adverse 

impact on the local benthic community of the shoal. The primary direct effect would be the 

removal of sand and entrainment of the infauna and epifauna that reside within and on the 

sediment. Because the majority of the benthos live in the upper 15 cm (6 in) of sediment, a single 

pass of the dredge would remove approximately 0.3 m (1 ft) of sediment and would result in a 

significant decrease in the abundance, biomass, and number of species of benthic organisms in 

the immediate area of the dredge cut. However, it is expected that there would be a negligible 

impact on the regional benthic ecosystem because: (1) the benthic assemblages on the sand 

shoals are not unique but are similar to assemblages in adjacent areas, and (2) the spatial extent 

of the dredged area is small compared to the broad area of the nearshore continental shelf. Diaz 

et al. (2006) reported on the results of biological monitoring on Sandbridge Shoal located off the 

southern Virginia coast that has been dredged four times from 1996 to 2003. Their results 

showed no negative impacts on macrobenthos. 

In addition to the direct impacts on the benthos from the dredging operations, there may be 

indirect impacts as a result of changes to the sedimentary environment. Dredging causes the 

suspension of sediment, which increases turbidity over the bottom as a benthic plume. The 

deposition of this suspended sediment in adjacent areas can indirectly affect the benthos by 

covering the sediment surface and changing the physical characteristics of the sediment. 

However, benthos living on the nearshore continental shelf are adapted to sediment movements 

as a result of storm activity. As is evident from the ripple marks and bedforms in the video 

survey of the proposed SRIPP shoals, surficial sediment is frequently moved around on the 

shoals to create these features. Most macrobenthic organisms can burrow and move through a 

few centimeters of deposited sediment. Changes to the grain size of the sediment surface may 

affect larval settlement patterns as benthic larvae preferentially settle on particular sized 

sediment. 

Dredging also changes the local sediment topography by creating furrows and depressions and 

lowering the overall topography of the shoal. The changes in bottom topography result in 

changes to local hydrodynamics which in turn may affect the distribution of both larval and adult 

benthic organisms. Changes in the local hydrodynamics may also affect the distribution of food 

resources for the benthos. 

Through the physical removal of the surficial sediment, dredging exposes sediment that has 

different physical and geochemical properties that the pre-dredged sediment. The changes to the 

surficial sediment characteristics may change its suitability for burrowing, feeding, and larval 

settlement for the benthos. Dredging exposes anaerobic sediment that may affect the benthic 

recolonization of the dredged area and changes the rate of nutrient exchange between the 

sediment and water column. 

Because of the dynamic nature of benthic communities on the nearshore continental shelf and 

their variability over time, the recolonization and recovery of the dredged area can proceed at 

various rates. Depending on the time of year, benthos can recolonize the dredged area in varying 

degrees via larval recruitment as well as from immigration of adults from adjacent, undisturbed 

areas. Benthic abundances and total species numbers may reach pre-dredge amounts relatively 

quickly dependent upon the time of year dredging occurs (e.g., within a year) (Burlas et al., 
Environmental Consequences 

 275 

2001; Posey and Alphin, 2002; Byrnes et al., 2004). However, it may take several years before 

the benthic community recovers to its pre-dredge levels of community composition and biomass 

(Wilber and Stern 1992; Newell et al., 1998). 

In the early stages of recovery of the benthic community, there may be shifts in the dominant 

species in the dredged areas. There are several benthic species in this region of the Mid-Atlantic 

such as oligochaetes, the bivalve Tellina spp. and polychaete worm Asabellides that would likely 

recruit into the dredged area in any season (Diaz et al., 2004). There are species with life history 

characteristics, such as multiple reproductive events per year, which allow them to rapidly 

recolonize unoccupied space. These opportunistic species are adapted to exploit suitable habitat 

when it becomes available. 

The timing of dredging would be an important factor in determining the eventual recovery of the 

dredged area because many benthic species have distinct reproductive and recruitment periods 

(Diaz et al., 2004). Recovery would be primarily from larval recruitment and adult immigration. 

As a result, recovery should be most rapid if dredging is completed before seasonal increases in 

larval abundance and adult activity in the spring and early summer (Herbich, 2000). 

Pump-Out Station 

As described in Section 2.5.7.3, a pump-out station may be located offshore. It would be used to 

deliver the sand and water slurry contained in the hopper dredge to the beach. It would be 

anchored temporarily offshore of the beach and would likely have multiple anchor sites. The 

placement of the anchors and anchor sweeps would impact benthic habitat. However, the impact 

would be temporary and last several months during the placement of the beach fill. In addition, 

the anchors for the pump-out station would rest on and periodically move along the sediment 

surface. There would be a negligible impact on the regional benthic ecosystem because; (1) the 

benthic assemblages on the relatively uniformly flat bottom offshore of the beach are not unique 

and are similar to assemblages in adjacent areas and (2) the spatial extent of the disturbed area is 

small compared to the broad area of the nearshore continental shelf. 

Placement Site 

Unlike many beach restoration projects, the initial sand placement would occur to a large extent 

in an area where a beach does not currently exist. Of the approximate 6.0-km (3.7-mi) length of 

the project, there is no beach for a length of approximately 4,250 m (14,000 ft). Placement of the 

dredged sand along the Wallops shoreline would bury existing subtidal benthic organisms 

seaward of the seawall, as well as intertidal organisms living on and within the interstitial areas 

of the rock seawall. Placement of the initial fill would bury the existing intertidal benthic 

community along an approximate 4,300-m (14,000-ft) length of the seawall. The mean tidal 

range is approximately 1.1 m (3.6 ft); therefore approximately 0.5 ha (1.2 ac) of hard-bottom, 

intertidal habitat would be permanently buried. In addition, approximately 91 ha (225 ac) of the 

subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall would be buried during the initial fill 

placement. 

A new beach would be formed in front of the seawall and a beach benthic community would 

become established. With the placement of fill and restoration of the beach, the composition of 

the benthic community along the seawall would fundamentally change. The community would 

change from one characterized by (1) sessile and mobile epifaunal organisms present throughout 
Environmental Consequences 

276 

an intertidal zone on the hard substrate of the seawall, and (2) an adjacent subtidal sand bottom, 

to an exposed beach with a swash and surf zone. The presence of the seawall, and the hard 

habitat it currently provides to intertidal organisms, is an artificial condition that has developed 

from the erosion of the pre-existing beach. 

Due to the handling and pumping activities, the dredged sand itself would also be devoid of live 

benthos. As a result, the recovery of benthos at the placement area would rely on immigration of 

adult organisms from adjacent undisturbed areas, as well as larval colonization from the water 

column. Recovery time of the benthos within the seaward surf zone is expected to be relatively 

rapid, even more rapid than the offshore borrow sites given the dynamic conditions within the 

nearshore and surf zones. 

Because of the absence of a beach seaward of the existing seawall, the placement of sand in this 

location would have a beneficial effect on benthic organisms by restoring beach habitat that does 

not currently exist. It is expected that the beach would repopulate with benthic organisms 

relatively quickly. Burlas et al. (2001) estimated that the recovery time for benthos in their New 

Jersey study ranged from approximately 2 to 6 months when there is a good match between the 

fill material and the natural beach sediment. 

Several environmental studies of beach nourishment indicate that there are no detrimental longterm changes in the beach fauna as a result of beach nourishment (USACE, 1992; Burlas et al., 

2001). The greatest influencing factor on beach fauna populations appears to be the composition 

of the placed material – not the introduction of additional material onto the beach. The deposited 

sediments, when similar in composition (grain size and other physical characteristics) to existing 

beach material (whether indigenous or introduced by an earlier nourishment or construction 

event), do not appear to have the potential to result in long term impacts on the numbers of 

species or community composition of beach infauna (USACE, 1994; Burlas et al., 2001). The 

proposed beach fill for the SRIPP is similar in composition and grain-size to the native beach 

material; therefore, there would be no long-term impacts to benthic community composition. 

During placement of sand on the existing beach during renourishment cycles, there would be 

impacts to the established beach and nearshore benthos. In the subtidal area that would be filled, 

impacts would tend to be most severe to small, relatively immobile species such as oligochaetes 

and polychaetes that are unable to burrow through the overburden of new sand. Larger, more 

mobile taxa such as mole crabs (Emerita) which can burrow through the placed sediment or 

other species that avoid the disturbance by migrating out of the area are generally less impacted 

by the sediment deposition (Burlas et al., 2001). Peterson et al. (2000) reported that Emerita and 

Donax densities were lower by 86 - 99 percent on nourished beaches 5 – 10 weeks after 

construction in North Carolina. The slow recovery rates may have been a consequence of a poor 

match in grain size and a high shell content. 

Grain size compatibility is important to the establishment of a healthy native beach benthic 

community. Peterson et al. (2006) reported that cold-season filling using much coarser sand than 

native caused dramatic suppression of the beach community and degrading the habitat value and 

benthic prey base for foraging shorebirds on a beach in North Carolina. Alternatively, sediment 

that is too fine may have a negative effect on the establishment of beach benthos. Peterson et al. 

(2000) noted that mole crab abundance was greatly reduced in nourished beaches in North 

Carolina that used much finer grained sediment (mean 0.08 mm) than the native beaches (mean 

grain size of 0.20 mm). They speculated that the reduced abundance were due to negative effects 
Environmental Consequences 

 277 

on burrowing or the effects of turbidity on feeing. The proposed SRIPP beach fill has a median 

grain size of approximately 0.29 mm compared to 0.20 mm for the native beach. Therefore, 

negative impacts to the beach benthic community due to widely different grain sizes would not 

be expected. 

As discussed above in this section, the timing and extent of renourishment can affect the ability 

of benthos to recover following sand placement. Spring, summer, and fall would be expected to 

produce the greatest effects, with winter likely having the least. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The impacts on the benthos from dredging the offshore shoals and the placement of the sand 

under Alternative Two would be very similar to those under Alternative One. However, because 

the amount of dredged material required under Alternative Two is less than Alternative One, the 

impacts on benthic habitat would be less. Based on an initial beach fill target of approximately 

2.30 million m3

 (2.92 million yd3) and assuming a loss of 25 percent of the material during 

dredge and placement operations, a total of approximately 2.8 million m3

 (3.65 million yd3) of 

sand would be dredged from Shoal A. 

To be conservative, it is assumed that the entire 210 ha (515 ac) sub-area A-1 on Shoal A would 

be dredged for the initial beach fill requirements at a dredging depth of approximately 2-3 m (7-

10 ft). Shoal A covers approximately 700 ha (1,800 ac), and Shoal B covers approximately 1,600 

ha (3,900 ac). Therefore, during the dredging for the initial beach placement approximately 30 

percent of the surface area of Shoal A would be affected. For renourishment cycles, either Shoal 

A or Shoal B would be used. Under Alternative Two, each renourishment cycle would require 

the dredging of approximately 690,000 m3 (915,000 yd3) of sand. Assuming a conservative 

uniform dredging depth of 2 m (7 ft), approximately 35 ha (86 ac) or approximately 5 percent of 

the total area of Shoal A or 2 percent of the total area of Shoal B would be dredged under each 

renourishment cycle. 

Construction and placement of a groin would result in a direct and permanent adverse impact on 

the local benthic community within the immediate footprint of the groin. The construction of the 

groin would bury 0.08 ha (0.19 ac) of sandy, subtidal benthic habitat and replace it with hard 

substrate. The benthos within the construction limits of the groin would be covered with rock. 

However, the groin would not have a minor impact on the benthic community within the region 

as the footprint of the structure is small compared to the overall available area of similar 

unconsolidated sediment throughout the nearshore shelf. Alternatively, a groin would provide 

approximately hard substrate and habitat heterogeneity in an otherwise featureless area. It would 

provide approximately 0.02 ha (0.05 ac) of hard, intertidal benthic habitat. The hard surface of 

the rock would offer attachment surface for a variety of sessile organisms and the spaces 

between the rocks would provide habitat for mobile species such as crabs. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The impacts on the benthos from dredging the offshore shoals and the placement of the sand 

under Alternative Three would be similar to those under Alternatives One and Two. Because the 

amount of dredged material required under Alternative Three is less than Alternatives One or 

Two, the impacts on benthic habitat would be less significant. Based on an initial beach fill target 

of approximately 2.17 million m3

 (2.84 million yd3) and assuming a loss of 25 percent of the 
Environmental Consequences 

278 

material during dredge and placement operations, a total of approximately 2.71 million m3 (3.55 

million yd3

) of sand would be dredged from Shoal A. 

To be conservative, it is assumed that the entire 210 ha (515 ac) sub-area A-1 on Shoal A would 

be dredged for the initial beach fill requirements at a dredging depth of approximately 2-3 m (7-

10 ft). Shoal A covers approximately 700 ha (1,800 ac) and Shoal B covers approximately 1,600 

ha (3,900 ac). Therefore, during the dredging for the initial beach placement approximately 30 

percent of Shoal A would be affected. For renourishment cycles, either Shoal A or Shoal B 

would be used. Under Alternative Three, each renourishment cycle would require the dredging 

of approximately 671,250 m3

 (878,750 yd3) of sand. Assuming a conservative uniform dredging 

depth of 2 m (7 ft), approximately 34 ha (84 ac) or approximately 5 percent of the total area of 

Shoal A or 2 percent of the total area of Shoal B would be dredged under each renourishment 

cycle. 

Construction and placement of a breakwater would result in a direct and permanent adverse 

impact on the local benthic community within the immediate footprint of the breakwater. The 

construction of the breakwater would bury 0.31 ha (0.76 ac) of sandy, subtidal benthic habitat 

and replace it with hard substrate. The benthos within the construction limits of the breakwater 

would be covered with rock. However, the breakwater would have a minor impact on the benthic 

community within the region as the footprint of the structure is small compared to the overall 

available area of similar unconsolidated sediment throughout the nearshore shelf. Alternatively, a 

breakwater would provide hard substrate and habitat heterogeneity on an otherwise featureless 

bottom. It would function similar to an artificial reef, only in relatively shallow water compared 

to deeper water where artificial reefs typically are created, and having a portion exposed above 

the water. It would provide approximately 0.11 ha (0.28 ac) of hard, subtidal benthic habitat as 

well as 0.04 ha (0.11 ac) of hard, intertidal benthic habitat. The hard surface of the rock would 

offer attachment surface for a variety of sessile organisms and the spaces between the rocks 

would provide habitat for mobile species such as crabs. 

4.3.6 Invertebrate Nekton 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no in-water activity for emergency repairs and 

maintenance to protect at-risk infrastructure; therefore, there would be no impacts on 

invertebrate nekton. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Borrow Sites 

No significant impacts on invertebrate nekton such as squid, ctenophores (comb jellies), and 

jellyfish would occur under Alternative One. Pelagic invertebrates are widely dispersed 

throughout the inner continental shelf offshore of the MAB and not concentrated on shoal 

features (Slacum et al., 2006). In addition, water quality changes resulting from the hopper 

dredges should not result in a significant impact to pelagic invertebrates. Individuals may be 

entrained in the suction dredge during dredging operations, but this level of mortality would not 

be significant to the regional population of pelagic invertebrates. 
Environmental Consequences 

 279 

Placement Site 

Placement of sand in the surf zone is not expected to result in significant impacts on invertebrate 

nekton because this area is already exposed to dynamic wave activity and mixing of the water 

column. Burlas et al. (2001) conducted biological monitoring of a beach restoration project on 

the New Jersey coast and concluded that there were no obvious differences in the surf zone 

invertebrate nekton at the nourished beaches compared to the nearby natural beaches. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The impacts on invertebrate nekton from dredging the offshore shoals and from placement of the 

sand under Alternative Two would be the same as those under Alternative One. The groin would 

occupy a portion of the water column in the surf zone and nearshore but would not cause an 

adverse impact on these pelagic invertebrates. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The impacts on invertebrate nekton from dredging the offshore shoals and from placement of the 

sand under Alternative Three would be the same as those under Alternative One. The breakwater 

would occupy a small portion of the water column but would not cause an adverse impact on 

these pelagic invertebrates. 

4.3.7 Finfish 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no in-water activity for emergency repairs and 

maintenance to protect at-risk infrastructure; therefore, there would be no impacts on finfish. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Offshore Borrow Sites 

Dredging the offshore shoals for beach fill material may affect finfish in a number of ways. 

Short-term impacts would consist of changes in water chemistry, habitat quality, or organism 

behavior as a result of the mechanical disturbance of the seafloor during dredging. Typically, 

these impacts are localized and dissipate rapidly once the dredging activity ceases. Long-term 

impacts typically consist of more permanent changes in the bottom substrate and local 

hydrodynamics or disruptions of vulnerable life history stages of fish. For example, as described 

in Section 3.2.7, several fish species in the project area, such as sand eel and winter flounder, 

have eggs that rest on the bottom. These species would be adversely impacted by dredging. 

Fish are regularly entrained in dredges although in relatively low numbers (Reine et al., 1998). 

Larval and juvenile fish are often at greatest risk of entrainment due to their limited mobility and 

swimming strength. The distribution of individual fish species in the project area is largely 

determined by water depth, temperature, and salinity with most species ranging widely 

throughout the project area. Entrainment during offshore sand dredging, even if associated 

mortality is high, is likely to have minimal population level impacts for most taxa (Zarillo et al., 

2008). Entrainment should be a localized, short-term concern for only a few families of demersal 

(bottom-dwelling) fish such as sea robins and flounder. 

Fish use underwater sound pressure waves as well as sight to locate food and detect the presence 

of predators. While behavioral alterations of fish from human generated noise sources including 
Environmental Consequences 

280 

dredging are poorly studied, it is possible that foraging, spawning, and recruitment success of 

fish would be impacted in the immediate vicinity of dredging operations, causing some 

organisms to relocate. In addition, the physical presence of the dredge and light produced during 

nighttime operations may attract other species to the vicinity. Behavioral alterations from sound, 

light, and structure would be localized and would end once dredging is completed. Dredging may 

also attract fish due to the suspension of benthic prey species in the water column along with the 

suspended sediment. 

Dredging results in increased turbidity at the site of sediment excavation and as slurry overflow 

or dewatering from the hopper dredge. Wind, waves, and strong directional currents can also 

resuspend fine particles that accumulate in dredged areas. Turbidity may alter the trophic 

dynamics of an area by reducing the feeding efficiency of plankton-eating fish (Benfield and 

Minello, 1996) and reduce benthic prey species. Turbidity can also directly impact fish by 

irritating or clogging gill membranes and sediment deposition can impact demersal eggs, 

hindering egg respiration and increasing mortality. 

The direct impact of turbidity on mortality, growth, and spawning behavior for continental shelf 

fish is largely unstudied but is likely a minimal concern since most adult fish are mobile enough 

to escape of avoid areas of highest turbidity. Furthermore, many shelf fish species are likely 

adapted to relatively high ambient turbidity levels. 

Dredging would physically remove sediment from the shoals which, as described in Section 

4.3.5, would result in an immediate reduction in the biomass, density, and diversity of benthic 

infauna and epifauna. These organisms serve as essential prey for many demersal fish. Loss of 

this forage base during dredging would have an adverse impact on the survival and growth rates 

of demersal fish in the immediate vicinity of the dredge operations. In addition, the borrow sites 

would be recolonized by different benthic communities until full recovery is realized which may 

result in a short-term change in the demersal fish population of the area. 

Placement Site 

Direct impacts of beach nourishment projects on surf zone fish are not well documented and 

largely inferred from changes to benthic prey resources (Burlas et al., 2001; Hackney et al., 

1996). Given the highly dynamic nature of the surf zone, impacts to surf zone fish are not 

anticipated to be significant. Potential impacts to the fish community from the beach 

nourishment project could occur through several processes. The placement of sand on the beach 

buries, at least temporarily, existing benthic habitat, which may reduce the availability of infauna 

to benthic feeders. Additionally, the physical disturbance caused by dredging and the pumping of 

sand onto the beach may also affect fish distribution patterns. As described in the above Offshore 

Dredging subsection, elevated turbidity can negatively affect the physiology and feeding 

behavior of some fishes and presumably could make areas of shoreline that are being nourished 

unsuitable for some surf zone inhabitants. 

Wilber et al. (2003) conducted a study of surf zone fish in response to beach nourishment in 

northern New Jersey. They reported that beach nourishment impacts on surf zone fish were 

restricted to localized attraction (northern kingfish) and avoidance (bluefish) responses to the 

beach nourishment operation. It is expected that beach fill operations at Wallops Island would 

result in a similar response; therefore, short-term and localized adverse impact on the surf zone 

fish population are anticipated. 
Environmental Consequences 

 281 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The impacts on finfish from dredging the offshore shoals and from placement of the sand under 

Alternative Two would be similar to those under Alternative One. 

The construction of a groin would be a beneficial impact to local fish communities. A groin 

would function as fish habitat similar to a breakwater but to a lesser degree because it would be 

located in shallower water and have less submerged surface area and less of a submerged 

footprint. The groin would function as an artificial reef and provided structure and habitat in the 

otherwise featureless sand bottom that is characteristic of the nearshore environment offshore of 

Wallops. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The impacts on finfish from dredging the offshore shoals and from placement of the sand under 

Alternative Three would be similar to those under Alternative One. 

The construction of an offshore breakwater would be a beneficial impact to local fish 

communities. The breakwater would function as an artificial reef and provide structure and 

habitat in the otherwise featureless sand bottom that is characteristic of the nearshore 

environment offshore of Wallops. It is anticipated that the structure would attract a variety of fish 

species not regularly found on the sand bottom. 

4.3.8 Essential Fish Habitat 

An EFH Assessment was prepared for the SRIPP and is included as Appendix I. Pertinent 

correspondence regarding EFH consultation is provided in Appendix J. This section provides a 

summary of the EFH assessment and subsequent consultation with NMFS. The SRIPP dredging 

plan, a key factor dictating how the SRIPP would affect EFH, is summarized in this PEIS in 

Section 2.5.7. 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

activities and emergency repairs would occur. Temporary impacts on nearshore EFH from the 

use of construction vehicles and heavy machinery on the beach may occur through the 

introduction of petroleum products, heavy metals, or other contaminants due to a leak or spill. 

Construction-related impacts would be temporary, and would not likely impact EFH because any 

accidental release of contaminants or liquid fuels would be addressed in accordance with the 

existing WFF ICP emergency response and clean-up measures. Implementation of BMPs for 

vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, and spill prevention and control measures 

would reduce potential impacts on EFH during construction. Therefore, the No Action 

Alternative would not impact EFH. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Wallops Island Nearshore Environment 

The placement of sand on the Wallops Island beach would result in temporary adverse impacts 

on EFH due to turbidity and suspended solids concentrations that would be elevated above 

normal background levels in the surf zone in the immediate area of beach nourishment. 

Additionally, the beach nourishment would cause a smothering effect to benthos in the areas 
Environmental Consequences 

282 

where sand is placed along the shoreline, likely resulting in the loss of immobile benthic species 

in the area. However, the population would have the ability to recolonize from adjacent 

undisturbed areas, and the overall population would not be adversely affected in the long-term. 

Therefore, beach nourishment on Wallops Island would result in a temporary, localized adverse 

impact to EFH in the nearshore area. 

EFH may also be temporarily affected from the use of construction vehicles and heavy 

machinery on the beach for the movement of beach sand, construction of the seawall extension 

and excavation activities at the north Wallops Island borrow site. The heavy equipment and 

construction activities may result in the introduction of petroleum products, heavy metals, or 

other contaminants to nearshore waters due to a leak or spill. Construction-related impacts would 

be temporary, and would not likely be adverse because any accidental release of contaminants or 

liquid fuels would be addressed in accordance with the existing WFF ICP emergency response 

and clean-up measures. Implementation of BMPs for vehicle and equipment fueling and 

maintenance, and spill prevention and control measures would reduce potential impacts on 

nearshore waters and EFH during construction. Therefore, construction of the seawall may 

temporarily impact nearshore EFH. 

Offshore Borrow Sites 

Under Alternative One, the dredging of either offshore shoal is expected to cause direct 

temporary adverse effects to EFH habitat by removing benthic habitat and degrading water 

quality due to an increase in suspended sediment concentrations. 

The EFH of non-motile benthic species which inhabit the offshore shoals, including the surf 

clam, would be adversely affected under Alternative One due to entrainment in the dredger. 

However, the adverse effects to the overall population are anticipated to be temporary as they 

would have the ability to recolonize from adjacent undisturbed areas. Studies conducted from 

2002 to 2005 by the VIMS examined the effects of dredging to the benthic community in 

offshore sand shoals. The study found that benthic invertebrate communities destroyed by the 

dredger are able to rebound within a period of a few years (Diaz et al., 2004). Mitigation 

techniques such as maintaining the morphology of the shoals would be evaluated to preserve 

areas of benthic habitat and allow for quicker recruitment of benthic species to the dredged areas. 

The loss of benthic organisms would create a loss of prey for some federally managed fish 

species, but the effect would be localized and temporary. The hopper dredge would also cause an 

increase in turbidity that could temporarily disturb the ability of fish, surf clams, and other 

mollusks to feed; however, this adverse effect would be temporary. 

Dredging at the proposed borrow sites would be conducted in a manner that is generally 

consistent with the recommendations made in two recent MMS (now BOEMRE) publications 

examining the dredging of offshore shoals in the mid-Atlantic (CSA International, Inc. et al., 

2009; Dibajnia and Nairn, in press). These recommendations include; targeting depocenters for 

extraction, avoiding active erosional areas, shallow dredging over large areas rather than deep 

pits, dredging shoals in less than 30 m of water, and avoiding longitudinal dredging over entire 

length of shoal. In addition, NASA would attempt to minimize the total amount of borrow 

removed from the offshore shoals over the 50-year life of the project. BMPs, such as planting the 

newly created dune with native beach grass and the installation of sand fencing would be 

implemented to reduce the amount of beach fill needed. Moreover, based on results of the 
Environmental Consequences 

 283 

monitoring program and its adaptive management approach, NASA would examine measures to 

reduce shoreline erosion throughout the life of the project. 

With implementation of mitigation measures and BMPs, Alternative One would result in 

localized and temporary adverse impacts on EFH. In the EFH assessment dated November 2009, 

NASA determined that there would be “site-specific adverse effects on EFH” but the impacts 

would not be significant in a regional context (Appendix I). 

Pump-out Station 

A pump-out station may be temporarily anchored in the nearshore environment to deliver the 

sand and water slurry contained in the hopper dredge to the beach. Benthic habitat would be 

adversely impacted by the placement of the anchors and anchor sweeps. Benthic organisms 

would be displaced within the footprint of the anchor and as the anchor chain moves along the 

bottom sediment. However, the impact would be temporary and last as long as the beach fill 

placement operations. There would be a negligible impact on the regional benthic ecosystem 

because; (1) the benthic assemblages on the relatively uniformly flat bottom offshore of the 

beach are not unique and are similar to assemblages in adjacent areas and (2) the spatial extent of 

the disturbed area is small compared to the broad area of the nearshore continental shelf. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on EFH and the mitigation measures discussed under Alternative One 

would be similar to those for Alternative Two. As presented in Table 6, approximately ten 

percent less fill volume would be required during the project lifetime for Alternative Two when 

compared to Alternative One. Therefore, less turbidity and loss of benthic species by entrainment 

would occur compared to Alternative One. Also, less sand would be placed on the beach; 

therefore, there would be fewer impacts on nearshore and beach benthic communities from 

turbidity and burial. 

During groin construction, adverse effects to surf clam EFH would occur. A number of the nonmotile clams would be lost due to crushing during the groin placement. However, this adverse 

impact would be highly localized and the long-term effects of the groin would be beneficial to 

several federally managed species because it would provide additional habitat for fish and sessile 

benthos such as sponges that attach to hard substrates. The groin would permanently cover 

approximately 0.08 ha (0.19 ac) of benthic habitat. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts on EFH and the mitigation measures discussed under Alternative One 

would be similar to those for Alternative Three. As presented in Table 6, approximately twelve 

percent and three percent less fill volume would be required during the project lifetime for 

Alternative Three when compared to Alternatives One and Two, respectively. Therefore, less 

turbidity and loss of benthic species by entrainment would occur compared to Alternatives One 

and Two. Also, less sand would be placed on the beach; therefore, there would be fewer impacts 

on benthic communities and EFH would result from turbidity and burial. 

During breakwater construction, adverse effects to surf clam EFH would occur. Construction 

barge anchoring would impact EFH and clams would be crushed during the breakwater 

placement. However, this adverse impact would be highly localized. The breakwater would 

permanently cover approximately 0.31 ha (0.76 ac) of benthic habitat and EFH. The long-term 
Environmental Consequences 

284 

effects of the breakwater would be beneficial to EFH species because it would provide additional 

habitat for fish and sessile benthos that attach to hard substrates. The breakwater would provide 

approximately 0.04 ha (0.11 ac) of hard, intertidal benthic habitat as well as approximately 0.11 

ha (0.28 ac) of hard, subtidal benthic habitat. 

4.3.8.1 Agency Consultation 

As required under Section 305(b) of the MSA, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS on all 

actions, or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may 

adversely affect EFH. The Department of Commerce guidelines for implementing EFH 

coordination and consultation provisions of the MSA are contained in 50 CFR 600.905 – 930. 

NMFS provided conservation recommendations to NASA in a letter dated April 19, 2010, 

(Appendix J). NASA was required to respond within 30 days as required by Section 

305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA. NASA responded on May 17, 2010, stating that because not all the 

public comments were reviewed, it would provide a detailed response at a later date. On June 25, 

2010, NASA transmitted a letter to NMFS responding in detail to the 11 conservation 

recommendations (Appendix J). NASA and its cooperating agencies (BOEMRE and USACE) 

were in agreement with seven of the 11 recommendations. For the remaining four 

recommendations, two of which assigned numerical thresholds for sand removal at each shoal, 

one of which was regarding avoidance of shoal crests, and the last of which was regarding the 

dredging contractor’s means for sand placement on the beach, NASA provided detailed 

responses and scientific justification outlining why it did not agree with NMFS. Subsequent to 

the June 25, 2010, correspondence, NASA, BOEMRE, USACE, and NMFS held further 

discussions that resulted in a refinement of the proposed dredging plan for Shoal A as depicted in 

Figure 18. Because the focus of NASA’s responses to the NMFS recommendations was dredging 

of Shoal A for initial fill, NASA would reinitiate consultation with NMFS prior to renourishment 

events.

4.3.9 Marine Mammals 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented but emergency measures 

and maintenance would still take place as necessary. Because none of these measures would take 

place in marine waters, no impacts on marine mammals are anticipated under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

The potential impacts associated with activities under Alternative One include physical 

disturbance to habitats (benthic or aquatic) during dredging and fill, vessel strike, and increased 

noise from vessel activities (dredging). No impacts are anticipated to marine mammals from the 

placement of sand on the beach, as all activities would occur from the beach. 

Disturbance to Habitat 

Dredging for sand can indirectly affect marine mammals by reducing their ability to obtain food 

in several ways. The most direct impact is a substantial initial reduction in the benthic 

invertebrate fauna in the dredged area (discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.5). Decreased 

feeding success and prey availability may occur in areas of increased turbidity. Turbidity plumes 
Environmental Consequences 

 285 

caused by offshore dredging can lead to decreased visibility, which in turn can affect foraging 

ability by those species that use sight as a primary means to locate prey. These effects can also 

be expected outside the immediate vicinity of the dredging activity. 

Operations using hopper dredges tend to be discontinuous and associated plumes would be 

dispersed over a larger area. Hopper dredges trigger a small plume at the seabed from the 

draghead and a larger surface plume from the discharge of overspill of water with suspended 

sediment from the hopper (MMS, 1999). The length and shape of the surface plume generated by 

the overspill depends on the hydrodynamics of the water and the sediment grain size. 

Although the volume of discharged material is much higher during construction aggregate 

dredging, findings from studies of these operations from overseas provide information on the 

potential behavior of turbidity plumes from dredging for beach restoration material (MMS, 

1999). Detailed investigation of these types of operations off the coast of the United Kingdom 

found that most sediments in the plume settle out within 300 to 500 m (984 to 1,640 ft) from the 

dredge over a period of roughly 20 to 30 minutes and that suspended sediment concentrations 

returned to concentrations close to background level within an hour after completion of dredging 

(Hitchcock et al., 1999). The distance and time increased with decreasing sediment size. 

Because the sediment on Shoals A and B is well-sorted medium sand with low silt and clay 

content, turbidity plumes would be localized and short-lived. Hitchcock et al. (1999) reported 

that far field (i.e., > 500m) visible plumes that extend beyond the boundaries of suspended 

sediment are comprised of organic compounds such as fats, lipids, and carbohydrates agitated by 

the dredging process. Because the size of far field plume would depend on weather and tidal 

currents, the exact extent cannot be estimated; however, impacts on water quality are not 

expected to be substantial. 

Because the concentration of the suspended particles in the plume diminishes rapidly with time 

and distance from the source, the effects on fauna farther away from the activity are reduced. 

In general, the effects of turbidity on phytoplankton due to light reduction or on pelagic fish and 

invertebrates, due to gill irritation and reduction of light levels for visual feeders, are considered 

small (MMS, 1999). A suction hopper dredge is usually on-site for 3 to 4 hours during a 24-hour 

period, with the remaining time spent in travelling and unloading sand. This discontinuous 

method of offshore dredging allows suspended sediments to dilute, dissipate, and settle. The 

SRIPP project area could be avoided by marine mammals, which could easily feed in adjacent 

areas until the disturbance ceased. 

Vessel Strike 

Vessel collisions are more likely to affect certain species that have surface feeding or resting 

habits, such as right and humpback whales. Threatened and endangered marine mammals are 

discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.10. According to the July 22, 2010, NMFS BO on the 

SRIPP, the potential of marine mammal strikes would be mitigated by operating the dredge at 

low speeds. A Final Rule was issued on October 10, 2008 restricting vessel speeds to 10 knots 

for all vessels 20 m (65 ft) or longer in Seasonal Management Areas (SMAs) along the east coast 

of the Atlantic (50 CFR 224.105, issued October 10, 2008). Although the project area is not in an 

SMA and therefore not subject to this rule, NASA expects the speed of the dredge to be 

approximately 3 knots while dredging and 10 knots while transiting between the borrow site and 

the nearshore pump-out buoy. Therefore, there would be a low risk of vessel strike to marine 
Environmental Consequences 

286 

mammals. At this low speed, operators would be able to avoid large marine mammals by 

maneuvering the dredge vessel to avoid a whale strike. In addition, there is currently no available 

information to suggest that dredge vessels have ever collided with whales while operating in 

Atlantic waters. 

Noise 

There are three metrics commonly used in the evaluation of underwater sound impacts to marine 

mammals: peak pressure, root-mean-square (rms) or sound pressure level, and sound exposure 

level (SEL). Under the MMPA, the rms levels are used to determine harassment, and all 

underwater sound levels throughout the remainder of this PEIS will be reported in rms. The rms 

amplitude is a type of average that is determined by squaring all of the amplitudes over the 

period of interest, determining the mean of the squared values, and then taking the square root of 

the mean of the squared values. 

Transmission loss (TL) underwater is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure 

wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea 

conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and 

topography. Because the temperature, sea conditions, water chemistry, and bottom composition 

are unknown, conservative estimates of TL for the underwater sources were performed based 

only on water depth and distance from source. Because the project activities occur in waters with 

depths less than 30 m, TL was calculated using a conservative 4.5-dB reduction per doubling of 

distance, using the formula: 

TL = 15*Log(R), 

Where R = distance relative to the source to the received level of interest2

Under the MMPA, NMFS has defined levels of harassment for marine mammals. Level A 

harassment is defined as “...any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to 

injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.” Level B harassment is defined as 

“...any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to disturb a marine mammal 

or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” 

Since 1997, NMFS has been using generic sound exposure thresholds to determine when an 

activity in the ocean that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a 

take by harassment might occur (NMFS, 2005). NMFS is developing new science-based 

thresholds to improve and replace the current generic exposure level thresholds, but the criteria 

have not been finalized (Southall et al., 2007). The current Level A (injury) threshold for impulse 

noise (e.g., impact pile driving) is 180 dB rms for cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

and 190 dB rms for pinnipeds (seals, sea lions). The current Level B (disturbance) threshold for 

impulse noise is 160 dB rms for cetaceans and pinnipeds. The level B threshold for continuous 

noise is 120 dB rms for cetaceans and pinnipeds (NMFS, 2005). 

Marine mammals use hearing and sound transmission for all aspects of their life, including 

reproduction, feeding, predator and hazard avoidance, communication, and navigation. The 

 

2

 It should be noted that in the Draft PEIS NASA analyzed effects on marine mammals using 10*Log(R); however, 

during consultation with NMFS, NMFS stated that use of 10*Log(R) was overly conservative and recommended use 

of the more realistic 15*Log(R) formula. 
Environmental Consequences 

 287 

introduction of sound into the marine environment from anthropogenic sources has the potential 

to cause long-term or short-term effects. Short-term effects can include behavioral disruption or 

temporary habitat displacement; and long-term effects can include extended habitat 

displacement, physical injury to the auditory system, or in some cases mortality (Richardson et 

al., 1995). The behavioral responses of marine mammals to noise are highly variable and may 

depend upon individual hearing sensitivity (animals respond only to sounds they can directly 

detect), past exposure and habituation to noises, and demographic factors such as the age and sex 

of the animal. Other factors include the duration of the sound, whether the sound is moving, and 

environmental factors that affect the sound, including habitat characteristics (National Research 

Council [NRC], 2003). 

To understand how anthropogenic noise may affect marine mammals, it is important to 

understand the hearing abilities of the marine mammals. A summary of the hearing sensitivities 

of marine mammals likely to occur within the project area are shown in Table 50. Southall et al. 

(2007) categorized cetaceans into three general hearing groups: low-frequency (7 Hz to 22 kHz), 

mid-frequency (150 Hz to 160 kHz), and high-frequency (200 Hz to 180 kHz). The majority of 

cetaceans, including beaked whales, toothed whales, pilot whales, and dolphins, fall into the midfrequency hearing group. Baleen whales are in the low-frequency hearing group, and the dwarf 

sperm whale is in the high-frequency hearing group. All pinnipeds in the water are categorized 

into the same hearing group (75 Hz to 75 kHz). The Florida manatee has a hearing bandwidth of 

400 Hz to 46 KHz (Gerstein, 2002). 

Table 50: Marine Mammals Hearing Groups 

Hearing Group Estimated Auditory Bandwidth Species 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

7 Hz to 22 kHz Right whale 

Humpback whale 

Fin whale 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

150 Hz to 160 kHz True’s Beaked Whale 

Blainville’s Beaked Whale 

Sowerby’s Beaked Whale 

Cuvier’s Beaked Whale 

Melon-Headed Whale 

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 

Long-Finned Pilot Whale 

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 

Common Dolphin 

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin

Risso’s Dolphin 

Striped Dolphin 

Spinner Dolphin 

Clymene Dolphin 

High-frequency 

cetaceans 

200 Hz to 180 kHz Dwarf Sperm Whale 

Pinnipeds in Water 75 Hz to 75 kHz Harbor Seal 

Manatees 400 Hz to 46 KHz Florida Manatee 

Source: Southall et al., 2007; Gerstein, 2002 
Environmental Consequences 

288 

A detailed description of marine mammal species is in Section 3.2.9. The marine mammals of 

primary concern for noise impacts are those that are likely to occur within the action area. These 

are bottlenose dolphins and possibly, right whales and humpback whales. The coastal 

morphotype of bottlenose dolphins may occur in the shallow waters off Wallops Island all year 

round, comprising either the northern or southern migratory stocks, though they are more likely 

to occur during summer months. The offshore morphotype is unlikely to occur within the project 

area, as they are primarily found along the OCS and continental slope. Right whales may occur 

in the area on occasion, especially when transiting between southeastern U.S. waters and New 

England. This is likely to occur between November and April. Humpback whales may occur in 

deeper water offshore of Wallops Island in fall, winter, and spring, as they migrate to feeding 

grounds off the New England coast. Although harbor seals may occur in the area, there are no 

known haulout sites in the project vicinity, so impacts to harbor seals are not addressed further. 

Although manatees are reported, it is highly unlikely they would be found in the project vicinity, 

and are not addressed further. 

Under this alternative, underwater noise would be generated through the use of a hopper dredge. 

The primary noise from hopper dredging is created by the suction pipes used to remove the fill 

from the seabed. The noise generated by dredgers depends on their operational status: sea bed 

removal, transit, and dumping. In general the noisiest activity is associated with the seabed 

removal. Dredge noise is strongest at low frequencies (below 1,000 Hz). Clarke et al. (2002) 

reported received levels of approximately 140 dB at 40 m (130 ft) for a hopper dredge during 

loading operations (at frequencies below 1,000 Hz). 

As discussed above, calculations were performed with these source levels assuming a 

transmission loss of 15 log to the NMFS Level A (180 dB for cetaceans and 190 dB for 

pinnipeds) and Level B thresholds (160 dB and 120 dB for impulse noise and continuous noise, 

respectively). Based on these assumptions, underwater noise from the hopper dredge would not 

reach the Level A threshold and would, therefore, not result in any injury or mortality. Dredge 

noise may exceed the Level B threshold for impulse noise at a distance of approximately 1.8 m 

(5.9 ft) from the dredge during loading. Dredge noise may exceed the Level B threshold for 

continuous noise at a distance of approximately 862 m (0.54 mi) from the dredge during loading. 

Noise from dredging would be audible to the species known to occur in the area, and may result 

in some masking of vocal behavior of right whales, humpback whales, and non-echolocation 

calls of bottlenose dolphins. As discussed in the Marine Environment Protection Fund report 

(MALSF, 2009), there are only a few studies that have documented impacts of dredging on 

marine mammals. The only study that is well referenced was conducted by Richardson et al. 

(1990, 1995) and evaluated behavioral reactions of bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea (north of 

Alaska). This study (Richardson et al., 1995) indicated that bowhead whales exhibited behavioral 

disturbance (i.e., avoidance of the area) at levels above 120 dB re 1 Pa in the 20 Hz to 1 kHz 

band. Additional studies (also summarized in Richardson et al., 1995) further indicated that 

bowheads avoid drilling sounds above 120 dB. These studies are the primary reason for use of a 

120 dB threshold used by NMFS to determine behavioral harassment by continuous (non-pulsed) 

sounds. This level does not appear to result in a biologically significant impact on bowhead 

whales or other Arctic species, as evidenced in multiple Incidental Harassment Authorizations 

issued by NMFS for seismic activities in the Arctic (NMFS, 2010), which cannot be issued 

without determination that the activity would result in a negligible impact of marine mammal 
Environmental Consequences 

 289 

species or stocks and that the activity does not result in an adverse unmitigable impact on the 

availability of those species for subsistence use. 

Right whales have shown some evidence of tolerance to this type of noise along the southeast 

coast (Richardson et al., 1995). As summarized in Richardson et al. (1995), there are few studies 

documenting the responses of humpback whales to dredging, and other studies indicate the 

responses of humpbacks to a vessel depends heavily on their behavior (e.g., feeding humpbacks 

are less likely to react when actively feeding than when resting). Also summarized in Richardson 

et al. (1995), dolphins often tolerate or approach vessels, but the reactions are typically related to 

the behavioral activity similar to humpbacks (resting dolphins avoid, feeding dolphins ignore, 

and socializing dolphins approach). 

Because the sounds of dredging are likely to be audible at distances of at least 862 m (0.54 mi) 

from the sound source and are within the audible range of the cetaceans likely to occur in the 

project vicinity, they may be affected by dredging noise. However, because dredging has 

occurred in the region before and is not a new sound source, there are many other sources of 

anthropogenic noise in the area (i.e., commercial and recreational vessels), the distance the 

dredging noise could be audible is unknown and variable (due to shallow water, shoals, etc.), the 

fact that the large cetaceans are likely to be migrating through (and are thus less likely to be 

disturbed), and the fact that this is a temporary noise source all indicate that SRIPP dredging 

activities would not result in significant adverse effects on marine mammals. A NMFS-approved 

observer would be present on board the dredging vessel for any dredging occurring between 

April 1 and November 30. The presence of an experienced endangered species observer who can 

advise the vessel operator to slow the vessel or maneuver safely when marine mammals are 

spotted would further reduce to a discountable level the potential for interaction with vessels. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The potential impacts from activities under this alternative are the same as those identified under 

Alternative One. In particular, a discussion of potential impacts from dredging would be the 

same. However, under this alternative, one third of the groin (approximately 43 m [140 ft]) 

would be constructed in the water using a barge with heavy lifting equipment. The rock 

placement and barge operation would generate some underwater noise. As summarized in 

Nedwell and Edwards (2004), measurements of rock placement are scarce, and the one available 

study indicated that rock placement did not contribute to the overall noise level. Richardson et al. 

(1995) report barge noise levels ranging from 145 to 170 dB at 1 m (3.3 ft) at frequencies below 

5 kHz. 

As discussed above, calculations were performed with a maximum source level of 130 dB at 40 

m (130 ft) assuming a transmission loss of 15 log to the NMFS Level A and Level B thresholds 

(190 dB and 160 dB, respectively). Based on these assumptions, underwater noise from the barge 

would not reach the Level A threshold and would, therefore, not result in any injury or mortality. 

Barge noise may exceed the Level B threshold at a distance of approximately 1.8 m (5.9 ft) from 

the barge for impulse noise and 862 m (0.54 mi) for continuous noise. The response of marine 

mammals to vessel noise is discussed for Alternative One and would be the same under this 

alternative. 
Environmental Consequences 

290 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The potential impacts to marine mammals from dredging would be the same as those discussed 

under Alternative One. The potential impacts from rock placement and barging would be the 

same as those identified under Alternative Two. 

4.3.10 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The species listed in Table 51 are not likely to be affected by SRIPP actions due to lack of 

habitat or presence within the SRIPP action areas. 

Table 51: Threatened and Endangered Species Not Affected by SRIPP 

Common Name Scientific Name Reason for No Effect 

Northeastern beach tiger 

beetle Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Highly unlikely to occur in the project area 

Delmarva peninsula fox 

squirrel Sciurus niger cinereus Project area not suitable habitat 

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Project area not suitable habitat 

Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus Project area not suitable habitat 

Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis Project area not suitable habitat 

Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus Project area not suitable habitat 

Florida Manatee Trichechus manatus latirostrus Project area not suitable habitat 

The species discussed in further detail below have either been documented in the SRIPP action 

area or have been identified by regulatory agencies as being potentially impacted by SRIPP 

activities. 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented and beach habitat loss 

would continue due to shoreline erosion. Repairs and maintenance of the existing seawall and 

geotubes are likely to slow the rate of erosion over the central part of Wallops Island. However, 

erosion south of the seawall would continue. The dune and swale, shrub, thicket and maritime 

forest areas located at the northern and southern ends of Wallops Island would be at continued 

risk of loss. Under the No Action Alternative, negative impacts are anticipated to threatened and 

endangered bird species that rely on the beach for their habitat such as the Piping Plover, 

Wilson’s plover, gull-billed terns, roseate tern, and Red Knot. The leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, 

loggerhead, and Atlantic green sea turtles are known to migrate along East Coast beaches, but 

rarely nest in the area. It is not likely that repairs and maintenance activities would adversely 

affect sea turtles. 

Under the No Action Alternative, no activities would occur in open water and, therefore, no 

impacts on marine threatened or endangered species would occur. 
Environmental Consequences 

 291 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Vegetation 

Seabeach amaranth has not been documented on Wallops Island. No designated critical habitat is 

present in the SRIPP action areas. However, since there is potentially suitable habitat for this 

species on north Wallops Island, NASA has determined that the proposed action may result in 

adverse impacts on seabeach amaranth should it occur in the project area. 

Initial beach construction would likely have limited impact on seabeach amaranth as there is 

currently little habitat where work would take place, and no seabeach amaranth plants were 

found during an August 2010 survey (NASA, 2010f). Potential effects could include burial of 

seeds and plants at the extreme north and south ends of the project site (where there is existing 

natural beach). After the initial construction of the new beach, there would be additional 

potential habitat area. Renourishment and dune maintenance could result in crushing or burial of 

plants. Excavation of the north Wallops Island borrow site could also potentially result in the loss 

of habitat or crushing or burial of plants. Offshore activities would not affect seabeach amaranth. 

Protected Marine Mammals 

No impacts on protected marine mammals from the construction of the seawall or the placement 

of sand on the beach are anticipated because the activities would occur in water depths too 

shallow for marine mammals to occur. 

The potential impacts of offshore dredging activities are generally similar for all of the species of 

marine mammals that are described in Section 3.2.9. Potential impacts include collisions with 

equipment or transport vessels and noise disruption. 

Vessel collisions are more likely to affect species that have surface feeding or resting habits, 

such as right, fin, and humpback whales. 

A potential direct adverse effect on protected marine mammals is the noise associated with 

dredging operations. Noise from the dredge may have an effect on whale species that are 

sensitive to low frequency sound. The noise emitted by a dredge depends on the local 

environment, especially the sea-bed type. Variability in noise levels is also associated with the 

different parts of the dredging operations, such as the dredger dragging against the sea floor; the 

sound of suction through the pipe; noise from deposition of sand into the hopper; and the noise 

associated with the dredging ship itself. Meteorological conditions will also influence the noise 

emitted by the dredging operations (MALSF, 2009). 

As discussed in Section 4.3.9, conservative calculations were performed with these source levels 

assuming a transmission loss of 15 log (cylindrical spreading) to the NMFS Level A and Level B 

thresholds. These conservative calculations do not take into account water temperature, 

chemistry, bottom composition, sea conditions, current conditions, or topography. 

Marine mammals use hearing and sound transmission for all aspects of their life including 

reproduction, feeding, predator and hazard avoidance, communication and navigation. The 

introduction of sound into the marine environment from anthropogenic sources has the potential 

to cause long term or short term effects. Short term effects can include behavioral disruption or 

temporary habitat displacement; and long-term effects can include extended habitat 

displacement, physical injury to the auditory system, or in some cases mortality (Richardson et 
Environmental Consequences 

292 

al., 1995). The behavioral responses of marine mammals to noise are highly variable and may 

depend upon individual hearing sensitivity (animals respond only to sounds they can directly 

detect), past exposure and habituation to noises, and demographic factors such as the age and sex 

of the animal. Other factors include the duration of the sound, whether the sound is moving, and 

environmental factors that affect the sound including habitat characteristics (National Research 

Council [NRC], 2003). 

Under the MMPA, NMFS has defined levels of harassment for marine mammals. Level A 

harassment is defined as “...any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to 

injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.” Level B harassment is defined as 

“...any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to disturb a marine mammal 

or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” 

Since 1997, NMFS has been using generic sound exposure thresholds to determine when an 

activity in the ocean that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a 

take by harassment might occur (NMFS, 2005). NMFS is developing new science-based 

thresholds to improve and replace the current generic exposure level thresholds, but the criteria 

have not been finalized (Southall et al., 2007). The current Level A (injury) threshold for impulse 

noise (e.g., impact pile driving) is 180 dB rms for cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

and 190 dB rms for pinnipeds (seals, sea lions). The current Level B (disturbance) threshold for 

impulse noise is 160 dB rms for cetaceans and pinnipeds. The Level B threshold for continuous 

noise is 120 dB rms for cetaceans and pinnipeds (NMFS, 2005). 

Under the Proposed Action, underwater noise would be generated through the use of a hopper 

dredge. The primary noise from hopper dredging is created by the suction pipes used to remove 

the fill from the seabed. The noise generated by dredgers depends on their operational status, sea 

bed removal, transit and dumping. In general the noisiest activity is associated with the seabed 

removal. Dredge noise is strongest at low frequencies (below 1,000 Hz). Clarke et al. (2002) 

reported received levels of approximately 130 dB at 40 km (130 ft) for a hopper dredge during 

loading operations while pumping (at frequencies below 1,000 Hz). 

Based on these assumptions, underwater noise from the hopper dredge would not reach the Level 

A threshold and would, therefore, not result in any injury or mortality. Dredge noise may exceed 

the Level B threshold for impulse noise at a distance of approximately 1.8 m (5.9 ft) during 

loading. Dredge noise may exceed the Level B threshold for continuous noise at a distance of 

approximately 862 m (0.54 mi) from the dredge during loading. Dredge noise may exceed the 

Level B threshold for continuous noise at a distance of approximately 862 m (0.54 mi) from the 

dredge during loading. Noise from dredging would be audible to the species known to occur in 

the area and may result in some masking of vocal behavior of the right, fin, and humpback 

whale. 

As summarized in Richardson et al. (1995), there are few studies documenting responses of 

right, fin and humpback whales to dredging; other studies indicate responses of humpbacks to 

vessel depends heavily on their behavior (e.g., feeding humpbacks are less likely to react when 

actively feeding than when resting). Because dredging has occurred in this area previously and 

vessels are common, noise impacts are not expected to be significant. 

In summary, the operations under the Proposed Action of the SRIPP are not anticipated to cause 

long-term adverse impacts on the habitat, calving areas, or the food resources of protected 
Environmental Consequences 

 293 

marine mammals. A BA was prepared by NASA and submitted to the USFWS and NMFS to 

address any potential impacts from project activities (NASA, 2010d). The responding BO from 

NMFS is incorporated in this document and attached in its entirety as Appendix E. 

Sea Turtles 

Seawall Extension 

Construction of the seawall could potentially take place during sea turtle nesting season and 

could result in disturbance to sea turtles that may occur in the vicinity of the construction 

activities. Construction activity, including noise, operation of vehicles and presence of personnel 

may discourage sea turtles from coming ashore. Direct effects to listed sea turtles from 

construction of the seawall extension could include inadvertent crushing of eggs, creation of ruts 

that could impede hatchlings from reaching the ocean, and deterring females from nesting due to 

noise and beachfront construction safety lighting. 

According to the USFWS BO (Appendix D), sea turtles are not expected to be present in 

abundant numbers during the initial 435 m (1,430 ft) seawall extension because of the limited 

amount of suitable nesting habitat. Construction activity may also result in nearshore sediment 

suspension that would increase the turbidity and reduce visibility within the nearshore 

environment. 

These effects are expected primarily in spring, summer, and fall, when the sea turtles are 

expected to occur in the region. During winter, sea turtles are not expected to be in the area. 

Dredging and Sand Placement

As the initial fill cycle and subsequent renourishment cycles could take place during times of 

year when listed sea turtles are within the project area (April to November with the largest 

numbers present from June through October), adverse effects from dredging could occur (NMFS, 

2010). The offshore borrow sites are not known to be an area where sea turtles concentrate to 

forage, though potential feeding habitat exists in the area. The action area is used primarily as a 

coastal corridor for turtle migration. 

Of the listed species found in the action area, loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are the 

most likely to utilize the areas for feeding, foraging mainly on benthic species such as crabs and 

mollusks. As no seagrass bed exists at the borrow areas, dredging activities are not expected to 

affect green sea turtles. The leatherback sea turtle preferred prey, jellyfish, is also not expected to 

be affected as jellyfish occur within the upper portions of the water column, away from dredging 

activities. 

Some reduction in available benthos for feeding is anticipated within the borrow areas, but the 

effects are not anticipated to be significant, as foraging items would continue to be available both 

within the borrow areas and in the immediate vicinity at all times. In its BO (Appendix E), 

NMFS concludes that dredging activities are not likely to alter the habitat in any way that 

prevents sea turtles from using the action area as a migratory pathway to other near-by areas that 

may be more suitable for foraging. 

Entrainment in dragheads is the primary risk regarding incidental take of sea turtles. Entrainment 

is believed to occur primarily as the dredge is being placed or removed from the bottom, creating 

suction in the draghead and it is likely that only those species resting or feeding on or near the 

bottom would be vulnerable to entrainment. The risk appears to be highest when bottom terrain 
Environmental Consequences 

294 

is uneven or when the dredge is conducting “clean up” operations at the end of a dredge cycle. 

In these instances the draghead is often not buried in the sand, making sea turtles near the bottom 

more vulnerable. In its BO (Appendix E) NMFS included dredge operational procedures that 

should reduce the potential for turtle entrainment. Turtle deflectors, although not 100 percent 

effective, have been successfully used on dragheads to reduce the risk of sea turtles being 

captured and killed. 

The number of interactions between dredge equipment and sea turtles seems to be best associated 

with the volume of material removed, which is related to the length of time dredging takes. A 

greater number of interactions are associated with a greater volume of material removed and a 

longer duration of dredging. The number of interactions is also influenced by the time of year 

dredging occurs, with more interactions recorded during the summer months. Interactions are 

also more likely at times and in areas when sea turtle forage items are concentrated in the area 

being dredged, as sea turtles would be more likely to spend time on the bottom while foraging. 

According to NMFS, few interactions with listed species have been recorded during offshore 

dredging in the vicinity of the project area. This is partially due to the infrequency of dredging 

and partially due to the transitory nature of most sea turtles in the area. As sea turtles are present, 

however, NMFS estimates that interactions would occur during the project life time. 

Based on the distribution of sea turtles in the action area and the historic interactions between sea 

turtles and dredging and relocation trawling operations, NMFS stated in its 2010 BO for the 

SRIPP that it was reasonable to expect that one sea turtle is likely to be injured or killed for 

approximately every 1,146 800 m3

 (1,500,000 yd3) of material removed from proposed borrow 

areas. NMFS also anticipates that 90 percent of interactions would occur with loggerhead sea 

turtles. Based on this assessment, NMFS anticipates that no more than 3 sea turtles are likely to 

be entrained in the initial dredge cycle when approximately 3,057,260 m3 (3,998,750 yd3) of 

material is removed. Because Alternative One proposes to remove 9,990,000 m3 (13,066,250 

yd3

) over the 50-year lifetime of the project, NMFS estimates that the SRIPP may result in a total 

of 9 sea turtle takes over the lifetime of the SRIPP. Approximately three sea turtle takes may 

occur during dredging operations for the initial beach fill operations and six sea turtle takes may 

occur during dredging for the nine renourishment events. Over the lifetime of the project, NMFS 

anticipates that no more than one turtle that would be taken would be a Kemp’s ridley, and the 

rest would be loggerheads. 

In addition to entrainment, sea turtles may collide with the dredge during transit between the 

offshore borrow site to pump-out buoy. Though collisions with vessels operating at speeds as 

slow as the dredge in transit (approximately 10 knots) are not common, the potential exists for 

collisions that may injure or kill sea turtles. The presence of an observer who can advise the 

vessel operator to slow the vessel or maneuver safely when sea turtles are present would further 

reduce the potential for a collision to a discountable level (NMFS, 2010). 

Dredging operations would cause sediment to be suspended in the water column. This results in a 

sediment plume in the water, which starts at the dredge site and decreases in concentration as 

sediment falls out of the water column as distance increases from the dredge site. The degree and 

extent of sediment suspension depends on several factors, including particle size distribution, 

solids concentration, and composition of the dredged material. It may also depend on the dredge 

type and size, operational procedures used and the water composition and weather conditions at 

the time of dredging. While the increase in suspended sediments may cause sea turtles to alter 
Environmental Consequences 

 295 

their normal movements, any interruption is expected to be insignificant as it would likely only 

lead to animals moving out of the way of the plume. 

Dredging noise may also affect sea turtles, though it is not well understood to what extent. Very 

little research exists on the hearing capabilities of sea turtles, but it is thought that turtles are 

capable of hearing in low frequency ranges that overlap with the dominant frequencies of dredge 

noise. As described in the marine mammal section (Section 4.3.9) dredge noise levels would not 

exceed levels which are considered to be injurious by NMFS, therefore sea turtles are not likely 

to be adversely affected by dredging noise under Alternative One. 

Pumping of sand slurry to the beach may result in increased turbidity in the nearshore waters as 

suspended fine grained material returns to sea, leaving the heavier sand on the beach. Increased 

turbidity may discourage turtles from coming ashore on or nearby Wallops Island beaches. 

Initial Beach Construction and Renourishment 

The addition of sand would result in a new beach that could provide suitable habitat for sea 

turtles. The physical characteristics of the beach would affect the suitability for sea turtle nesting. 

Crain et al. (1995) noted that turtle crawl and nesting numbers often increase after nourishment. 

While the quantity of available nesting habitat would increase, the quality of the initially created 

and subsequently renourished beach habitat may be such that it could adversely affect turtle 

nesting (Crain et al., 1995). Nourishment can alter a beach’s sand density, compaction, shear 

resistance, moisture content, slope, sand color, grain size, grain shape, sand mineral content, and 

gas exchange (Nelson and Dickerson, 1988; Crain et al., 1995; NRC, 1995). These altered 

parameters may affect nesting females by changing their nest site selection, nest-chamber 

geometry, nest concealment (Crain et al., 1995), and may also influence the incubating 

environment of a nest, which may affect hatchling success (Rumbold et al., 2001) and hatchling 

sex ratios (Nelson and Dickerson, 1988). The compaction caused by the placement of very fine 

sand and/or the use of heavy machinery on nourished beaches can result in reductions in nesting 

success (i.e., false crawls occur more frequently) (Nelson and Dickerson, 1987; Nelson et al., 

1987). In turn, increased false crawls may result in increased physiological stress to nesting 

females. Sand compaction may also increase the length of time required to excavate nests and 

result in increased physiological stress (Nelson and Dickerson, 1988). 

Studies by Kikukawa et al. (1998 and 1999) found that the most important parameters in nest site 

selection were compaction of the sand, followed by distance from the nearest human settlement. 

Others have found that artificial lighting on the beachfront reduces the number of loggerheads 

relative to areas with little or no artificial lighting (Witherington, 1992). Regarding postnourishment hardness, studies at Jupiter Island, FL found that elevated beach hardness values 

persisted for three summers after nourishment (Steinitz et al., 1998). Ryder (1993) found a 

decrease in beach hardness one year after nourishment near the surf zone, but no decrease in the 

middle of the beach, where turtles would be expected to nest. Other locations have found that 

nourished beaches remain unnaturally hard for up to seven years, depending on weather and 

wave conditions along with the quality of the fill (Moulding and Nelson, 1988). 

The formation of beach scarps could also adversely affect sea turtles. A beach scarp is a vertical 

or near vertical portion of the beachface located between the berm crest and the mean water line. 

The elevation change at a scarp can range from a few inches to several feet in height. Scarps are 

the result of small, everyday wave activity, rather than storm waves which typically reach and/or 

overtop the berm. Berm scarps have been found to impede turtles from reaching nesting areas, 
Environmental Consequences 

296 

increasing the number of false crawls and decreasing the proportion of crawls resulting in nests 

(Crain et al., 1995; NRC, 1995; Steinitz et al., 1998). Additionally, scarps could cause turtles to 

lay nests in unsuitable locations (below the escarpment) where nests have a greater potential to 

be destroyed by wave action and flooding. If a scarp forms after egg laying occurs, it would 

present an obstacle to hatchling turtles trying to reach the ocean. If beach fill is built too high, 

scarps may occur. The berm height selected for the beach fill design was set at 2 m (6 ft) amsl 

which is an average of the berm elevations found at the north and south ends of the project. For 

this reason, it is expected that if any scarping occurs, it would be minor (less than a foot or so of 

elevation change). Also, since the northern end of the project is expected to accrete, it is 

expected that if scarping occurs, it would be limited to the southern three-fourths of the project 

(approximately 4,300 m [14,000 ft]). To mitigate potential effects, turtle nest sites would be 

monitored and scarps could be mechanically removed in the vicinity of nest sites at the opening 

of the nest’s hatch window. 

Once the beach fill is completed, sand fencing would be installed in shore-perpendicular 

segments along the seaward toe of the dune (Figure 15). NASA consulted with VDGIF and 

USFWS regarding location and orientation of the sand fencing to allow movement of adult sea 

turtles above the berm and into the dune area. If turtles enter this area for nesting, the sand fence 

design would not inhibit them from returning to sea. If nesting sea turtles hatch landward of the 

sand fence, most of the hatchlings would be able to move around the fencing to reach the sea. 

Determining how all of the abovementioned factors would dictate the viability of the restored 

Wallops Island beach as a long term sea turtle nesting site cannot be predicted with great 

precision due to unknowns such as weather patterns, exact beach construction methods, and 

timing of project implementation. Several general conclusions can be drawn, however. The 

nourished beach would likely be harder than natural conditions following each construction 

cycle. Exactly how long it would remain this way is unknown, but it can be reasoned that this 

could last for several years following each sand placement cycle. As the material proposed for 

nourishment is coarser than the native beach sand, it would be somewhat less susceptible to 

compaction as compared to a choice of finer materials. Regarding lighting, there would be bright 

lighting on the beach during the beach building process to ensure worker safety. It is likely that 

parts of the initial fill cycle and future renourishment cycles would take place during turtle 

nesting season and could result in missed nest attempts. However, in the long term, following 

nourishment, there is very little human presence along the Wallops Island shoreline at night, and 

because lighting of the buildings closest to the beachfront is minimal, it can be reasonably 

expected that the long term effects on sea turtle nesting would be minimal. 

The backpassing of sand from north Wallops Island would produce similar adverse effects in that 

it could result in inadvertent crushing of nests and would likely result in sand compaction from 

movement of heavy equipment and that it could affect the natural slope of the beach, which 

could make the site less attractive to nesting females. Wood and Bjorndal (2000) found that 

beach slope appeared to have a great influence on nest site selection. Additionally, removing 

sand from this area would lower beach elevations, which could present a higher risk of nest 

washout or flooding. To mitigate potential direct impacts to nesting sea turtles, NASA would 

only excavate sand for future renourishment outside of plover and sea turtle nesting season 

(March 15 through November 30 or the last date of potential sea turtle hatchling emergence 

based on when the last eggs were laid). 
Environmental Consequences 

 297 

In its BO, the USFWS estimates that future renourishment activities, including both excavation 

of sand from the north Wallops Island borrow could lead to failure of up to two sea turtle nests, 

including all eggs, within the first year following each nourishment cycle. One additional nest is 

expected to fail in the second year following each beach nourishment. In addition, injury or death 

of one adult sea turtle during beach renourishment and associated activities is expected to occur 

within each beach renourishment cycle. 

In summary, the SRIPP would result in adverse effects on sea turtles; however the benefits of 

adding approximately 6.0 km (3.7 mi) of habitat where there currently is none would likely 

outweigh the effects in the long term. To mitigate construction impacts to the greatest extent 

practicable, NASA would ensure that daily monitoring of the beach is performed if beach 

construction coincides with sea turtle nesting season. If turtle nests are identified within the 

planned work area, they would be marked, avoided by construction equipment, and reported to 

USFWS. NASA would coordinate with USFWS in developing site-specific mitigation measures 

to ensure adequate protection. 

NASA has determined that Alternative One may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the 

loggerhead sea turtle, and may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the leatherback, 

Kemp’s ridley, or Atlantic green sea turtles. 

Birds 

No impacts on the bald eagle or peregrine falcon are anticipated under Alternative One primarily 

because their habitats would not be disrupted by SRIPP activities. Because an existing bald eagle 

nest exists in the project vicinity, NASA would survey a 200 m (660 ft) buffer around any 

planned work area on north Wallops Island to ensure that no new eagle nests are present. A 

remote possibility exists that dredging of the offshore borrow sites may indirectly affect the Gullbilled tern and Roseate Tern by disturbing potential feeding grounds, but these activities are not 

anticipated to result in significant impacts on these species. 

Initial Beach Construction and Seawall Extension 

Initial beach construction and seawall extension would likely take place during plover nesting 

season. Effects on Piping Plovers are expected, and would likely be similar to those discussed for 

other nesting and foraging shorebirds in Section 4.3.2.2. Initial construction would likely have 

limited impact on plovers as there is currently little suitable nesting habitat where work would 

take place. Potential effects could include startling, driving plovers from nests and potentially 

exposing eggs to harm, including predation or overheating. Noise from beach construction could 

also move foraging plovers from preferred feeding grounds to less suitable areas. There is the 

possibility that chicks could be entrapped in ruts and/or crushed by construction equipment; 

however the likelihood would be small due to the noise keeping the birds away from moving 

equipment. Minor impacts could also be expected from the burial and smothering of plover food 

sources at the extreme north and south ends of the project site (where there is existing natural 

beach). Sand fencing that would be installed soon after beach construction may affect plovers by 

deterring nesting close to the sand fence (USFWS, 2010a). Sand fencing may also increase the 

risk of plover depredation by providing cover for predators in close proximity to plover nests. 

The new beach would likely provide additional suitable habitat for shorebirds including the 

Piping Plover. The new beach would initially be devoid of Piping Plover prey species. Some 

species are likely to recolonize the area within a few months, while other species, such as some 
Environmental Consequences 

298 

flies, insects, and crustaceans may require a longer time to recolonize. Though the beach would 

initially be less suitable for Piping Plovers, over time the beach would be expected to acquire the 

faunal characteristics of the surrounding natural beaches through natural processes such as wave 

action, wind, and rain (USFWS, 2010a). The beach may serve as a higher quality foraging 

habitat for plovers than surrounding natural beaches, because the beach would remain free from 

vegetation for a period of time and may be higher and wider than nearby eroding beaches. 

Renourishment

After each renourishment cycle, newly placed sand would likely be devoid of plover food 

sources for at least several months. As such, large areas of the beach, including the intertidal 

zone where plovers typically feed, could be of little value to plovers. This could cause plovers to 

relocate to other areas, thereby expending additional energy. If plovers readily use the newly 

created beach for nesting and foraging, effects of full renourishment during nesting season would 

likely be in direct adverse effects on both reproductive success and the availability of food 

sources. 

In the past, north Wallops Island has been a regular nesting site for plovers. Although the use of 

the north Wallops Island area as a source of sand would be restricted to the non-nesting season, 

the longer term effects on plovers would be adverse, and would include lowering the beach 

elevation, thereby increasing risk of nest flooding or washout, and degrading the existing habitat 

by eliminating ephemeral pools and large sand flats that are favored by plovers. 

The USFWS estimates that future renourishment activities, including both excavation of sand 

from the north Wallops Island borrow area and placed of the sand, is expected to result in loss of 

up to four Piping Plover nests (up to 16 eggs/chicks) in the first breeding season following each 

renourishment cycle. The action is also expected to result in loss of two plover nests (up to 8 

eggs/chicks), through either nest failure or adults failing to nest, in the year following 

renourishment for each renourishment cycle. 

In summary, as with other avian species that nest and feed along the beach, implementation of 

the project would produce adverse effects to Piping Plovers; however the benefits of adding 

habitat where there currently is none would likely outweigh the effects in the long term. To what 

degree the newly created beach would be used cannot be predicted, however it can be reasonably 

expected that some nesting would occur along the new beach. To mitigate potential adverse 

effects for all components of the project, NASA would ensure that daily surveys of the beach are 

performed when work takes place during plover nesting season. If nests are discovered within 

the planned work area, NASA would mark the site, ensure that it is avoided by construction 

equipment, and work with USFWS to develop appropriate site specific mitigation measures. 

Mitigation measures are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 of this PEIS. Regarding the timing 

of future renourishment cycles, NASA would continue to monitor the Wallops Island beach 

following initial construction of the beach to establish the extent of actual plover use and would 

work with USFWS to determine the appropriate timing for renourishment at the time when the 

need is identified. 
Environmental Consequences 

 299 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Vegetation 

Impacts on threatened and endangered vegetative species from Alternative Two would be similar 

to those described under Alternative One. 

Marine Mammals 

No impacts on threatened and endangered marine mammals from the construction of the seawall 

or the placement of sand on the beach are anticipated. Construction of a groin would temporarily 

disturb foraging habitat, but this disruption is not anticipated to significantly impact marine 

mammals. Impacts on threatened and endangered marine mammals from dredging activities 

would be similar to those discussed under Alternative One. 

Sea Turtles 

Impacts on sea turtles from seawall extension, beach fill placement, and dredging activities 

would be similar to those discussed under Alternative One. Construction of a groin would 

temporarily disturb foraging habitat and may lead to some habitat loss due to erosion within a 

groin “shadow” approximately 300 m (1,000 ft) downdrift of the structure (see Section 4.2.2.1 

for details); however, renourishing the beach would reduce the potential for downdrift erosion by 

providing continual sand on the Wallops Island shoreline. 

Birds 

Impacts on threatened and endangered birds under Alternative Two would be similar to those 

described under Alternative One. Construction of a groin may lead to some habitat loss due to 

erosion within a groin “shadow” approximately 300 m (1,000 ft) downdrift of the structure (see 

Section 4.2.2.1 for details); however, renourishing the beach would reduce the potential for 

downdrift erosion by providing continual sand on the Wallops Island shoreline. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Vegetation 

Impacts on threatened and endangered vegetative species from Alternative Three would be 

similar to those described under Alternative One. 

Marine Mammals 

No impacts on threatened and endangered marine mammals from the construction of the seawall 

or the placement of sand on the beach are anticipated. Construction of a breakwater would 

temporarily disturb foraging habitat, but this disruption is not anticipated to significantly impact 

marine mammals. Impacts on threatened and endangered marine mammals from dredging 

activities would be similar to those discussed under Alternative One. 

Sea Turtles 

Impacts on sea turtles from seawall extension, beach fill placement, and dredging activities 

would be similar to those discussed under Alternative One. Construction of a breakwater would 
Environmental Consequences 

300 

temporarily disturb foraging habitat and may lead to some habitat loss due to erosion within a 

2.5-km (1.5-mi) area downdrift of the structure (see Section 4.2.2.1 for details); however, 

renourishing the beach would reduce the potential for downdrift erosion by providing continual 

sand on the Wallops Island shoreline. 

Birds 

Impacts on threatened and endangered birds under Alternative Three would be similar to those 

described under Alternative One. Construction of a breakwater may lead to some habitat loss 

within a 2.5-km (1.5-mi) area downdrift of the structure (see Section 4.2.2.1 for details); 

however, renourishing the beach would reduce the potential for downdrift erosion by providing 

continual sand on the Wallops Island shoreline. 

4.3.10.1 Agency Consultation 

NASA prepared a BA (Appendix C) as a component of the formal consultation process provided 

under Section 7 of the ESA. More detailed procedures for this formal consultation process are 

defined in 50 CFR 402.14(c). Early consultation is conducted when the action agency is planning 

a project or program that may affect protected species; however, not every project detail may be 

known. During previous consultations for the SRIPP, the specific borrow area(s) off the coast of 

Wallops Island had not been identified. However, NASA completed early consultation for 

potential dredging within a broad area of State waters east of Wallops Island for the SRIPP by 

submitting a BA in May 2007. NASA received a BO for proposed dredging in State waters from 

NMFS on September 25, 2007. In a letter to USFWS dated March 1, 2007, NASA transmitted a 

BA addressing potential impacts of the SRIPP on the Piping Plover. In a letter dated April 24, 

2007, USFWS stated that the SRIPP (as defined in 2007) would not adversely affect threatened 

or endangered species under their jurisdiction. The March 2007 BA and the NMFS September 

2007 BO laid the groundwork for the consultation process and allowed all three agencies to 

efficiently continue consultations for this project. 

With the preparation of the February 2010 BA for the SRIPP, NASA, in conjunction with 

BOEMRE and USACE, continued the Section 7 consultation process by submitting additional 

project information to NMFS and USFWS. As with the 2007 BA, the February 2010 BA was 

prepared under the assumption that the dredging would continue at varying degrees of intensity 

for the next 50 years, with renourishment cycles approximately every 5 years. In response to the 

February, 2010 BA, NMFS provided its BO to NASA on July 22, 2010; and USFWS provided 

its BO on July 30, 2010. The BOs are referenced in the appropriate sections throughout the 

document, and determinations are summarized below. 

In developing the BOs, NMFS and USFWS provided terms and conditions for reasonable and 

prudent measures that NASA must follow to reduce potential effects to listed species to be in 

compliance with the ESA. These measures are included in Chapter 5, Mitigation and Monitoring. 

Additionally, as required by the ESA, if changes to the SRIPP occur or if effects to species differ 

from what was stated in the 2010 BOs, NASA would re-initiate agency consultation. 

Determination of Effects to Federally Protected Species 

Table 52 includes NASA’s, NMFS’, and USFWS’ determinations of effects to federally 

protected species under the ESA. 
Environmental Consequences 

 301 

Table 52: Determination of Effects to Federally Protected Species 

Species NASA’s Determination NMFS Determination USFWS Determination 

Seabeach 

amaranth 

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect n/a 

Not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of 

species 

Humpback 

Whale 

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect Not likely to adversely affect n/a 

Fin Whale May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect Not likely to adversely affect n/a 

Right Whale May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect Not likely to adversely affect n/a 

Leatherback 

Sea Turtle 

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect Not likely to adversely affect 

Not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of 

species 

Kemp’s 

Ridley Sea 

Turtle 

May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

May adversely affect, not 

likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of species 

n/a 

Loggerhead 

Sea Turtle 

May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

May adversely affect, not 

likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of species 

Not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of 

species 

Atlantic Green 

Sea Turtle 

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect Not likely to adversely affect 

Not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of 

species 

Piping Plover May affect, likely to 

adversely affect n/a 

Not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of 

species 

The NMFS BO estimates that there would be potential effects to listed species under the 

agency’s purview from the following sources; 1) dredging operations, 2) placement of dredge 

material, 3) physical alteration of the action area including disruption of benthic communities 

and changes in turbidity levels, and 4) dredge noise and resultant increases in underwater noise 

levels. NMFS concludes that dredging activities are not likely to alter the habitat in any way that 

prevents sea turtles from using the action area as a migratory pathway to other near-by areas that 

may be more suitable for foraging. NMFS also concludes that adverse effects of the SRIPP are 

limited to the loggerhead and potentially the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, which are the most likely 

species to forage and nest within the project area. 

The USFWS states in its BO that because there is little or no suitable habitat for listed species in 

the project area currently, the direct effects of the initial beach fill and seawall extension are 

likely to be minimal. The USFWS also states that indirect effects resulting from the creation of 

beach and dune habitat of unknown quality and quantity in close proximity to an area near 

NASA operations would likely result in adverse effects to Piping Plovers, sea turtles and 

possibly seabeach amaranth. The USFWS indicates that the indirect effects may include 

increased disturbance and interference with normal behavior resulting in reduced feeding, 

breeding and sheltering activity, and destruction/loss of eggs and young or failure of nests. The 
Environmental Consequences 

302 

indirect effects to seabeach amaranth would be limited to changes in the suitability of potential 

habitat resulting from potential contaminants and disturbance. 

4.4 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

4.4.1 Land Use 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

and emergency repair activities would maintain the use of existing facilities; therefore, these 

activities would not result in changes to land use. However, maintenance of existing conditions 

may not adequately protect existing and planned infrastructure and facilities closest to the beach 

on Wallops Island. If significant beach loss did occur (i.e., during a large storm event), currently 

at-risk infrastructure on Wallops Island could be damaged, resulting in loss of these facilities and 

changes to land use if they cannot be repaired or reconstructed in their original location. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Implementation of the SRIPP would result in ongoing use of existing and planned facilities on 

Wallops Island; therefore no changes to land use would occur. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Implementation of the SRIPP would result in ongoing use of existing and planned facilities on 

Wallops Island; therefore no changes to land use would occur. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Implementation of the SRIPP would result in ongoing use of existing and planned facilities on 

Wallops Island; therefore no changes to land use would occur. 

4.4.2 Infrastructure and Facilities 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

and emergency repair activities would maintain the use of existing facilities. However, 

maintenance of existing conditions may not adequately protect existing and planned 

infrastructure and facilities closest to the beach on Wallops Island. Beach erosion, especially 

during storm events, could result in damage to or loss of $1 billion in infrastructure and facilities, 

and loss of the capabilities of WFF and tenant’s operations. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative One, SRIPP activities would maintain the use of existing and planned 

facilities on Wallops Island. The SRIPP would protect from damage to or loss of $1 billion in 

infrastructure and facilities, and from the loss of the capabilities of WFF and tenant’s operations. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Alternative Two would provide an equal level of storm damage reduction to infrastructure and 

facilities on Wallops Island as Alternative One. 
Environmental Consequences 

 303 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Alternative Three would provide an equal level of storm damage reduction to infrastructure and 

facilities on Wallops Island as Alternative One. 

4.4.3 Recreation 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

and emergency repair activities would occur. The Wallops Island beach would not be reestablished where it is completely eroded; therefore, recreational use of the beach including 

fishing from the shore would continue to be limited. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Use of sections of the Wallops Island beach would be restricted during SRIPP activities. 

However, because other beaches in the area and other parts of Wallops Island could be used as 

alternate locations for recreational purposes, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 

While some recreational boaters and divers may utilize the marine waters within the SRIPP 

project area, they have considerable discretion in their choice of recreation locations. As a result, 

temporary clearances for safety purposes that would be implemented under the SRIPP would 

have little or no effect on the numbers of vessels or people involved in recreational activities, the 

success of their activities, or the satisfaction of participants in their recreational experience. 

When a safety clearance of the project area would be required, a Notice to Mariners would be 

provided in advance. This notification would continue to allow boaters to select an alternate 

destination without substantially affecting their activities. Barge trips to and from the offshore 

borrow sites and Wallops Island would result in increased traffic on the ocean, but because 

boaters can avoid the barges with ease, no severe disruptions to recreational boating or diving are 

anticipated. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts described under Alternative Two would be the same for Alternative One. 

However, a slight increase in the disruption to local shore fishermen and recreational boaters 

would occur during the groin construction period. Because recreational boaters could avoid the 

groin area during construction, no serious disruptions to recreational boating are anticipated. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts described under Alternative Three would be the same for Alternative One. 

However, a slight increase in the disruption to local shore fishermen and recreational boaters 

would occur during the breakwater construction period. Because recreational boaters could avoid 

the breakwater area during construction, no serious disruptions to recreational boating are 

anticipated. 

4.4.4 Fisheries 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

and emergency repair activities would occur. Because these activities would take place on 

Wallops Island or in the nearshore area, it is anticipated that the No Action Alternative would 
Environmental Consequences 

304 

result in only temporary impacts on any commercial or recreational fishing taking place from the 

Wallops Island beach or immediately offshore. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative One, there could be temporary impacts on commercial and recreational fishing 

resources during the placement of beach fill material on Wallops Island due to elevated turbidity 

levels in the nearshore environment and disruption of the benthos, which would cause fish to 

avoid the disturbed areas. No impacts to commercial and recreational fishing are anticipated 

from construction of the seawall or use of the north Wallops Island borrow site for 

renourishment. There would be temporary adverse impacts on commercial and recreational 

fishing at the offshore borrow sites during dredging. As described in Section 3.2.5 (Benthos), 

benthic habitat would be temporarily disturbed and it is anticipated that fish would migrate short 

distances to avoid the dredging operations. 

Fishermen who participated in the spring 2009 SRIPP survey mostly had permits for bluefish, 

black sea bass, scup, squid/mackerel/butterfish, and summer flounder. Fishing for these species 

at Unnamed Shoals A and B would be temporarily adversely impacted by the presence of the 

dredge in the area and the increase in turbidity during dredging, which may interfere with fish 

feeding (Gordon et al., 1972), and consequently the fishing quality in the area. However, 

Unnamed Shoals A and B are only two of many shoals in the project vicinity and have not 

achieved nearly the same level of popularity with commercial and recreational fishermen as 

other nearby areas, such as Blackfish Bank Shoal. Thirty-six of the survey respondents (55 

percent) reported fishing within 8 km (5 mi) of either Blackfish Bank or the Wallops Island 

shoreline. Of those 36 respondents, 24 said they fished at Blackfish Bank (NASA, 2009d). 

Fishermen could easily avoid fishing at Unnamed Shoals A and B during dredging operations. 

Only one local vessel that had a permit for surf clams responded to the SRIPP survey, but vessels 

registered in other cities may also fish the area. Surf clams are present in the project area from 

the beach zone to a depth of about 45 m (150 ft), and would be the most adversely impacted of 

the commercially and recreationally fished species. Because the offshore shoals are within the 

surf clam habitat area, they could be entrained in the dredges, smothered from the placement of 

dredged sediments on the beach, or have difficulty feeding on plankton due to increased turbidity 

in the nearshore environment and at the offshore borrow sites. Surf clams are a common prey 

item for many pelagic fish. Studies conducted from 2002 to 2005 by VIMS examined the effects 

of dredging to the benthic community in offshore sand shoals (Diaz et al., 2006). The study 

suggests that benthic invertebrate communities destroyed by the dredger are able to rebound 

within a few years (Diaz et al., 2006). Impacts on surf clam populations would be mitigated by 

maintaining the morphology of the shoals and leaving undisturbed areas of benthic habitat in 

between passes of the dredger. These techniques would allow for quicker repopulation of the 

benthic layer. The loss of surf clams in the dredged areas on Unnamed Shoals A and B could 

reduce the numbers of fish present in the project area; however, these impacts are anticipated to 

be temporary and highly localized, and are not expected to significantly affect commercial or 

recreational fishing. In addition, according to Mr. Tom Hoff of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (personal comm.), approximately 80 percent of the vessels fishing for surf 

clams of the Atlantic coast landed their catches in New Jersey, 5 to 10 percent in Ocean City, 

Maryland, 10 percent off the Delmarva Peninsula, and 5 to 10 percent off New England. The 

NMFS 2008 commercial fishery landings ranked by U.S. port also indicate that the majority of 

commercial fishing on the East coast is done north of the project area in States like New Jersey, 
Environmental Consequences 

 305 

Massachusetts, and Maine. The ports closest to the project area are lower ranked ports, with 

Ocean City, Maryland ranked 52, and Chincoteague, Virginia ranked 77 out of 90 ranked U.S. 

ports (NMFS, 2009). 

NASA’s SRIPP activities would not impact daily commercial fishing routes, including ingress 

and egress from Chincoteague Inlet. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative Two, the types of impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries would be 

similar to those discussed under Alternative One; however, because less beach fill volume (initial 

and renourishment volumes) would be required compared to Alternative One, the beach 

nourishment would require less time to execute and fewer trips to the shoals, resulting in fewer 

disruptions to fishermen. Elevated turbidity is expected during the construction of the new groin, 

but it would also provide additional habitat for fish as well as benthic organisms that attached to 

hard substrates such as sponges and crab that would live on and in the crevices of the rocks. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Under Alternative Three, the types of impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries would be 

the same as those discussed under Alternative One; however, because less beach fill volume 

(initial and renourishment volumes) would be required compared to Alternative One, the beach 

nourishment would require less time to execute and fewer trips to the shoals, resulting fewer 

disruptions to fishermen. Elevated turbidity is expected during the construction of the new 

breakwater, but it would also provide additional habitat for fish as well as benthic organisms that 

attached to hard substrates such as sponges and crab that would live on and in the crevices of the 

rocks. 

4.4.5 Population, Employment and Income 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, minor 

maintenance and emergency repair activities would occur. Under this alternative, damage and/or 

loss of WFF assets could occur; these losses would delay Wallops Island mission assignments 

and could eliminate technological capabilities as well as employment opportunities. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Construction activities would result in beneficial economic impacts to the overall economy. In 

addition to a temporary increase in the number of workers at WFF, economic impacts from the 

Proposed Action would result from construction material purchases in the region generating local 

sales, construction payroll expenditures for labor on-and off-site, and related spending by 

supplying firms and laborers or “multiplier effects” created by the project investment. These 

economic benefits would occur for a relatively limited time during actual construction. 

Direct effects would involve generation of employment and spending by workers within 

Accomack County. Construction activities would also result in indirect economic activity by 

supplying industries that furnish requisite input materials and services to the industries directly 

involved in construction. These indirect impacts reflect the intermediate production or increased 

economic activity to supply services, materials, and machinery necessary to support the 

construction program. In turn, the labor force would re-spend a portion of their salary and wage 
Environmental Consequences 

306 

earnings on various consumer expenditures, producing a “ripple effect.” This effect is observed 

as indirect economic activities, such as demand for goods and services, responds to the direct 

economic stimulus. Some non-local construction workers and vessel operators and crew are 

anticipated to require lodging in local motels and hotels. 

The SRIPP would reduce the potential losses of work days and jobs that could result from storm 

damages, and therefore delays to Wallops Island missions, or the loss of the infrastructure 

resulting in elimination of WFF’s and tenant’s technological capabilities. Additionally, launches 

from the Wallops Island Launch Complex 0 provide benefits to the local economy. Per launch 

event, the local economy typically benefits approximately $1,000,000 from the launch team 

alone (e.g., hotel, per diem rates for meals and incidentals, rental car), $2,000,000 for services 

and commodities support, and $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 from tourism (Reed, pers. comm.). 

Alternative One of the SRIPP would reduce the potential storm-related damages resulting from 

shoreline retreat to the launch pads within Launch Complex 0. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts and benefits would be similar to those described under Alternative One. 

However, there would be a slight increase in benefits to the local economy compared to 

Alternative One due to the construction of a groin, which would result in additional employment 

opportunities for local construction workers and increased numbers of people in Accomack 

County. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The types of impacts and benefits would be similar to those described under Alternative One. 

However, there would be a slight increase in benefits to the local economy compared to 

Alternative One due to the construction of a breakwater, which would result in additional 

employment opportunities for local construction workers and increased numbers of people in 

Accomack County. 

4.4.6 Health and Safety 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the SRIPP would not be implemented; however, minor 

maintenance and emergency repair activities would occur. Maintenance and emergency repair 

activities could result in short-term impacts on human health and safety and the increased usage 

of local fire, police, and medical services. Construction safety procedures and appropriate training 

implemented at WFF and NASA would ensure that construction and dredging contractors perform 

all work in accordance with OSHA standards. Therefore, it is anticipated that the No Action 

Alternative would not impact health and safety. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Construction activities could result in short-term impacts on human health and safety and the 

increased usage of local fire, police, and medical services. Construction safety procedures and 

appropriate training would be implemented at WFF and NASA would ensure that construction and 

dredging contractors perform all work in accordance with OSHA standards. Therefore, it is 

anticipated that Alternative One would not impact health and safety. 
Environmental Consequences 

 307 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Health and safety impacts and mitigation would be the same as described under Alternative One. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Health and safety impacts and mitigation would be the same as described under Alternative One. 

4.4.7 Environmental Justice 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, maintenance and emergency repair activities would be similar 

to activities already conducted at WFF; therefore, since the EJIP found that current WFF actions do 

not disproportionately affect low-income or minority populations (NASA, 1996), no impacts on 

low-income or minority populations would occur. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Typical construction activities may result in noise, air emissions, water quality degradation, 

construction related traffic, and other impacts that can potentially affect minority and low-income 

persons. However, the SRIPP activities are not expected to occur near any low-income or minority 

communities or residences. The nearest community located within a low-income or minority 

census block is located over 3.1 km (1.9 mi) from Wallops Island, outside of any potential effects 

related to the SRIPP activities. During project planning, NASA regularly holds public meetings 

and issues announcements to ensure that members of the public are aware of upcoming activities. 

These announcements are published through a variety of outlets including the internet, local radio, 

local newspapers, and local town hall meetings. This outreach effectively ensures that people of all 

income and ethnicities have the opportunity to comment on NASA’s activities, including the 

SRIPP. Therefore, SRIPP impacts are not expected to cause any disproportionate impacts to 

minority and low-income persons. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Although the specific actions under Alternative Two would differ from Alternative One, the 

nature of impacts would be similar. Therefore, no impacts on environmental justice are 

anticipated under Alternative Two. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Although the specific actions under Alternative Three would differ from Alternative One and 

Two, the nature of impacts would be similar. Therefore, no impacts on environmental justice are 

anticipated under Alternative Three. 

4.4.8 Cultural Resources 

The geographical area within which an undertaking may affect historic properties is the APE. As 

stipulated in Section 106, Federal agencies must identify historic properties within the APE and 

consider the effects of the undertaking on these properties. The Historic Resources Survey and 

Eligibility Report for Wallops Flight Facility (NASA, 2004) referenced earlier in this report 

serves as the baseline for the identification of the above-ground historic properties at WFF, while 

the archaeological sensitivity model presented in the Cultural Resources Assessment, NASA 

Wallops Flight Facility (NASA, 2003b) serves as the baseline for identifying potential 

archaeological resources. Together these studies, addressed in the Cultural Resources 
Environmental Consequences 

308 

Management Plan for WFF, likely account for many of the historic properties that are present at 

WFF and as such allow for a general assessment of the potential for an undertaking to affect 

historic properties. 

Underwater actions, which include dredging within Unnamed Shoal A or Unnamed Shoal B, 

pump-out operations in the nearshore environment east of Wallops Island, and the construction 

of a groin or breakwater, would only affect archaeological resources. These actions have no 

potential to affect above-ground resources. The locations of the pump-out stations is estimated to 

be at the 9 m (30 ft) depth contour which is 3 km (2 mi) offshore; however, the exact location 

and number, and methods of the pump-out buoys would be determined by the contractor. NASA 

consulted with VDHR on this issue; additional Section 106 consultation would be required for 

the areas around the pump-out stations once the locations have been identified. 

For any identified cultural resources that may be affected by NASA activities under the SRIPP, 

NASA would be responsible for complying with Section 106 and Section 110 of the NHPA. 

NASA would consult with the VDHR and any other interested parties for actions that would 

potentially impact NRHP-listed or eligible resources to identify the area of potential effects, the 

effects the action would have on cultural resources, and the appropriate measures to avoid or 

mitigate impacts on cultural resources. 

No Action Alternative

Above-Ground Resources: Under the No Action Alternative, shoreline retreat would continue. 

Maintenance and emergency repairs to existing structures would likely be necessary as a result of 

future storm events. As needed, maintenance and emergency repairs to damaged structures 

would need to be completed in accordance with Section 106 and Section 110 of the NHPA. This 

would include the review of any newer buildings or structures that have reached the NHPA 50-

year threshold for their National Register eligibility after the Historic Resources Survey and 

Eligibility Report for Wallops Flight Facility was approved by VDHR. Therefore, it is 

anticipated that the No Action Alternative could have adverse effects on above-ground resources. 

Archaeological Resources: The only potential impacts on archaeological resources would be the 

use of heavy equipment disturbing unknown archaeological sites along the beach. However, 

based on the Reconnaissance Level Archaeological Survey conducted in September 2006, there 

is little potential for archaeological sites to occur along the beachfront. Therefore, it is 

anticipated that the No Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on archaeological 

resources. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Seawall and Beach Fill 

Above-Ground Resources: NASA has determined that the Proposed Action does not have the 

potential to directly affect above-ground historic properties within the APE. Additionally, NASA 

has determined that the project may have indirect (visual) effects on above-ground historic 

properties should they be present in the APE, but that these would not be adverse. 

Archaeological Resources: Terrestrial archaeology would likely not be affected for beach fill 

activities because there would be only surface disturbance on the beachfront and no 

archaeological material or features were found during the Phase I Archaeological Survey 

conducted in September 2006. Because there were no historic properties identified within the 
Environmental Consequences 

 309 

APE on Wallops Island and because the archaeological review of recent ground disturbance in 

the area found no archaeological resources, NASA has determined that no archaeological historic 

properties would be affected by the seawall extension or beach construction. Archaeological 

resources in the area of the pump-out buoys are unknown at this time; therefore, no 

determination can be made regarding potential effects. 

Section 106 Consultation: On December 9, 2009, NASA submitted a letter to VDHR with 

NASA’s determinations of effects for cultural resources as stated above. In a letter dated January 

5, 2009, VDHR concurred with NASA’s determination “that there are no historic properties 

location within the project area and that no further work is needed within the area studied,” and 

that Alternatives One, Two, and Three of the SRIPP “will not adversely affect any historic 

properties” (Appendix K). 

The Section 106 process is still ongoing for the pump-out buoy portion of the SRIPP. On August 

4, 2010, NASA corresponded with the State Historic Preservation Office via e-mail regarding the 

anchoring of the pump-out buoys. NASA stated that it was unknown at the present time what 

methods the dredging contractor may use to pump sand from the dredge vessels to the shoreline. 

As such, the contractor would be required to supply NASA with a dredge plan prior to 

implementation. NASA would review the plan with VDHR and the two agencies would jointly 

decide if further survey work is required. VDHR responded on August 9, 2010, stating that it 

agreed with this approach (Appendix K). Furthermore, in the event that previously unrecorded 

historic properties are discovered during project activities, NASA would stop work in the area 

and contact VDHR immediately. 

Offshore Borrow Sites 

Analysis of the data from the 2009 remote sensing survey coupled with the frequent fishing that 

takes place at or near Unnamed Shoal A, indicated that none of the anomalies detected during the 

survey have potential to represent significant submerged cultural resources. 

Section 106 Consultation: In October 2009, NASA submitted a cultural resources report to 

BOEMRE stating that “No further avoidance or work is recommended for the isolated anomalies 

or five target clusters identified [at Unnamed Shoal A and Unnamed Shoal B].” In an email dated 

December 15, 2009, BOEMRE agreed with NASA’s determination and no archaeological 

mitigation is required (Appendix K). BOEMRE also stated that an unanticipated discovery of 

archaeological resources would result in the immediate halt of operations within 305 m (1,000 ft) 

of the area of the discovery. NASA would then be required to report the discovery to the 

Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment, Gulf of Mexico Region within 72 hours of 

discovery. The Regional Supervisor would then inform NASA as to how to proceed (Herkhof, 

pers. comm.). 

North Wallops Island Borrow Site 

Because there were no historic properties identified within the APE on Wallops Island and 

because the archaeological review of recent ground disturbance in the proposed north Wallops 

Island borrow site area found no archaeological resources, NASA has determined that no 

archaeological historic properties would be affected by the Proposed Action. 

Section 106 Consultation: On December 9, 2009, NASA submitted a letter to VDHR with 

NASA’s determinations of effects for cultural resources as stated above. In a letter dated January 
Environmental Consequences 

310 

5, 2009, VDHR concurred with NASA’s determination “that there are no historic properties 

location within the project area and that no further work is needed within the area studied,” and 

that Alternatives One, Two, and Three of the SRIPP “will not adversely affect any historic 

properties” (Appendix K). In the event that previously unrecorded historic properties are 

discovered during project activities, NASA would stop work in the area and contact VDHR 

immediately. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Seawall and Beach Fill 

The impacts and consultation discussed under Alternative One for seawall and beach fill 

components of the SRIPP would be the same for the seawall and beach fill components of 

Alternative Two. 

Groin 

Results from the 2009 cultural resources wading survey of the proposed groin location and 

Wallops Island shoreline survey did not identify any significant cultural resources. The final 70 

m (200 ft) of the survey area were not surveyed due to safety concerns regarding impalement and 

entanglement of divers on rebar left from the dumping of construction debris. Moreover, based 

on the ground disturbance that has occurred at this site including construction of the original 

groin, disposal of concrete construction waste throughout the area, and the general erosion and 

sediment transport that routinely takes place along the Wallops Island shoreline, this section has 

a very low potential to contain significant historic resources. Because there were no historic 

properties identified within the APE on Wallops Island and because the archaeological review of 

recent ground disturbance in the area found no archaeological resources, NASA has determined 

that no archaeological historic properties would be affected by construction of the proposed 

groin. 

Section 106 Consultation: On December 9, 2009, NASA submitted a letter to VDHR with 

NASA’s determinations of effects for cultural resources as stated above. In a letter dated January 

5, 2009, VDHR concurred with NASA’s determination “that there are no historic properties 

location within the project area and that no further work is needed within the area studied,” and 

that Alternatives One, Two, and Three of the SRIPP “will not adversely affect any historic 

properties” (Appendix K). In the event that previously unrecorded historic properties are 

discovered during project activities, NASA would stop work in the area and contact VDHR 

immediately. 

Offshore Borrow Sites 

The impacts and consultation discussed under Alternative One for dredging Unnamed Shoal A or 

B would be the same for Alternative Two. 

North Wallops Island Borrow Site 

The impacts and consultation discussed under Alternative One for use of the north Wallops 

Island area as a borrow site would be the same for Alternative Two. 
Environmental Consequences 

 311 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Seawall and Beach Fill 

The impacts and consultation discussed under Alternative One for seawall and beach fill 

components of the SRIPP would be the same for the seawall and beach fill components of 

Alternative Three. 

Breakwater 

Results from the 2009 remote sensing survey indicated that no significant submerged cultural 

resources exist in the proposed breakwater location. Because there were no historic properties 

identified within the APE of the breakwater and because the archaeological review in the area 

found no archaeological resources, NASA has determined that no archaeological historic 

properties would be affected by construction of the proposed breakwater. 

Section 106 Consultation: On December 9, 2009, NASA submitted a letter to VDHR with 

NASA’s determinations of effects for cultural resources as stated above. In a letter dated January 

5, 2009, VDHR concurred with NASA’s determination “that there are no historic properties 

location within the project area and that no further work is needed within the area studied,” and 

that Alternatives One, Two, and Three of the SRIPP “will not adversely affect any historic 

properties” (Appendix K). In the event that previously unrecorded historic properties are 

discovered during project activities, NASA would stop work in the area and contact VDHR 

immediately. 

Offshore Borrow Sites 

The impacts and consultation discussed under Alternative One for dredging Unnamed Shoal A or 

B would be the same for Alternative Three. 

North Wallops Island Borrow Site 

The impacts and consultation discussed under Alternative One for use of the north Wallops 

Island area as a borrow site would be the same for Alternative Two. 

4.4.9 Transportation 

4.4.9.1 Land-Based 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

activities and emergency repairs would occur. These activities would cause recurring traffic to 

and from and on Wallops Island, the nature and magnitude of which would depend upon the 

types of maintenance and repairs needed. 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

Temporary impacts on traffic flow would occur during construction activities due to an increase 

in the volume of construction-related traffic at roads in the immediate vicinity of Wallops Island. 

Construction traffic would include bulldozers, excavators, and cranes, brought in via truck, 

haul/dump trucks, worker vehicles, and others. Traffic lanes may be temporarily closed or 
Environmental Consequences 

312 

rerouted during construction, and construction equipment and staging could interfere with typical 

vehicle flow. NASA would coordinate all transportation activities, including closures, traffic 

control, safety issues, etc. with Accomack County and the Virginia Department of Transportation 

Accomack Residency Office. To mitigate potential delays, NASA would: 

 Provide adequate advance notification of upcoming activities for all areas that would be 

affected by construction-related traffic, temporary closures, or re-routing 

 Coordinate any traffic lane or pedestrian corridor closures with all appropriate officials 

 Place construction equipment and vehicle staging so as to not hinder traffic and 

pedestrian flow 

All project-related transportation vehicles would consist of legal Department of Transportation 

loads, although if a crane in transported over land, it may be characterized as oversize and would 

require a permit from the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles for transportation. 

During renourishment cycles, sediment may be obtained from north Wallops Island. Heavy 

equipment including pan excavators, dump trucks, excavators, and bulldozers would travel along 

the existing roads and along the beach to access the north Wallops Island borrow sites; no new 

permanent or temporary roads would be constructed to access the borrow site. 

Unnamed Shoal A and Unnamed Shoal B Borrow Sites 

Minor construction traffic is anticipated to be associated with the Unnamed Shoal A and 

Unnamed Shoal B borrow sites. Employees would drive to the docked dredging barges to load 

them with any needed equipment. However, this amount of traffic would not be a significant 

increase from the usual daily landside traffic on Wallops Island. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

The types of landside transportation impacts and mitigation measures would be the same as those 

described under Alternative One, except there would be an increase in traffic during the 

construction of the groin. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

The types of landside transportation impacts and mitigation measures would be the same as those 

described under Alternative One; however there would be slightly more construction traffic for 

installation of the breakwater. 

4.4.9.2 Maritime 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, SRIPP would not be implemented; however, maintenance 

activities and emergency repairs would occur. It is unlikely that maintenance and repairs would 

occur in or from the water. If boats or barges were required, a slight increase in maritime traffic 

could occur which would depend upon the types of the repairs that were needed; however, any 

increase in maritime traffic would be insignificant. 
Environmental Consequences 

 313 

Alternative One (Preferred Alternative): Full Beach Fill, Seawall Extension

No maritime traffic would occur for construction of the seawall, sediment re-working on the 

beach after the dredge material is placed, or for use of the north Wallops Island borrow site. 

Dredging of either offshore shoal would be accomplished using hopper dredges, which are ships 

capable of dredging material, storing it onboard, transporting it to the disposal area, and pumping 

it on-shore. Two hopper dredges would likely run at the same time, as one ship is dredging at 

either Unnamed Shoal A or B, the second ship would be offloading sediment on the beach. After 

filling its hoppers with sand, the dredge would then travel the approximately 15 km (10 mi) 

toward Wallops Island. The pathway from Unnamed Shoals A and B to the pump out site is not a 

straight line, but a dogleg shape, for the purpose of avoiding Chincoteague Shoal and Blackfish 

Bank. The dredge would travel from Unnamed Shoal A or B to the turning point approximately 

15 or 23 km (9 or 14 mi) away respectively, then on to moor to the pump-out buoy located 

10,000 feet from shore (5 km [8 mi] from the turning point). Booster pumps may be needed to 

aid the offloading of sand from this pump out station to the shoreline. 

Navigational accidents, such as vessel collisions, would be avoided by following proper safety 

protocols as outlined in 72 Collision Regulations (COLREGS), The International Navigational 

Rules Act of 1977, and the Inland Navigation Rules Act of 1980 (USCG, 2009a). The barge 

route would extend directly from Unnamed Shoals A and B to the Wallops Island shoreline. 

A Private Aid to Navigation (PATON) permit would need to be obtained from the USCG to 

place temporary buoys for dredging activities. The management of the PATON can be deferred 

to State or local authorities, or to agencies such as the USACE or BOEMRE. The USCG will 

usually only become involved in PATON management if there is not a designated mooring area 

and a buoy needs to be placed on the chart or in situations when a large commercial mooring 

buoy needs to be lit or charted, however, only after the selected local authority has approved the 

placement (USCG, 2009b). 

Temporary increases in the volume of maritime traffic would occur for approximately seven 

months during initial beach nourishment activities and approximately two months during each 

renourishment cycle. Potential impacts on the three general types of maritime traffic in the 

project area, military and government, commercial, and recreational, are discussed below. 

Military and Government Traffic 

Due to the presence of regular military and government traffic in the project area, and the 

overlap of the U.S. Navy Virginia Capes Range Complex operating area, it is likely that the 

dredges would encounter these vessels during travel between the offshore shoals and the beach. 

NASA would coordinate all transportation activities, marine traffic control, safety issues, etc. with 

USCG and the U.S. Navy. To mitigate potential delays and ship strikes, NASA would: 

 Select the dates, times, and routes that the dredges would take with efforts to avoid the 

majority of existing military traffic. 

 Provide adequate advance notification of upcoming activities to all agencies that would 

be affected by dredging-related traffic or re-routing. 

With implementation of mitigation and notification measures, impacts on maritime government 

and military traffic would be temporary and minor. 
Environmental Consequences 

314 

Commercial Traffic 

Although commercial vessels may pass by the dredging sites on their way to Port of Baltimore, 

MD, and the Port of Virginia, in Norfolk, there are no TSS lanes designated in the project area. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that the dredges would interfere with commercial traffic. Additionally, 

the dredges would comply with Federal navigational regulations (72 COLREGS) which specify 

requirements for any seagoing vessel operating in U.S. waters outside inland demarcation lines, 

which is the area enclosed by the shoreline. In the project area it is the line drawn from 

Assateague Beach Tower Light to the tower charted at latitude 37°52.6’ N, longitude 75°26.7’W. 

The COLREGS include requirements such as having the proper day signals and navigational 

lights. Therefore, no significant impacts on commercial maritime traffic are anticipated. 

Recreational Traffic 

Fishing and recreational boating traffic occurs in the project area primarily offshore of Wallops 

and Assateague Islands and at offshore shoals. Although recreational traffic may be present in 

the project areas concurrently with dredging and beach nourishment operations, the dredges 

would be outfitted with the proper lights and signals under 72 COLREGS, so they can easily be 

seen and avoided. Although recreational fishing and boating routes would be unavailable for use 

in the areas immediately surrounding the offshore dredging sites and the Wallops Island beach 

during SRIPP operations, the majority of the project area would still be available for travel. 

Therefore, no significant impacts on recreational maritime traffic are anticipated. 

Alternative Two: Full Beach Fill, Groin, Seawall Extension

Maritime transportation impacts and mitigation measures under Alternative Two would be 

similar to those described under Alternative One; however, there would be fewer dredge trips 

from the offshore shoals to the nearshore pump-out buoy due to less sand needed for beach 

nourishment. Also, there would be an increase in traffic in the nearshore environment off 

Wallops Island during the one month period for construction of the groin. 

Alternative Three: Full Beach Fill, Breakwater, Seawall Extension

Maritime transportation impacts and mitigation measures under Alternative Three would be 

similar to those described under Alternative One; however, there would be fewer dredge trips 

from the offshore shoals to the nearshore pump-out buoy due to less sand needed for beach 

nourishment. Also, there would be an increase in traffic in the nearshore environment off 

Wallops Island during the one month period for construction of the breakwater. 

4.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 

AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

NEPA requires analysis of the relationship between a project’s short-term impacts on the 

environment and the effects those impacts may have on the maintenance and enhancement of the 

long-term productivity of the affected environment. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial 

uses of the environment are of particular concern. This means that choosing one option may 

reduce future flexibility in pursuing other options, or that committing a resource to a certain use 

may often eliminate the possibility for other uses of that resource. 

Short-term refers to the total duration of shoreline restoration activities, whereas long-term refers 

to an indefinite period beyond 50-year life of the SRIPP activities. Initial activities, such as 
Environmental Consequences 

 315 

dredging and sea wall construction, result in short-term, localized impacts (primarily to the 

natural environment) that would be reduced by the mitigation measures described under each 

resource area. 

The Proposed Action would result in short- and long-term environmental effects. However, the 

Proposed Action would not likely be expected to result in any impacts that would reduce 

environmental productivity, permanently narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment, 

or pose long-term risks to health, safety, or the general welfare of the public. 

The SRIPP would also result in beneficial effects. As described in Chapter 5, NASA would 

monitor the Wallops Island shoreline and offshore borrow sites to gain a better understanding of 

physical oceanographic processes, effects on biological resources, and longshore sediment 

transport during the lifetime of the SRIPP. This information would be available to the public and 

would benefit the scientific community, as well as NASA, in understanding the effects of 

shoreline restoration and offshore dredging. In addition, the SRIPP would restore a substantial 

area of the Wallops Island beach where no beach currently exists. The restoration of the beach 

would provide new habitat to terrestrial species, including federally protected species such as the 

Piping Plover and loggerhead turtle. 

By reducing the level of storm damages to the launch pads and other infrastructure on Wallops 

Island, the SRIPP is enabling continued scientific research. The SRIPP would allow the 

continuation of critical NASA missions such as suborbital research from NASA’s sounding 

rocket program and re-supply of the International Space Station. 

4.6 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

NEPA requires that environmental analysis include identification of “...any irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the Proposed Action should 

it be implemented.” Irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are related to the use of 

non-renewable resources and the effects that the uses of those resources would have on future 

generations. Irreversible effects primarily result from the use or destruction of a specific resource 

(e.g., energy or minerals) that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time frame. Irretrievable 

resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be restored as 

a result of the action (e.g., the disturbance of a cultural site). 

Energy typically associated with construction activities would be expended and irretrievably lost 

under all of the SRIPP alternatives including the No Action Alternative. Fuels used during 

transportation of construction materials (i.e., rock and mobilization of equipment to the site) and 

the operation of equipment and barges would constitute an irretrievable commitment of fuel 

resources. 

Sediment removed from the offshore shoals would be an irreversible use of the mineral resource. 

If it is found that the northern end of Wallops Island could be mined for larger volumes beyond 

what is proposed in this PEIS, then the rate and volume of consumption of the offshore borrow 

areas used to maintain the Wallops Island shoreline could be reduced. This could serve to 

prolong the integrity of the offshore shoals and their benthic communities that are more valuable 

as commercial and recreational fisheries and that are otherwise being irreversibly consumed for 

beach renourishment. 
Environmental Consequences 

316 

4.7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The CEQ defines cumulative effects as the “impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action(s) when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1500). Sections 4.2 – 4.4 of this PEIS described the 

potential direct and indirect impacts from the three alternatives evaluated for the SRIPP. 

Cumulative effects can result from actions that overlap spatially and temporally. Past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions that may result in cumulative effects when combined 

with the SRIPP are described below in Section 4.7.1. Additionally, given their location in the 

coastal landscape, the natural and human resources within the area are affected by difficult to 

predict natural processes such as sea-level rise and storms. As such, cumulative effects from the 

SRIPP would be re-evaluated and described in future NEPA documentation for renourishment 

events or if the SRIPP Preferred Alternative changes based on adaptive management. 

4.7.1 Actions Affecting Resources of Concern 

The SRIPP is evaluated in the context of changes, both anthropogenic and natural, that have 

occurred at Wallops Island in the past and that would occur in the future even if the Proposed 

Action is not implemented. There are several ongoing and planned projects at WFF, particularly 

on Wallops Island. In addition, there are other projects and activities outside of the WFF 

boundaries that may contribute to cumulative impacts on resources in the area. These projects 

and actions include; dredging of offshore shoals, navigation channel maintenance, beach 

nourishment projects, commercial fishing, and submarine infrastructure projects such as 

construction of pipelines or cables. Other activities include residential and commercial 

development and agriculture within the watershed, recreational beach use, conservation 

management of adjacent barrier islands, and ongoing operations at WFF. 

Past actions that are described below include activities that have occurred at WFF since 

development of Wallops Island by the federal government in the 1930s. For future actions, 

projects and activities that may reasonably occur within the 50-year life span of the SRIPP are 

considered. The cumulative effects analysis considers varying geographic scales based on the 

resource of concern and these scales are defined for each resource. 

Climate change and sea-level rise, although not “actions” by definition, are very likely to 

influence many of the resource areas also impacted by the SRIPP, and accordingly are 

considered within this cumulative effects analysis. 

4.7.1.1 Past Activities and Projects 

This section provides a brief summary, by decade, of the major actions at WFF since its 

inception. The temporal baseline of the cumulative effects starts in 1938 with the first available 

aerial photograph of Wallops Island showing initial development by the USCG and Wallops 

Island Association Hunt Club. The majority of WFF has been subject to continuous change and 

development since its founding in the 1940s. Changes to the island include frequent construction, 

infrastructure upgrades, and removal of structures and facilities driven by technological 

developments and advances in rocket science and related fields. Over the years, the launch range 

has grown to six launch pads, assembly facilities, and state-of-the-art instrumentation. Since 

1945, NASA has launched more than 16,000 rockets. The 2004 EPA report Aerial Photographic 
Environmental Consequences 

 317 

Analysis of NASA Wallops Flight Facility Site, Wallops Island, Virginia provided a majority of 

the information on the historical activities and resulting environmental impacts at WFF. 

4.7.1.1.1 1930s and 1940s 

The earliest development of Wallops Island was documented in 1938. At that time, the island 

was being used by the Wallops Island Association Hunt Club. Several hunt club buildings were 

located at the beach on the northern part of the island. The Sloop Gut boat basin had been 

dredged by 1938 and three access roads connected the hunt club buildings to the dock on Sloop 

Gut. A USCG life boat station was also present in 1938. Noticeable excavation and fill activities 

were occurring on the north part of the island. The south part of the island was inactive in 1938. 

A farmstead surrounded by agricultural land existed on Wallops Mainland (EPA, 2004). 

WFF was established in 1945 under NASA’s predecessor, the NACA. By mid-1946, NACA had 

constructed two docks on the Mainland and dredged a channel between one of them and 

Assawoman Creek (Shortal, 1978). NACA development occurred on the southern portion of the 

island and the first launch pad at Wallops Island was in use in mid-1945, with a second launch 

pad in use by 1946. By 1947, the island included several launch support buildings and facilities 

including a power plant. 

Although a naval air station was built on Wallops Neck in 1942, naval use of Wallops Island 

started in 1946 when the Naval Aviation Ordnance Test Station was established to provide a test 

range and training for personnel to test, modify, and develop guided missiles, aircraft weapons, 

and aviation fire control equipment. 

By the end of the 1940s, several new access roads, ground scars (indicating excavation) and fill 

areas, additional infrastructure (buildings, towers, ASTs), and a new dock along Cat Creek can 

be seen in photographs. 

Shoreline Stabilization 

A sheet-pile seawall was constructed in 1945-1946. There was erosion and storm damage to the 

Wallops Island Association Clubhouse at the north end of the island in May 1949. 

4.7.1.1.2 1950s 

In the 1950s, the amount of infrastructure on Wallops Island expanded greatly. Additional 

launch support infrastructure, new research facilities, and many new roads were constructed. 

Approximately 20 new buildings were added to the south end of the island. Some of the other 

infrastructure included: three rocket-motor facilities, an instrumentation laboratory, camera 

stations, fuel storage buildings, ferry slips, concrete pads, above ground storage tanks, radar and 

antennas, a multistage launcher and administration and service buildings. The ferry channel 

between the Wallops Island dock and the Mainland Dock at Assawoman Creek was dredged 

periodically through 1957 (Shortal, 1978). Starting in 1954, a channel east of Bogues Bay was 

dredged as part of the Coast of Virginia Project, now known as the Virginia Inside Passage 

(Roehrs and Walsh, 1987). Periodic maintenance dredging of the Virginia Inside Passage has 

occurred by USACE since then. In the south part of the island a new dock was built (EPA, 

2004). 

Between 1955 and 1957, roughly 180 napalm drops occurred in the Gunboat Point area of 

Wallops Island (Photograph 17, although the quantity of drops is likely higher since not all of the 

reports recording napalm activity can be obtained. Napalm is composed of a mixture of salts of 
Environmental Consequences 

318 

aluminum and acids that create aluminum soap which is then mixed with gasoline to form a gel. 

Most of the components volatilized upon ignition; however, in some instances, the gel dispersed 

across a large area. The maximum length of napalm dispersal for one drop was 200 yards (600 ft) 

(shown inside the Gunboat Point hazard area on Photograph 17). Naval use of the northern half 

of Wallops Island to test and proof Navy aerial ordnance continued until 1959. 

Photo 17: Gunboat Point Range on North Wallops Island 

Shoreline Stabilization 

Between 1956 and 1959 eight groins were installed at 122-m (400-ft) intervals along 853 m 

(2,800 ft) of beach, which can be seen in a 1959 photo (Photograph 18) showing the groin field 

extending southward from the newly built causeway. In addition to the steel sheet pile, portions 

of the seawall were constructed using wooden bulkheads, concrete aprons, and rock rubble 

mounds. 

4.7.1.1.3 1960s 

NASA continued to expand its facilities on Wallops Island in the 1960s. The causeway between 

the mainland and Wallops Island was completed in 1960 (Photograph 18). 
Environmental Consequences 

 319 

Photo 18: Newly constructed causeway in 1959 

Construction of Launch Area No. 3 began with the construction of two concrete pads and the 

building of a blockhouse between them (Shortal, 1978). A new access road ran parallel to the 

beach and new buildings, tanks, bunkers, and impoundments are observed in photographs. In the 

1960’s, Assawoman Inlet was still open. In 1966, large sections of concrete rubble were visible 

south of the roadway leading to Camera Stand Z-100 (see Figure 4 for the location of Z-100). 

Excavation and fill activities continued at various locations across the island. 

Shoreline Stabilization 

The seawall was extended further to the north in 1960. Sections of the sheet pile seawall failed 

following the Ash Wednesday storm in 1962. The storm also breached the south end of the 

island at the location of the present UAS runway and connected Hog Creek directly with the 

ocean. This breach was mechanically closed with a large rectangular fill (Photograph 19). 

Construction and a sand pumping operation in 1963 worked to correct the damage from the 1962 

washout areas. 

Boat Dock 

Causeway 

Wooden Groins along 

Shoreline 
Environmental Consequences 

320 

Photo 19: 1965 photograph showing large rectangular fill area on south end of Wallops 

Island 

4.7.1.1.4 1970s 

New construction slowed in the 1970s but was still ongoing. Excavation and fill activities 

occurred, and some new facilities such as ASTs and buildings were added. Additional concrete 

rubble and rusted metal objects are visible in the debris pile along the road to Camera Stand Z100 on the southeast portion of Wallops Island. 

Shoreline Stabilization 

A total of 47 wood groins had been built along the Wallops Island shoreline by 1972. Most of the 

groins ranged in length from 30 - 120 m (120 - 400 ft) and the spacing between them varied from 

60 - 200 m (200 - 650 ft). The seawall was extended, augmented, and repaired several times 

through the 1970s. 

4.7.1.1.5 1980s 

Minor construction occurred throughout the 1980s. More concrete rubble was placed along both 

sides of the road leading to Camera Stand Z-100 in the early 1980s. In 1985, the Navy 

constructed the Aegis Engineering and Training Complex buildings on Wallops Island. 

Shoreline Stabilization 

The seawall was extended, augmented, and repaired several times through the 1980s. By the 

1980s, the groins showed signs of serious deterioration. In 1988, NASA and the U.S. Navy 

installed two experimental beach prism/beam sand retention units on Wallops Island. Moffatt 

and Nichol (1989) evaluated these and concluded that both types of experimental shore 

protection structures failed to provide any significant protection. 

Camera Stand 

Z-100 

Assawoman Inlet 

Island Causeway 

Bridge 
Environmental Consequences 

 321 

4.7.1.1.6 1990s 

Upgrades to infrastructure and some construction occurred in the 1990s. Significant erosion of 

the shoreline is visible in photographs. The Navy constructed several buildings on Wallops 

Island in the 1990s including the Aegis Cruiser Facility and the Ship Self Defense Facility, both 

located mid-island. 

Shoreline Stabilization 

Since the mid 1990s, varying amounts of material dredged from Chincoteague Inlet have been 

disposed of approximately 1,220 m (4,000 ft) offshore of Wallops Island by the USACE Norfolk 

District (see Section 2.4.3 of this PEIS). Photos from the 1990s show the Assawoman Inlet as 

closed. In the mid 1990s, NASA built the current rock seawall generally in the same location as 

the previous seawalls. The wooden groins were mostly removed at approximately the same time, 

though several short sections of wooden pilings still remain in place. Photos from the 1990s 

generally show a small section of beach remaining in front of the seawall. 

4.7.1.1.7 2000s 

Large concrete pads currently seen on the beach and in the water appear to be similar to the 

construction debris in 1966 photos. Most of the impoundments and ground scars identified in 

previous photos remain. The Navy constructed Building V-21 in 2003, Building V-3 (DDG) in 

2009, and the ARTIST radar facility that is located close to the existing shoreline in 2009. 

Shoreline Stabilization 

NASA made frequent repairs to the seawall in the 2000s. In 2006, NASA placed 1,400 m (4,600 

ft) of temporary geotextile tube along the beach south of the seawall. Large waves have 

occasionally damaged portions of the tubing. In mid-November 2009 a Nor’easter caused 

flooding and substantial damage to the geotextile tubes. Approximately 790 m (2,600 ft) of 

replacement geotextile tubes were installed in this same general area in spring 2010. 

4.7.1.2 Summary of Impacts 

Table 53 below shows the areas affected at various points during the history of Wallops Island 

since U.S. government use starting in 1938 for the following categories: wetland dredge, wetland 

fill, impervious surface, miscellaneous habitat impacts, and total disturbance. NASA used 

geographically referenced aerial photography of Wallops Island between 1938 and 2007 to 

delineate the categories in GIS. Impervious area estimates included roads, buildings, and other 

infrastructure. Shoreline fill represents times when a noticeable amount of fill material was 

placed on the Wallops beach. The miscellaneous habitat impacts were determined by delineating 

the areas that were noticeably disturbed from one aerial photograph to the next, and that did not 

fit into the other categories (impervious areas, dredge, and fill categories were excluded). 

Additionally, NASA estimated the total amount of land area gained along the shorefront from 

1938 to 2007 by subtracting the difference between accretion and erosion and found that 210 ha 

(518 ac) of beach-related habitat on north Wallops Island was created over this period. 

Wetlands impacts were estimated by overlaying the outlines of historic disturbed land areas 

identified in the 2004 EPA report onto USFWS National Wetlands Inventory maps and recent 

infrared aerial photography. Figure 54 provides a visual overview of all the areas affected by 

activities at Wallops Island between 1938 and 1994. 
Environmental Consequences 

322 

It should be noted that the figures presented in Table 53 are only estimates of impacts, and were 

based upon interpretation of aerial photographs, some of which were very old. As such, these 

estimates are only “ballpark” figures, and should only be used for drawing general conclusions. 

Table 53: Summary of Hectares (Acres) Affected by Various Actions at Wallops Island 

1938 to 2010+ 

Year 

Wetland 

Dredge Wetland Fill 

Shoreline 

Fill 

Impervious 

Surface 

Miscellaneous 

Habitat 

Impacts 

Total 

Disturbance 

1938 11.3 (28) 0 0 0.08 (0.2) 0.7 (1.8) 12.1 (30) 

1949 5.5 (13.7) 2.2 (5.5) 0 0.3 (0.8) 16 (39.6) 24.3 (60) 

1957a 1.5 (3.7) 15.1 (37.4) 0 0.9 (2.3) 15.5 (38.2) 33.2 (82) 

1966b 20.2 (50) 132 (327) 17.6 (43.5) 18.2 (45) 41.1 (101.5) 222.6 (550) 

1974 0 0 0 0.6 (1.6) 7.2 (17.7) 7.8 (19) 

1979 0 0 0 1 (2.5) 0.4 (1) 1.4 (3.5) 

1988 0 0 0 2 (5) 6.5(16) 8.5 (21) 

1994 0 0 0 0.8 (2) 0.4 (1) 1.2 (3) 

2010 0 0 0 8.5 (20.9) 9.4 (23.2) 17.8 (44) 

2010+ c 0 3.1 (7.6) 66 (163) 6.3 (15.6) 3.2 (8) 75.4 (186) 

TOTAL 38.6 (95.4) 152.4 (377.5) 83.6 (209.5) 38.8 (95.9) 100.4 (248) 415 (1026) 

Note: Totals may not add up exactly when compared to specific values in each cell due to rounding. 

a

North Island fill area filled again = upland habitat conversion 

b

Island causeway counted as both wetland fill and impervious surface but only the fill area was counted in the 

total disturbed area 

c

2010+ = proposed construction including UAS Airstrip, Expansion of the Wallops Island Launch Range 

(including construction of the Payload Processing Facility and Payload Fueling Facility), and beach fill 

(rockwall core)

4.7.1.3 Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities and Projects 

4.7.1.3.1 NASA 

Present Activities 

NASA can currently launch up to approximately 102 rockets a year from the launch areas on 

Wallops Island. These include a maximum of 60 from the Sounding Rocket Program, 12 from 

orbital rocket missions at Pad 0-B (Figure 55) and 30 from Navy missiles and drones (NASA, 

2005). Debris from various WFF launch operations (i.e., spent rockets, payloads, drones, and 

rocket-boosted projectiles) lands in the Atlantic Ocean. This debris may consist of a variety of 

components including metals, batteries, electrical components, and propellants. 

Environmental Consequences 

324 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Environmental Consequences 

326 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Environmental Consequences 

 327 

NASA also conducts the following activities: 

 Flights from South UAS Airstrip 

 Piloted flights from WFF Main Base 

 Launching of weather balloons over the ocean 

 Launching autonomous underwater vehicles 

 Assembling and transporting payloads 

 Tracking and data systems 

 Open burning in designated area 

 Rocket boosted projectile testing 

NASA conducts routine activities including repairs and maintenance of existing infrastructure 

such as grounds, roads, buildings, and utilities on a regular basis to ensure the ongoing operation 

of the facility. A more detailed description of these activities is provided in the 2005 Site-Wide 

EA. 

Future Projects 

Currently, NASA is planning three projects on Wallops Island and one project at the Main Base 

that may result in impacts to environmental resources within the SRIPP project area. These 

projects are described briefly below. 

North Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Airstrip at Wallops Island

NASA is currently considering the construction of an UAS airstrip on north Wallops Island 

(Figure 55). The purpose of the North UAS Airstrip would be to provide a venue and 

infrastructure to support launch and recovery operations for UASs. UASs are small aircraft that 

serve as platforms for small science instruments. They are controlled remotely by a pilot on the 

ground and are powered by batteries or small gasoline engines. The east-west orientation of this 

airstrip would provide an alternative to the north-south positioning of the current UAS airstrip on 

south Wallops Island. An EA is currently being prepared. The implementation date of the UAS 

airstrip would occur no earlier than mid-2011. 

Expansion of the Wallops Flight Facility Launch Range

NASA and MARS facilities are currently being upgraded to support up to and including medium 

large class suborbital and orbital expendable launch vehicle (ELV) launch activities from WFF. 

Components of the project include site improvements required to support launch operations 

(such as facility construction and infrastructure improvements); testing, fueling, and processing 

operations; up to two static fire tests per year; and launching of up to six ELVs and associated 

spacecraft per year from Pad 0-A. Implementation of the project would result in a maximum of 

18 orbital-class launches from MARS Launch Complex 0 per year (12 existing launches from 

Pad 0-B, and 6 additional launches from Pad 0-A). The first orbital launch from Pad 0-A is 

currently planned for mid-2011. More information is available in the EA prepared for this project 

(NASA, 2009a). 
Environmental Consequences 

328 

 Wallops Flight Facility Alternative Energy Project 

The purpose of WFF’s Alternative Energy Project is to generate clean, renewable energy from a 

technologically proven source that will be used by WFF in order to meet Federal renewable 

energy requirements. WFF is proposing to construct solar panels at Wallops Main Base and two 

residential-scale wind turbines, one on Wallops Mainland and one near the Visitor’s Center on 

the Main Base. NASA is currently preparing an EA for the project; implementation of this 

project is planned for early 2011. 

Wallops Research Park 

The goal of the Wallops Research Park (WRP) project is to create an integrated business park for 

aerospace research and development programs, scientific research, commercial space industries, 

and educational centers. Development of the WRP is taking place adjacent to the Main Base at 

WFF over an expected 20-year period; some development has occurred, but the majority of the 

Proposed Action has not yet been constructed. WRP would consist of a multi-use development 

created for non-retail commercial, government space, science research, educational facilities, and 

public recreation areas. Please refer to the 2008 WRP EA for more information (NASA, 2008b). 

4.7.1.3.2 Projects and Actions by Others 

There are ongoing and reasonably foreseeable offshore projects that have been considered in 

evaluating cumulative effects on resources within the region. These projects occur within a 

broader nearshore and inner continental shelf region of the SRIPP project area. 

Virginia Capes Operating Area 

The Virginia Capes Operating Area (VACAPES OPAREA) is a surface and subsurface operating 

area off the Virginia and North Carolina coasts within the VACAPES Range Complex (Figure 

56). The mission of the VACAPES Range Complex is to provide sustainable and modernized 

ocean operating areas, airspace, ranges, range infrastructure, training facilities, and resources to 

fully support U.S. Navy training requirements. The VACAPES OPAREA is used by the U.S. 

Navy Atlantic Fleet training for research, development, testing, and evaluation activities, and 

associated range capabilities enhancements, including infrastructure improvements. 

The VACAPES OPAREA includes the nearshore area from just off the mouth of Delaware Bay 

south to Cape Hatteras. The western boundary is roughly the 3-nautical-mile State territorial 

limit and the eastern boundary extends 287 km (178 mi) into waters more than 4,000 m (13,120 

ft) deep. Additional information on the VACAPES activities is provided in the U.S. Department 

of the Navy Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (2009). 

Offshore Dredging 

Offshore dredging projects in both Maryland and Virginia have been included in the evaluation 

of cumulative effects. Although the shoals identified as potential sand sources for the SRIPP are 

located in northern Virginia, they are at the southern end of the Assateague Ridge field that 

extends offshore of Maryland (Swift and Field, 1981). Therefore, projects utilizing sand from 

this offshore shoal complex are considered in the evaluation of the cumulative effects. 

Environmental Consequences 

330 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Environmental Consequences 

 331 

Maryland

Atlantic Coast of Maryland Shoreline Protection Project

To help remedy the sand loss in Ocean City, MD (located approximately 80 km [50 mi] north of 

WFF) from beach erosion because of storms, the USACE began a beach renourishment effort for 

Ocean City in the late 1980s. Ocean City’s Beach Renourishment Project is an ongoing effort. In 

general, the dredging is on a 4-year cycle and is planned to continue for another 40 years. The 

last renourishment cycle was completed in 2006, with the next renourishment cycle planned for 

2010. For this upcoming renourishment cycle, the USACE is considering four offshore shoals in 

Federal waters east of Ocean City Inlet (the southernmost proposed shoal is approximately 16 

km [10 mi] southeast of the inlet) to provide some or all of the volume for the project duration. 

Currently, the USACE plans to provide approximately 535,000 m3

 (700,000 yd3) of material to 

the beach in each renourishment cycle. Additional information is provided in the Atlantic Coast 

of Maryland Shoreline Protection Project Final Supplemental EIS (USACE, 2008). 

Assateague Island Beach Restoration

Beginning in 2003, the NPS undertook a beach restoration effort at Assateague Island to mitigate 

the effects of the Ocean City Inlet jetty system built in the 1930s. The objective of the NPS 

project is not traditional beach nourishment to protect the shoreline from storm damage or to halt 

erosion, but rather to restore Assateague Island’s sand budget and ensure that natural coastal 

processes continue to dictate the evolution of the island (NPS, 2003). Approximately 1 million 

m3 (1.4 million yd3) of sand was taken from Great Gull Bank for initial nourishment, a shoal 

approximately 8 km (5 mi) east of northern Assateague Island. For renourishment, sediment has 

been dredged approximately twice yearly from an ebb shoal immediately offshore of Ocean City 

Inlet. This ebb shoal will continue to be used for renourishment activities for the project duration 

of 40 years. Additional information is provided in the EA prepared for this project (NPS, 2003). 

Virginia

To date, there has been no sand dredged from Federal waters offshore of Virginia north of the 

mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. However, sand has been dredged from offshore Federal waters 

south of the Chesapeake Bay. These projects are described below. 

Sandbridge Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project

The City of Virginia Beach has utilized sand from Sandbridge Shoal since 1998 to renourish 

Sandbridge Beach. Sandbridge Shoal is located approximately 4.5 to 6.6 km (2.8 to 4.1 mi) 

offshore. In 1998, the city dredged 4.4 million m3

 (5.7 million yd3) of sand. In 2002, the city 

dredged an additional 1.53 million m3 (2.0 million yd3). The Navy’s Dam Neck facility has also 

utilized Sandbridge Shoal, dredging 619,000 m3

 (809,000 yd3) of sand in 1996 and 535,000 m3 

(700,000 yd3) in 2003. 

An EA for the Sandbridge Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project was prepared 

in June 2009 by the USACE Norfolk District in cooperation with the BOEMRE. The EA 

indicates that approximately 1.1 to 1.5 million m3

 (1.5 to 2 million yd3) of sand would be placed 

on the beach approximately every 3 years. The cycle may occur less often, but probably no less 

than once every 5 years for the 50-year project life. 

 
Environmental Consequences 

332 

Virginia Beach Hurricane Protection Project

The City of Virginia Beach and the USACE maintain a hurricane protection project that includes 

beach nourishment. The Virginia Beach project includes a seawall and maintenance of the beach 

from Rudee Inlet to 89th Street, including a larger dune system from 58th to 89th streets. The 

initial and renourishment sand source is material dredged from Thimble Shoal and the Atlantic 

Ocean channels. In the future, material may be obtained from an area off Cape Henry. 

Future Offshore Dredging 

Communities and facilities along the Eastern Shore may require sand sources for beach 

nourishment. The sand to support these projects will come from a variety of sources including 

inlets, the Chesapeake Bay, nearshore ebb shoals, and potentially offshore shoals. Although no 

other specific offshore dredging projects have been identified at this time, in addition to the 

projects listed above, it is possible that within the 50-year life span of the SRIPP, other offshore 

areas will be dredged. 

Other Offshore Projects and Actions 

Submarine Infrastructure Projects – Cables, Pipelines

Although no submarine infrastructure projects are proposed at this time for the SRIPP project 

area and vicinity, it is possible that within the 50-year life span of the SRIPP a cable, pipeline, or 

other submarine infrastructure project would occur. It is likely that a project of this nature would 

result in disturbance of the seafloor and benthic communities. Submarine infrastructure may be 

placed on the sediment surface or buried within the sediment. All projects of this nature would 

require review and permits from BOEMRE and other Federal agencies as required for projects in 

Federal waters, and State and Federal agencies as necessary for work done in State waters. The 

potential environmental impacts would be considered and documented through the NEPA 

process for federally funded projects. 

Offshore Renewable Energy Projects

There has been some preliminary interest in developing wind farms off the coast of Virginia and 

Maryland. The Commonwealth of Virginia and BOEMRE held an offshore renewable energy 

task force meeting on December 8, 2009, to discuss renewable energy development on the OCS. 

BOEMRE received two proposals for leases approximately 12 miles offshore of Virginia Beach 

for wind farm development. Maryland issued a Request for Interest and Information with regard 

to potential offshore wind energy development, with a deadline for responses in early 2010. 

Offshore wind projects may look to site their turbine foundations in the shallower waters 

available on shoal crests. Offshore renewable energy projects would require review and 

approvals from BOEMRE and other Federal agencies as well as the adjacent coastal States. The 

potential environmental impacts would be considered and documented through the NEPA 

process for federally funded or permitted projects. 

Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration 

On May 27, 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama announced Secretary of the Interior Ken 

Salazar’s decision to cancel Lease Sale 220, a proposal to allow oil and gas extraction off the 

coast of Virginia. As such, no oil and gas projects in the Mid-Atlantic region offshore of Virginia 

are known at this time; however, it is possible that offshore areas may be explored for oil and gas 

resources. All projects of this nature would require review and permits from BOEMRE and their 
Environmental Consequences 

 333 

potential environmental impacts considered and documented through the NEPA process. 

Potential oil and gas exploration and production in this area would result in potential impacts not 

only to the offshore environment, but also to the onshore environment where supporting 

infrastructure would be constructed. 

The BOEMRE held scoping meetings in April 2010 for preparation of a PEIS for geological and 

geophysical surveys throughout the mid- and south Atlantic OCS associated with future siting of 

renewable energy projects, marine minerals extraction, and oil and gas exploration. Geological 

surveys would include: coring, shallow test drilling, and the boring of deep stratigraphic test 

wells. The geophysical surveys would include seismic surveys that would not disturb the ocean 

bottom. 

Commercial Fishing 

As described in Chapter 3, there is commercial fishing activity within the project area. Trawl 

scars and lost trawl gear on the seafloor were observed during the remote sensing study 

conducted for the underwater archeological work on the shoals. Churchill (1989) determined that 

as much as approximately one-third of the seafloor off the Maryland coast out to about 48 km 

(30 mi) offshore was disturbed by commercial trawling activity in a single year. Assuming this 

1985 estimate applies to the Virginia coast, approximately 2,590 km2

 (1,000 mi2) of the 

approximate 7,900 km2

 (3,050 mi2) within the waters 48 km (30 mi) offshore of Virginia would 

be disturbed in a single year by trawling. Trawling disturbs the sediment surface and the 

associated benthic communities. Conversely, sand dredging operations can extend several feet 

into the substrate, depending on the sediment characteristics and dredge specifications. 

4.7.1.3.3 Climate Change 

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) evaluates climate change impacts on 

water resources, ecosystems, agriculture and forestry, health, coastlines and arctic regions in the 

United States by region. According to the USGCRP (2009), the annual average temperature in 

the southeast region has risen 1 C° (2° F) since 1970, with the greatest seasonal increase in the 

winter months. According to the USGCRP, there has been a 30 percent increase in fall 

precipitation over most of the southeast U.S. and an increase in heavy downpours during rain 

events throughout the year. Summer precipitation has decreased over almost the entire region. 

The power of Atlantic hurricanes has increased since 1970, associated with an increase in sea 

surface temperature. 

Additionally, the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the ocean changes the chemistry of the oceans 

and can potentially have significant impacts on the biological systems in the upper oceans 

(Tedesco et al., 2005). Acidification of the oceans is anticipated as a result of increased rates of 

CO2 in the atmosphere compared to pre-industrial times. 

Continued warming is projected, with the greatest temperature increases in summer. Sea-level 

rise is projected to accelerate, increasing coastal inundation and shoreline retreat. The intensity 

of hurricanes is likely to increase, with higher wind speeds, rainfall/ intensity, and storm surge 

height and strength. The USGCRP predicts that sea-level rise and the likely increase in hurricane 

intensity and associated storm surge will be among the most serious consequences of climate 

change in the region (USGCRP, 2009). 

The largest components of climate change that would contribute to cumulative impacts when 

combined with the SRIPP would be sea-level rise and increased storm intensity and/or 
Environmental Consequences 

334 

frequency. The predictions of future sea-level rise vary widely. In establishing the beach fill 

volumes for the SRIPP, the USACE used a rate of sea-level rise of 11 mm (0.4 in) per year 

(Appendix A). As such, NASA based the cumulative effects analysis on an increase in sea-level 

of 0.5 m (1.5 ft) over the 50-year SRIPP project life. 

While the climate change information presented in this section and Chapter 3 of this PEIS 

represents the best professional judgment and expertise of scientists, researchers and resource 

managers, there is inherent uncertainty in hypothesizing future changes in a highly dynamic, ever 

changing system and there will always be the need for more information and data to better 

anticipate future state changes. 

4.7.2 Potential Cumulative Effects 

The following section addresses those resources that have been identified as having the potential 

to be affected from the incremental effects of the SRIPP in combination with past actions and the 

present and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities described in Section 4.7.1.1 and 4.7.1.2 

above. The additive effects of anticipated climate change are also presented in this section. The 

resources of concern discussed below are those described in Sections 4.2 through 4.4 that may be 

affected by the SRIPP. These include: offshore sand shoals, marine water quality, wetlands and 

subaqueous bottoms, air quality, noise (including underwater noise), benthos, fish, marine 

mammals, threatened and endangered species, and socioeconomic resources. 

4.7.2.1 Physical Environment 

For the bathymetry, offshore sand shoals, shoreline change, marine water quality, and the climate 

change sections below, the geographic scope for cumulative impacts evaluation is the inner 

continental shelf from Ocean City, MD to Sandbridge, VA. 

Bathymetry 

Impacts from SRIPP: Within the borrow area(s), dredging would remove up to several feet of 

sediment, therefore increasing the water depths. Dredging may occur once in a given area of a 

shoal or multiple times, depending on bathymetric recovery as determined by monitoring. The 

area impacted within the borrow site during a typical renourishment event would depend on the 

volume of sand needed and the thickness of material dredged. 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: The bathymetry of Shoals A and B, as well as other shoals in the region, 

would be influenced primarily by hydrodynamic processes (i.e., currents and waves). Storm 

events would result in the greatest changes in shoal bathymetry. In addition, the bathymetry of 

shoals in the region would be affected by proposed dredging projects as well as infrastructure 

projects (e.g., submarine cables, wind turbine foundations, or pipelines) that would be 

constructed on them. 

Effects from Climate Change: Sea level is expected to rise in the project area due to climate 

change, increasing the depth of water above the shoals within the dredged areas and in the 

nearshore environment where sand placement would occur along the Wallops Island shoreline. 

Over the 50-year time frame of the SRIPP, the change in water depth over the shoals from 

climate change would be negligible; however, along the shoreline, small changes in water depth 

due to climate change would be more pronounced, but would be mitigated by construction of a 

new beach under the SRIPP. 
Environmental Consequences 

 335 

Summary: Proposed SRIPP dredging would contribute cumulatively to changes in offshore 

bathymetry when combined with other offshore dredging projects on the inner continental shelf 

of Virginia and Maryland by lowering the elevation of the seafloor within the dredged areas. 

Dredging projects in the region include navigation channel maintenance and borrow for beach 

nourishment. Dredging has occurred and is proposed for shoals located in Federal waters 

offshore of Ocean City and Assateague Island, MD, to the north of the SRIPP project area, and 

Sandbridge Shoal, VA, to the south; both of these locations are tens of kilometers/miles away 

from the SRIPP project site. 

Because of their spatial and temporal separation, the cumulative effects on bathymetry as a result 

of offshore dredging would be negligible. In addition, the offshore dredging projects have 

relatively small footprints and shallow dredging depths. The USACE (2008) assumed that the 

maximum thickness of material that would be removed for future Ocean City beach fill 

requirements could be up to 3 m (10 ft). It is assumed that the maximum thickness of material 

removed from offshore shoals for the SRIPP would be approximately 3 m (10 ft). In addition to 

the direct changes to bathymetry, there would be indirect effects to marine life. These impacts 

are discussed in the sections below. 

Offshore Sand Shoals 

Impacts from SRIPP: Based on an initial beach fill target of approximately 2.4 million m3 (3.2 

million yd3

) and assuming a loss of 25 percent of the material during dredge and sand placement 

operations, a total of approximately 3.1 million m3 (4 million yd3) of sand would be dredged 

from Shoal A. Roughly 20 percent of the Shoal A’s total volume would be removed if only Shoal 

A were used to obtain fill material over the lifetime of the SRIPP. Because Unnamed Shoal A 

would be used for the initial fill, Unnamed Shoal B would have less total volume removed over 

the SRIPP lifetime. Therefore, roughly 7 percent of Shoal B’s volume would be removed if it 

was used to obtain the entire SRIPP renourishment volumes. 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: According to the USACE, dredging conducted for Ocean City and 

Assateague Island, MD, has removed 11 million m3 (14.3 million yd3) of sand from detached 

nearshore and offshore shoals (USACE, 2008). The USACE estimates that an additional 11.4 

million m3 (15 million yd3) could be required for the Atlantic Coast of Maryland Project through 

2044. The total cumulative volume for the project would exceed 22 million m3

 (29 million yd3). 

Sandbridge Shoal is the only other shoal in Federal waters offshore of Virginia that has been 

dredged and will likely be dredged in the foreseeable future. The total potential volume of sand 

available on Sandbridge Shoal offshore of south Virginia is estimated to be 31 million m3

 (40 

million yd3

) by Hardaway et al. (1998). Cumulative dredging impacts on Sandbridge Shoal 

through 2050 are estimated to be over 15 million m3

 (20 million yd3), or over 50 percent of the 

total volume present. 

Effects from Climate Change: Depending on the strength and frequency of future storms, 

additional sand may be needed for both the proposed SRIPP and other shoreline restoration 

projects, which would increase the potential cumulative impact of the actions. 

Summary: The proposed SRIPP dredging operations would contribute incrementally to the 

overall removal of sand resources from shoals located on the inner continental shelf in the MidAtlantic region offshore of Maryland and Virginia. Dredging conducted for Ocean City and 

Assateague Island, MD, has removed 11 million m3 (14.3 million yd3) of sand from detached 
Environmental Consequences 

336 

nearshore and offshore shoals (USACE, 2008). The USACE estimates that an additional 11.4 

million m3

 (15 million yd3) could be required for the Atlantic Coast of Maryland Project through 

2044. The total cumulative volume for the project would exceed 22 million m3 (29 million yd3). 

The Maryland Geologic Survey estimates that the total volume of potential sand resources 

suitable for beach restoration projects contained within the shoals offshore of Maryland exceeds 

1.2 billion yd3

 as shown on Table 54 (Conkwright and Gast, 1994a,b; Conkwright and Gast, 

1995; Conkwright and Williams, 1996). The cumulative total of sand that may be dredged from 

offshore Maryland represents approximately 2 percent of the total amount of potential sand 

resources available. 

Unlike Maryland, there has been no comprehensive inventory and estimate of the total volume of 

potential sand resources contained within sand shoals offshore of Virginia. The potential 

volumes of sand resources estimated for Unnamed Shoal A and B identified for this project are 

approximately 52 million m3 (68 million yd3) for Unnamed Shoal A and 100 million m3 (132 

million yd3) for Unnamed Shoal B. In addition, Blackfish Bank has approximately 19 million m3 

(25 million yd3) of sand. Under the Preferred Alternative, assuming that Unnamed Shoal A 

would be used for initial and all renourishment cycles, the SRIPP would remove approximately 5 

percent of the total volume of Unnamed Shoal A for the initial fill and 19 percent of the total 

volume available on the shoal through 2050 (Table 54). 

Table 54: Volume of Potential Suitable Sand Resources for Shoreline Restoration in 

Maryland and Virginia 

Area 

Total Potential 

Suitable Sand 

Resources 

Present 

m3 (yd3) 

Sand Dredged 

1988–2009 

m3 (yd3) 

Potential 

Sand to be 

Dredged 

2010–2050 

m3 (yd3) 

Cumulative 

Total 

Through 2050 

m3 (yd3) 

Percent 

of 

Volume 

Present 

Maryland 

Totala 900,000,000 

(1,200,000,000)a 

10,900,000 

(14,306,000)d 

11,000,000 

(15,000,000)d

22,406,000 

(29,306,000) 

2 

Virginia (partial list) 

Blackfish Bank 

Shoalb

19,000,000 

(25,000,000)

0 0 0 0 

Unnamed Shoal A 52,000,000 

(68,000,000)b 

0 9,990,000 

(13,066,250) 

9,990,000 

(13,066,250) 

19 

Unnamed Shoal Bf 100,000,000 

(132,000,000)b 

0 0 0 0 

Sandbridge Shoal 31,000,000 

(40,000,000)c 

3,524,000 

(4,610,000) 

12,200,000 

(16,000,000)e 

15,760,000 

(20,610,000) 

52 

a

 = Maryland Geologic Survey (Conkwright and Gast 1994a,b and 1995; Conkwright and Williams, 1996; USACE 2008) 

b

 = USACE, 2010a 

c

 = Hardaway et al., 1998 

d

 = USACE, 2008 (Supplemental EIS estimated maximum volume) 

e

 = USACE, 2009b ([Sandbridge EA] assumes eight renourishment cycles from 2010 to 2050 at 1.5 million m3 [2 million 

yd3

] per cycle) f

 = Volumes shown for both Unnamed Shoal A and Unnamed Shoal B assume that only one shoal (A or B) would be used 

for all renourishment cycles 
Environmental Consequences 

 337 

The offshore dredging projects described above have removed and will remove substantial 

amounts of sand from individual offshore shoals. However, the cumulative amount of sand 

removed for these projects is approximately 3 percent of the overall quantity (in excess of 1.5 

billion yd3

) of sand remaining and left intact on the continental shelf off the coasts of Maryland 

and Virginia. 

It is not anticipated that SRIPP dredging activities, when combined with the dredging activities 

of other offshore shoals in the region, would result in significant cumulative impacts because the 

impacted areas are small compared to the total amount of undisturbed offshore shoals. It is 

possible that future demand for beach renourishment sand, submarine infrastructure projects, oil 

and gas exploration, or offshore renewable energy projects would result in additional disturbance 

of shoals, which may lead to adverse impacts on the geomorphic integrity of the offshore sand 

shoal environment. 

Barrier Island Shorelines 

Impacts from SRIPP: Implementation of the beach fill component of the SRIPP would result in 

significant changes to the Wallops Island shoreline. The initial beach fill would extend the 

existing shoreline a total distance of 73 m (240 ft) to the underwater seaward extent of the fill, 21 

m (70 ft) of which would be aboveground beach. The initial beach fill would create a beach 

profile with a 1.8-m-high (6-ft-high) berm and a 4.3-m-high (14-ft-high) dune at the seawall 

(Figure 16). Because there is no existing beach along the 6.0-km (3.7-mi) fill area proposed 

under the SRIPP, the SRIPP would create a shoreline between the northern end of the rock 

seawall and the southern end of the existing geotextile tubes. The renourishment fills would 

restore the shoreline to the same position that would exist after the initial fill is completed. 

The sand that would be dredged offshore and placed along the shoreline would contribute sand to 

the local nearshore sediment transport system. Some of the sand that would be placed along the 

Wallops Island shoreline under the SRIPP would be transported south, therefore providing some 

mitigation to erosional processes occurring on the northern part of Assawoman Island. 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: As described in Sections 1.2.5 and 4.7.1.1, beginning in the late 1950s 

NASA attempted several projects to prevent shoreline retreat on Wallops Island. These included 

construction of a sheet pile seawall, wooden groins, a rock seawall, and a large rectangular fill on 

the south end of Wallops Island in the 1960s (Photograph 19). The rock seawall still exists today. 

As evidenced by the location of the beach to the south of the seawall (Figure 3), the seawall has 

stopped further erosion and fixed the waters edge. It has resulted in the loss of beach and 

associated overwash habitat landward along an approximate 4,300-m (14,000-ft) stretch of the 

island. 

The northern portion of Assawoman Island has been eroding since NASA has occupied Wallops 

Island. When Fishing Point was smaller, the divergent nodal zone was further north than its 

estimated present position. Under these conditions, it is likely that the seawall affected sand 

transport to the south and may have impacted Assawoman Island. The southward migration of 

Fishing Point (Section 3.1.4.3 of this PEIS), has sheltered the Wallops Island shoreline from 

ocean waves approaching from the northeast, with the divergent nodal zone shifting south as the 

southern tip of Fishing Point continues to grow (explained in Section 3.1.5.4, Longshore 

Sediment Transport), Assawoman Island is expected to remain exposed to the ocean waves and 

erosion within the 50-year time span of the SRIPP. 
Environmental Consequences 

338 

The cumulative effects of the shoreline restoration and nourishment projects in the region are 

maintaining and sustaining the beach resource, creating additional area of dry beach habitat for 

wildlife and human use, creating the potential for dune vegetation habitat, and sustaining 

intertidal or wet beach habitat. 

Within a regional context, the area from Ocean City MD to Sandbridge, VA includes several 

beach nourishment projects that are ongoing and proposed in the future. As described above, 

these projects include; the Atlantic Coast of Maryland Project, Assateague Island Beach 

Restoration Project, Sandbridge Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project, and the 

Virginia Beach Hurricane Protection Project. Each of these projects is designed to restore and 

maintain shorelines within their respective project limits. From a regional perspective, they 

would not significantly affect shoreline changes outside of their project boundaries. 

Effects from Climate Change: Increase in sea-level rise and storm intensity and/or frequency 

would accelerate shoreline erosion, lead to more frequent washover events, and cause a loss of 

dune structure. It is likely that the barrier islands would migrate westerly, however to what 

degree is uncertain. 

Summary: Because NASA would construct and maintain a new beach in front of the seawall 

under the SRIPP, effects of climate change on the Wallops Island and northern Assawoman 

Island shorelines would likely be reduced. Within the regional context of the Virginia Barrier 

Islands, the cumulative effects from beach nourishment projects would be highly localized, and 

the effects of climate change would continue. 

Water Resources 

Water Quality

Geographic Scope: The geographic scope of the water resources cumulative impacts analysis 

includes surface waters that are along the Wallops Island shoreline that would be affected by 

extension of the seawall and work on the beach and the Atlantic Ocean waters, both nearshore 

and offshore in the vicinity of Unnamed Shoals A and B. The watersheds that encompass the 

Wallops Island Shoreline extend out into the Atlantic Ocean (shown as AO05 and AO12 on 

Figure 57) and are distant from watersheds that drain the mainland or contain fresh waters. 

Impacts from SRIPP: The SRIPP would have minor and temporary localized adverse impacts on 

marine water quality due to elevated levels of turbidity during dredging and sand placement 

operations, including both the actual placement of sand and during anchoring of the pump-out 

buoys. Turbidity would be expected to extend about 500 m (1,640 ft) from the offshore shoals 

during dredging, which would occur periodically throughout the life of the SRIPP. 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: Past, present, and proposed actions at Wallops Island cumulatively affect 

the amount and patterns of stormwater runoff due to impervious surfaces. Some of this runoff 

reaches the Atlantic Ocean and may include sediment, petroleum products, and heavy metals. 

Over time, the amount of runoff from Wallops Island has increased as new impervious surfaces 

(primarily buildings and roads) have been constructed. Between 1938 and 1994, approximately 

39 ha (96 ac) of impervious surface was added. Construction since 1994 has contributed 

additional impervious area and the future projects planned at WFF, particularly the expansion of 

the WFF Launch Range and the UAS Airstrip on the north end of the island, would result in 

increased impervious surface area. 

Environmental Consequences 

340 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Environmental Consequences 

 341 

Tidal wetlands improve water quality by trapping sediments, reducing turbidity, restricting the 

passage of toxics and heavy metals, decreasing biological oxygen demand, trapping nutrients, 

and buffering storm and wave energy. Loss of these resources over time has likely contributed to 

a minor to moderate long-term adverse effect on water quality within the analysis area. 

Additionally, construction activities including grading, clearing, filling, and excavation for the 

future projects would result in disturbance of the ground surface and would have the potential to 

cause soil erosion and the subsequent transport of sediment or nutrients into waterways via 

stormwater. NASA has and would continue to minimize impacts on surface waters by acquiring 

construction and industrial Virginia Storm Water Management Program permits and by 

developing and implementing a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Erosion 

and Sediment Control plans prior to land-disturbing activities. NASA would follow Virginia 

Storm Water Management Program requirements for proper sizing and planning for stormwater 

conveyance from new infrastructure. 

Other projects occurring in regional marine waters (offshore dredging in Maryland and Virginia 

waters, submarine infrastructure, renewable energy, and oil and gas exploration) would also 

result in temporary elevated levels of turbidity from disturbances on the seafloor. However, 

these projects would be temporally and spatially separated on the inner continental shelf and 

would result in negligible cumulative impacts on water quality. 

Debris and materials (metals, batteries, electrical components, and propellants) from spent 

rockets, payloads, drones, rocket-boosted projectiles, and other objects enter the Atlantic Ocean 

waters within the region of the SRIPP project area from existing WFF Launch Range operations, 

future WFF projects (expansion of the Wallops Island Launch Range), and U.S. Navy activities 

within the VACAPES OPAREA. The VACAPES Range Complex operations would also 

introduce small amounts of potentially hazardous chemicals into the marine environment (U.S. 

Department of Navy, 2009). The water quality analysis of all current and proposed VACAPES 

operations indicated that concentrations of constituents of concern would be well below the 

water quality criteria established to protect aquatic life. The combined effects of the WFF and 

VACAPES materials entering the marine environment could result in localized cumulative 

impacts to water quality and aquatic life depending upon the distributional pattern of the debris. 

Other non-hazardous expended material, defined as all parts of a device made of nonreactive 

materials, including parts made of metals such as steel or aluminum; polymers such as nylon, 

rubber, vinyl, and plastics; glass; fiber; and concrete would accumulate in the SRIPP project area 

over time from a variety of sources. While these items represent persistent seabed litter, their 

strong resistance to degradation and their chemical composition mean that they do not 

chemically contaminate the surrounding environment by leaching heavy metals or organic 

compounds. Expended material that sinks to the sea floor would gradually degrade, be 

overgrown by marine life, and/or be incorporated into the sediments. Floating non-hazardous 

expended material may be lost from vessels and would either degrade over time or wash ashore 

as flotsam. 

Effects from Climate Change: Impacts on marine water quality from climate change would 

primarily be a reduction in pH (Tedesco et al., 2005) and changes in temperature. However, it is 

unknown whether detectable changes in ocean water quality in the project area would be seen 

over the 50-year life of the SRIPP. 
Environmental Consequences 

342 

Summary: The project activities listed above would occur within the open ocean where the 

hydrodynamics of the water column are subject to mixing and exchange due to currents and 

wave movement. Toxic concentrations and elevated levels of turbidity would be localized and 

temporary due to mixing and dilution. Therefore, the incremental contribution to cumulative 

water resource impacts from the SRIPP combined with other operations and projects in marine 

waters would be negligible. No long-term or significant adverse cumulative impacts on surface 

waters would occur when the SRIPP activities are considered in combination with other projects 

and activities. 

Wetlands

Geographic Scope: The geographic scope of the wetlands cumulative impacts analysis includes 

wetlands on and immediately surrounding Wallops Island. The primary focus of this analysis is 

estuarine (tidal) wetlands as these would provide the ecological services to the resources most 

affected by the SRIPP, including marine fish and shorebirds. Palustrine (non-tidal) wetlands are 

discussed to a lesser degree. 

Impacts from SRIPP: The SRIPP would have no direct impacts on vegetated wetlands. The 

SRIPP could contribute indirectly over the long term to a loss of marsh on the west side of the 

island as a result of preventing island overwash, which contributes sediment to the system and 

can “build” marsh. Additionally, because wetlands provide value to other resource areas within 

an ecosystem, the past, present, and future impacts on wetlands at WFF are presented below. 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: Based on interpretations of aerial photographs, approximately 152 ha (377 

ac) of wetlands were affected by activities on Wallops Island between 1938 and the 1994 (Table 

53). The majority of wetland changes can be attributed to excavation and fill operations during 

the construction of the Wallops Island Causeway in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Based upon 

the geographic location of most of the changes, it can be assumed that the majority of the 

impacts were to tidal wetlands (Figure 54). These impacts occurred prior to the enactment of the 

CWA in 1972 and were therefore not likely regulated or mitigated. Between the early 1970s and 

1997 no effects on vegetated wetlands were documented. Since 1997 NASA has recorded the 

amount and type of wetlands that have been affected at Wallops Island and the Mainland (Table 

55). Note that the total net change from the projects presented in Table 55 is positive, meaning 

that because of compensation, 1.5 ha (3.7 ac) of wetlands have been restored on Wallops Island 

between 1997 and 2008. 

Table 55: Area of Wetlands Affected from Recent Past Projects on Wallops Island and 

Mainland 

Date Project 

Area Affected 

ha (ac) Impact Type 

Compensation 

ha (ac) 

Net Change 

ha (ac) 

Oct. 1997 Pad 0-B 0.13 (0.32)1 Permanent Fill 0.71 (1.76) 0.55 (1.44) 

Feb. 2002 Navy MFR 0.0085 (0.021) Temporary Fill 0.0085 (0.02)1 0 (0) 

Nov. 2004 Navy DDG 0.85 (2.1) Permanent Fill 0.76 (4.35) 0.91 (2.25) 

Apr. 2008 

Boat Dock 0.014 (0.033) 

Permanent Fill, 

Shading 0.026 (0.064) 0.0125 (0.031) 

Total 1 (2.47) 2.5 (6.2) 1.5 (3.7) 
Environmental Consequences 

 343 

Table 56 shows the area of wetland impacts for projects that are currently underway and 

proposed at Wallops Island. For nearly all of the current projects, wetlands impacts would result 

from permanently filling the wetland, except for the UAS Airstrip which would also include the 

conversion of approximately 1.0 ha (2.5 ac) of wetlands. 

Table 56: Estimated Area of Wetlands Affected for Current Proposed Projects on Wallops 

Island and Mainland 

Project1

Wetland Classification: ha (ac) 

Palustrine 

Forested 

Palustrine 

Scrub/Shrub

Palustrine 

Emergent 

Estuarine Intertidal and 

Estuarine and Marine 

Subtidal 

UAS Airstrip2 0.1 (0.3) 0.8 (2.0) 0.5 (1.2) - 

Alternative Energy 

Project - - - - 

SRIPP - - - - 

Expansion of WFF 

Launch Range3 - 0.2 (0.5) 1.4 (3.5) 0.04 (0.1) 

Total 0.1 (0.3) 1.0 (2.5) 1.9 (4.7) 0.04 (0.1) 1

Existing WFF launch activities do not directly affect wetlands 

2

Estimate based on USACE-confirmed delineation 

3

Estimate based on USFWS National Wetland Inventory 

Effects from Climate Change: Marsh accretion experts believe that most of the marshes along the 

Delmarva coast are keeping pace with current rates of sea-level rise, but are unlikely to continue 

to do so if the rate of sea-level rise increases by another 2 mm (0.08 in) per year (Strange 2008c, 

interpreting the findings of Reed et al., 2008). However, localized field measurements indicate 

that accretion rates may be insufficient to keep pace even with current rates of sea-level rise 

(Strange, 2008d). For instance, accretion rates as low as 0.9 mm (0.04 in) per year (Phillips 

Creek Marsh in upper Northampton County, VA) and as high as 2.1 mm (0.08 in) per year 

(Chimney Pole Marsh in lower Accomack County, VA) have been reported (Kastler and Wiberg, 

1996), and the average relative sea-level rise along the Eastern Shore is estimated as 2.8 to 4.2 

mm (0.11 to 0.17 in) per year (May, 2002). In some areas, marshes may be able to migrate onto 

adjoining dry lands. For instance, lands in Worcester County that are held for the preservation of 

the coastal environment might allow for wetland migration. In unprotected areas, marshes may 

be able to migrate inland in low-lying areas. From 1938 to 1990 mainland salt marshes on the 

Eastern Shore increased in area by 8.2 percent, largely as a result of encroachment of salt marsh 

into upland areas (Kastler and Wiberg, 1996). If sea-level rise outpaces accretion and/or 

migration of wetlands then a net loss of wetlands due to inundation would occur within the 

cumulative effects analysis area. Additionally, wetlands could be converted to mud and/or sand 

flats due to overwash events from an increase in intensity and/or frequency of storms. 

Regarding the effects of climate change on non-tidal wetlands (that are primarily in the interior 

of Wallops Island), relatively small changes in precipitation, evaporation, or transpiration, which 

could alter surface water or groundwater levels by as little as a few centimeters, could reduce 

wetlands in size, convert some wetlands to dry land, or shift one wetland type to another. These 
Environmental Consequences 

344 

wetlands may also be affected by saltwater intrusion. The extent of these effects would not likely 

be substantial when considered over the next 50 years. 

Summary: Currently, Wallops Island has approximately 1,090 ha (2,695 ac) of wetlands, which 

covers approximately 80 percent of the total area on Wallops Island. Historic activities affected 

approximately 152 ha (377 ac); activities between 1997 and 2008 affected 1 ha (2.47 ac), but 

with mitigation resulted in 1.5 ha (3.7 ac) of wetlands restored; and projects currently planned at 

Wallops Island would result in impacts on 3.1 ha (7.6 ac) of wetlands, not including mitigation 

that would be completed. Over time, this net loss of wetlands within the analysis area has 

resulted in a long-term adverse effect to wetlands and the resources they support. The largest 

areas of historic wetland fill adjacent to the Wallops Island causeway have established 

themselves as wetland systems dominated by Phragmites. Phragmites wetlands are typically 

regarded as lower quality because native plants are unable to grow and the species provides little 

or no food or shelter for most saltmarsh-dependent wildlife, including invertebrates, fish, and 

waterbirds. Although these areas provide fewer ecological services than a natural marsh system 

that is typically dominated by Spartina spp., they still provide water filtration and nutrient 

uptake. Additionally, older stands of Phragmites have been observed to trap sediment at a rate 

that could parallel or exceed the rate of sea-level rise in some areas (Rooth et al., 2003). At a 

time when sea-level rise threatens to inundate large areas of marsh within the analysis area, this 

could be a beneficial impact.

The actions proposed for the SRIPP in conjunction with climate change would slow the inland 

retreat of Wallops Island as sea level rises by limiting overwash and erosion of the coastline, 

which in the short term could result in maintaining the existing amount of marsh on Wallops 

Island and Mainland. Without implementation of the SRIPP, bay-side marshes on Wallops Island 

could be converted to mud and/or sand flats or open water. However, in the longer term, the 

prevention of overwash, in addition to rising water levels, could be a long-term adverse effect to 

tidal wetlands as they could be inundated without the additional sediment. Limited benefits to 

nontidal wetlands could include reduced washover and inundation from saltwater during storm 

events. 

To reduce the potential effects on wetlands from current and future projects, in 2010 NASA 

prepared a wetlands inventory and assessment for Wallops Island and Mainland. The primary 

goal of this effort was to identify appropriate areas for compensatory mitigation if future projects 

would result in unavoidable impacts on wetlands. Table 57 below shows the areas of the wetland 

systems that would be restored or enhanced when needed. Restoration activities may include 

reconnecting the restored area to its historic water source, minor grading, removal and control of 

invasive or undesirable vegetation, and the re-establishment of native vegetation to increase plant 

diversity. Enhancement is proposed in areas that currently exist in a degraded state due to the 

dense colonization of invasive or undesirable plant species and may include the removal and 

control of such species and the re-establishment of native vegetation to increase plant diversity. 

Assuming a 2:1 required compensation ratio (meaning 1 acre of mitigation credit given for 2 

acres enhanced) and a 1:1 ratio for restoration, WFF has identified area to compensate for 

unavoidable impacts to approximately 1.66 ha (4.1 ac) of estuarine intertidal emergent, 0.91 ha 

(2.25 ac) of palustrine scrub-shrub, and 3.80 ha (9.4 ac) of palustrine forested wetlands. 
Environmental Consequences 

 345 

Table 57: Areas Identified for Wetland Compensation 

Wetland 

Mitigation 

Area 

Mitigation Type 

 ha (ac) 

Restoration Enhancement 

Palustrine 

Forested 

Palustrine 

Scrub/Shrub

Palustrine 

Emergent 

Estuarine Intertidal and 

Estuarine and Marine Subtidal 

System 2 1.22 (3.02) 1.32 (3.27) - 2.21 (5.45) 

System 3 0.25 (0.61) - - 0.89 (2.19) 

System 4 - 0.89 (2.21) - 0.22 (0.54) 

System 5 2.35 (5.81) - - - 

Total 3.82 (9.44) 2.22 (5.48) - 3.31 (8.18)

Figures 58 and 59 show Mainland and Wallops Island wetland compensation areas, respectively. 

Note: Acreages shown on Figure 58 are size of entire system, not the available wetland 

compensation area. 

Figure 58: Proposed Mainland Wetland Compensation Areas 
Environmental Consequences 

346 

Note: Acreages shown on Figure 59 are size of entire system, not the available wetland 

compensation area. 

Figure 59: Proposed Wallops Island Wetland Compensation Areas 

In summary, NASA has compensated for more wetlands impacts than have occurred in the 

recent past and has identified areas to compensate for nearly all future wetland impacts if they 

occur. For those impacts that would require compensation of wetland areas currently not 

identified in Table 57 (palustrine emergent, for example), NASA would strive to identify 

additional areas and would consult with other resource agencies regarding avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures. If wetland impacts could not be avoided, NASA would 

obtain necessary permits and implement compensatory wetland mitigation so that no net 

functional loss of wetlands on Wallops Island and Mainland would occur. As such, the effects of 

future NASA actions are not likely to be substantial. However, it should be noted that the extent 

of effects of climate change within the analysis area would be a much greater factor in 
Environmental Consequences 

 347 

determining the ultimate significance of cumulative impacts on wetlands within the SRIPP’s 50-

year design life. 

Cumulative impacts to unvegetated aquatic habitat are described in the Benthos/Subaqueous 

Bottom Habitat subsection of 4.7.2.2 Biological Environment, below. 

Air Quality 

Geographic Scope: The geographic scope of the air quality section relevant to air resources is 

Accomack County. This county is designated as being in attainment with the Federal NAAQS 

for all criteria pollutants, and therefore past actions have not degraded the county’s air quality. 

There are no air quality monitoring stations currently on the Eastern Shore, but according to the 

Accomack County Comprehensive Plan, “The establishment of an air quality monitoring station 

in the county, however, would allow for the detection of any air quality deterioration and the 

study of long term trends” (Accomack County Comprehensive Plan, 2008). 

Impacts from SRIPP and Non-SRIPP Activities: Construction-related and operational activities 

that would occur under the Proposed Action for the SRIPP and the other projects that are 

reasonable and foreseeable at WFF would occur at different locations and at different times over 

a period of several years. Tables 50 and 51 show the estimated emissions from the preferred 

alternatives of current and planned WFF projects using conservative assumptions to create worstcase scenarios. As a conservative approach, cumulative air emissions from these WFF projects 

were compared to projected emissions for the entire Accomack County, which were adjusted for 

population growth (acting as a surrogate for anticipated emissions growth); these county 

emissions were considered to be reasonable and foreseeable to occur in proximity to the 

Proposed Action Alternatives. 

Site preparation (i.e., earth moving and soil disturbance) and wind erosion for the projects would 

result in various amounts of fugitive particulate (i.e., dust) emissions (PM10 and PM2.5). The 

amount of fugitive dust emissions would depend on numerous factors, such as the degree of 

vehicular traffic, amount of exposed soil, soil moisture content, and wind speed. Construction 

activities would create combustion product (tailpipe) emissions (mostly PM, NOX, and CO) from 

vehicles (e.g., contractor POVs, delivery trucks, and heavy construction equipment), and 

temporary non-road equipment powered by internal combustion engines. 

To provide a worst case scenario, BMPs were not integrated into the emission calculations. 

However, in practice, BMPs (e.g., dust suppression, establishment of lower speed limits in 

construction areas) and legal requirements (i.e., use of low-sulfur fuel, anti-idling regulations) 

would be implemented during each project to minimize and mitigate those emissions to the 

maximum extent practicable. Criteria pollutant emissions from mobile sources associated with 

the WFF projects listed in Table 58 would be short term, negligible, and localized. If the WFF 

projects listed in Table 58 were to occur at the same time during a renourishment activity, the 

cumulative emissions would be 12 percent of the projected county emissions. Most of the NOx

emissions shown in Table 58 from SRIPP Alternative One are temporary in nature (257 days) 

resulting from the initial dredging activities offshore. There would not be any emissions 

associated with the project again until the fifth year when renourishment activities would occur, 

estimated as taking 65 days to complete the dredging. The worst case emissions from those 

renourishment activities would be substantially less than the initial emissions (i.e., 180 mt [200 

tons] of NOx from Shoal B). 
Environmental Consequences 

348 

The operational phases of these projects would produce similar criteria pollutant emissions on an 

annual basis, although only the first year of operational emissions was estimated. BMPs (e.g., 

use of alternative fueled vehicles at WFF) and installation of the solar panels proposed for the 

Alternative Energy Project would result in a regional reduction in criteria pollutant and GHG 

emissions resulting from the reduction in electricity production at the source(s) of electric power 

generation that currently supplies WFF. In addition, a positive impact in a regional reduction in 

criteria pollutant emissions could result from the decreased use of fossil fuels during the 

production of electricity at the electric power generation plant that currently supplies WFF. 

Table 58: WFF Cumulative Project Criteria Pollutant Emissions in Tons 

Project CO NOx VOC PM10 SOx

UAS Airstrip 31 62 12 66.1 6 

Alternative Energy Project 2.5 3.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 

SRIPP Emissions Within Accomack County1 24,5 88.8 5.7 5.0 10.1 

SRIPP Emissions Offshore2 96.1 793.5 27.8 24.2 11.7 

Expansion of WFF Launch Range – Alternative One 7.7 20.5 2.1 1.8 25.7 

WFF Launch Range Activities3 1.9 19.2 1.6 2.5 28.7 

Total 164.1 992.7 50.0 100.6 83.1 

Total Emissions Accomack County4 ND5 2,526 5,603 ND 988.0

Cumulative WFF Emissions as a Percentage of 

Projected Accomack County Emissions 

ND 3.5% <0.1% ND 1% 

1

Based on SRIPP activities occurring on Wallops Island including seawall construction and beach fill 

work. 

2

These numbers provide a worst case estimate of emissions from Alternative One: seawall construction, 

dredging and initial beach fill utilizing Shoal B only, which shows the highest emissions. 3

Based on 2008 WFF baseline emissions.

4 Since Accomack County is an attainment area for all criteria pollutants and is not associated with any air 

quality planning areas, the county does not have any emission projections. Therefore, based on 

communication with VDEQ (Ballou, pers. comm., 2010), it was recommended that the most recent (2005) 

mobile and stationary emissions for Accomack County be used, while adjusting those emissions based on 

the projected population growth. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the population change in 

Accomack County was only 0.4 percent between April 2000 and July 2009. To be conservative, the 2005 

emissions provided by VDEQ were adjusted by a projected 1 percent growth. 5

ND = No data

Because offshore emissions during dredging and transport under the SRIPP would occur over the 

open ocean, they were not added to the cumulative emissions for all WFF projects that are 

compared to the total Accomack County emissions—only the SRIPP activities occurring on 

Wallops Island (seawall extension and beach work) were included in these calculations (bottom 

row of Table 58), which show air emissions between <1 and 3.5 percent of county emissions for 

three of five criteria pollutants having Accomack County reported values. 

Although cumulative impacts from all construction-related and operational activities are 

anticipated to be minimal, WFF is in the process of decentralizing their central boiler plant/steam 
Environmental Consequences 

 349 

system with individual propane-fired boilers. Table 59 provides the estimated emissions 

reduction resulting from this action. 

Table 59: Emissions Reduction Resulting from Central Boiler Plant Decentralization 

Pollutant 2007 Emissions 

(tons) 

Proposed Emissions After 

Decentralization 

(tons) 

Percent Change 

CO 1.86 2.6 39% increase 

NOx 17.8 4.55 74% reduction 

PM 1.2 0.25 79% reduction 

SOx 27 <1 99% reduction 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change

The potential effects of proposed GHG emissions are by nature global and cumulative, since 

individual sources are not large enough alone to have an appreciable effect on the climate. Such 

an impact on global climate change would only occur when GHG emissions from anthropogenic 

sources and sinks combine with proposed GHG emissions on a global scale. 

Overall, construction vehicles, equipment, and non-road vehicle sources would emit minimal 

GHG emissions during the site preparation and construction phases of the projects shown in 

Table 60. However, dredging operations for the SRIPP would produce considerably more GHG 

emissions compared to the other WFF projects. The operational phases of the WFF projects 

would also create GHG emissions on an annual basis, although only the first year of operational 

emissions was estimated. 

Table 60: WFF Cumulative Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Project 

CO2e Emissions1 

(metric tonnes) 

Wallops Research Park Data Unavailable2

UAS Airstrip 17,390 

Alternative Energy Project 218 

SRIPP 37,250 

Expansion of WFF Launch Range – Alternative One 445 

WFF Launch Range Activities3 1,400 

Total 56,703 

U.S. 2007 Baseline GHG Emissions 

(note: this is in 106 metric tonnes per year)4

7,150 

Cumulative WFF GHG Emissions as a Percent of U.S. 

GHG Emissions

7.93x10-4

1

Only CO2e emissions are included as this is a representation of all GHG emissions. 2

Quantitative air analysis not performed for this project. 

3

Based on 2008 WFF baseline emissions. 

4

Source: EPA, 2009 

Given the absence of science-based or adopted NEPA significance thresholds for GHGs, the 

cumulative WFF CO2e emissions were compared to the 2007 U.S. GHG baseline inventory to 

determine the relative increase in proposed GHG emissions (since GHG information was not 
Environmental Consequences 

350 

available at the county level to allow for any reasonable comparison of emissions). Table 60 

summarizes the estimated annual GHG emissions from Alternative One and compares the total 

to the most recent U.S. annual baseline GHG emissions. This data shows the cumulative CO2e 

emissions from WFF projects would amount to approximately 7.93x10-4 percent of the total 

GHG emissions generated across the U.S.; therefore, it can be inferred that impacts on global 

climate change would not be substantial. 

Summary: Cumulative emissions from the Alternative Energy Project, Expansion of the WFF 

Launch Range, and the SRIPP are unlikely to lead to a violation of the NAAQS, as regional 

concentrations are already in attainment, with no indication that a re-designation for any criteria 

pollutant is imminent. Therefore, minimal and short-term cumulative impacts from constructionrelated and operational activities are anticipated without significant effects on local or regional 

air quality. 

Although the SRIPP and other proposed projects would not cause substantial cumulative impacts 

associated with global climate change, there are several measures currently in place at WFF, as 

well as initiatives to be implemented in the near future, that would reduce energy consumption 

and thereby reduce GHG emissions. For example, installation of solar panels for the Alternative 

Energy Project would reduce the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity, both locally and 

regionally. This would result in a beneficial impact to the cumulative effects of planned and 

ongoing projects in the area, since it has been documented that the three largest GHG emission 

sources in Virginia are transportation, non-utility uses of fuel in commercial industrial and 

residential facilities, and electricity generation (Bryant, 2008). 

In addition to the Alternative Energy Project, WFF has replaced almost 50 percent of its entire 

light-duty, government-owned fleet (30 out of 70 vehicles) with newer, more fuel-efficient 

vehicles, as well as switched all of its diesel vehicles to using 20-percent biodiesel. In addition, 

the decentralization of the central boiler plant/steam system with individual propane-fired boilers 

would result in an estimated emissions reduction of approximately 4,400 metric tonnes per year 

of CO2. 

4.7.2.2 Biological Environment 

Benthos/Subaqueous Bottom Habitat 

Geographic Scope: The geographic scope of the areas evaluated for cumulative effects on 

benthos includes the inner continental shelf offshore of Virginia and Maryland. 

Impacts from SRIPP: For the SRIPP, assuming worst case and the entire 5.2 km2 (2 mi2

) borrow 

area would be dredged during the initial sand placement, a total of approximately 518 ha (1,280 

ac) of benthic habitat would be directly and adversely impacted. In addition, cumulative 

dredging impacts for the nine renourishment events would total approximately 1,260 ha (3,100 

ac) of benthic habitat. As a result, over the 50-year life cycle of the SRIPP, approximately 1,800 

ha (4,450 ac) of benthic habitat would be adversely impacted. As described in Section 4.3.5, 

benthic communities within the dredged area should recover to pre-dredge levels of community 

composition and biomass a few years after dredging. Therefore, communities should have 

recovered prior to the next dredging event so that only the area most recently dredged is affected. 

In addition to the offshore borrow areas, approximately 91 ha (225 ac) the subaqueous bottom 

habitat along the existing seawall would be buried during the initial fill placement. 
Environmental Consequences 

 351 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: Impacts would occur from dredging, trawling, and submarine infrastructure 

construction. Specifically, the USACE (2008) estimates that the total seafloor area that would be 

affected over the life of the Atlantic Coast of Maryland Shoreline Protection Project through 

2044 would be approximately 1,860 ha (4,600 ac). In addition, trawling would temporarily 

disrupt benthic habitat. With the exception of the SRIPP, there are no other NASA projects that 

would result in the filling of unvegetated subaqueous bottoms. 

Summary: Combined, there are nearly 1,036,000 ha (2,560,000 ac) of seafloor offshore of 

Maryland and Virginia. Cumulatively over the lifetime of the projects, the SRIPP together with 

the Atlantic Coast of Maryland Shoreline Protection Project would affect nearly 3,700 ha (9,100 

ac) of benthic habitat. Cumulatively, the reasonably foreseeable future dredging projects offshore 

would affect less than 0.4 percent of the nearshore seafloor in the region. 

The proposed SRIPP offshore dredging would contribute incrementally to the cumulative 

impacts on the benthos at two scales: the larger context of the inner continental shelf offshore of 

Virginia and Maryland, as well as the individual shoal(s). The SRIPP dredging would contribute 

incrementally to the short-term, negative, and direct impacts on benthos living on the shoals 

within the overall Assateague Ridge complex. 

Other offshore dredging projects that could affect the potential adult benthic recruitment to the 

SRIPP dredged area may further lengthen recovery time of the proposed SRIPP shoals. 

However, as described previously, the other dredging projects are located several kilometers 

away from Shoals A and B. In addition, commercial fishing activities such as trawling would 

also contribute to the cumulative impacts on benthic organisms, and in turn other marine species, 

by widespread benthic habitat disturbance. However, trawling and other commercial fishing 

activities generally do not remove sediment and impact a shallower sediment depth than 

dredging. 

The cumulative reduction in benthic invertebrate fauna from the SRIPP when combined with 

other proposed and potential dredging activities would indirectly affect fish that forage on these 

benthic species. However, nearby shoals such as Blackfish Bank, Chincoteague Shoals, and other 

unnamed shoals in the area which would not be used for the SRIPP would provide alternate 

foraging grounds for marine species and, therefore, mitigate any adverse cumulative impacts. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

Geographic Scope: The geographic scope of the areas evaluated for cumulative effects on fish 

includes the inner continental shelf waters offshore of Virginia and Maryland as well as the bays, 

marshes, and waterways west of Wallops Island. 

Impacts from SRIPP: The SRIPP may result in indirect impacts on vegetated wetlands and 

would contribute to the cumulative adverse effects on EFH for species that utilize the wetlands. 

The SRIPP would also impact EFH during the dredging of the offshore shoals. The dredging of 

either offshore shoal is expected to cause direct temporary adverse effects to EFH habitat by 

removing benthic habitat and degrading water quality due to an increase in suspended sediment 

concentrations. 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: As described in the wetlands section above, there have been impacts to 

wetlands over the course of development of Wallops and surrounding areas. Additionally, future 

projects may adversely affect wetlands. Wetlands (particularly tidal/estuarine when considered in 
Environmental Consequences 

352 

the context of this cumulative effects assessment) are EFH to a number of species as they 

provide critical areas for spawning, breeding, feeding, schooling, and growth. Wetlands also 

improve water quality to the benefit of EFH and the fish species these habitats support. Loss of 

these resources over time has likely contributed to a minor long term adverse effect on EFH 

within the analysis area. 

Past, present, and future shoreline restoration projects off Ocean City and Assateague Island, MD 

adversely affect EFH temporarily both at the offshore dredging sites as well as the sand 

placement sites. In addition, EFH within the analysis area is adversely impacted by commercial 

fishing, dredging of navigation channels, and other dredge and fill projects. As described in the 

Benthos/Subaqueous Bottom Habitat section above, the SRIPP would contribute to the impact on 

benthic habitats in the region which is EFH to a number of species. 

Effects from Climate Change: EFH may be affected by climate change through changes in 

temperature and habitat and distribution (e.g., coastal wetland inundation or burial by overwash). 

However, over the time frame of the SRIPP, these impacts are expected to be minimal. 

Summary: Potential cumulative impacts would be long term, adverse, and direct. However, 

NASA would employ dredging methodologies (described in chapter 2.5.6) reduce the effects of 

the SRIPP on EFH. Additionally, the USACE has included mitigation measures such as a 

shallow dredge depth and a 5 percent dredge volume from each shoal into future borrow plans 

for the Atlantic Coast of Maryland Shoreline Protection Project (USACE, 2008). These measures 

would reduce potential impacts to EFH off the MD coast. Additionally, as WFF would 

compensate for any wetlands that would be adversely affected in the future, functional values as 

EFH would not be lost, and long-term effects would not be substantial. 

Fish 

Geographic Scope: The geographic scope of the areas evaluated for cumulative effects on fish 

includes the inner continental shelf waters offshore of Virginia and Maryland as well as inland 

bays, marshes, and waterways. 

Impacts from SRIPP: The SRIPP would contribute to the overall adverse impacts to fish through 

(1) temporary water quality degradation from turbidity generated at the dredge site and 

placement area (2) temporary degradation of habitat at the dredge site(s), and (3) the placement 

of fill material along the shoreline. Dredging operations would directly affect fish through 

entrainment or indirectly through removal of their benthic forage base. However, given the 

planktonic dispersal of most OCS fishes and the relatively high adult mobility of even small 

species, fish utilization of shoals that are dredged would occur after each dredge operation. This 

utilization should proceed rapidly because the species assemblage outside the borrow sites is 

similar to the assemblage on the shoal. The placement of fill material would displace several 

hundreds of acres of water column and cover subtidal benthic habitat. It would create beach 

habitat in front of the seawall. As a result, fish common to the surf zone would be expected to 

reestablish themselves in the project area. 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: Fish within the project area are adversely impacted by commercial fishing, 

water quality degradation (agricultural runoff, sedimentation, municipal stormwater runoff), and 

habitat loss and degradation. In addition, debris from spent rockets, payloads, drones, rocketboosted projectiles, and other objects enter the Atlantic Ocean waters within the region of the 

SRIPP project area from existing WFF Launch Range operations, future WFF projects 
Environmental Consequences 

 353 

(Expansion of the Wallops Island Launch Range), and U.S. Navy activities within the 

VACAPES OPAREA. This debris may temporarily degrade water quality in a localized area, but 

eventually the debris provides structure and habitat for fish. 

The majority of the fish species found within the proposed dredge sites and the placement site 

are common and widespread throughout the nearshore continental shelf in the MAB. Several 

species, such as bay anchovy, summer flounder, sea bass, striped bass, and windowpane flounder 

utilize habitats in the estuaries and on the inner continental shelf of the Mid-Atlantic (CSA 

International, Inc. et al., 2009). As described in Section 3.1.4.1, the northern Virginia and 

southern Maryland shorelines are relatively undeveloped and as a result habitat and water quality 

impacts within the area are minor. 

Effects from Climate Change: Sea-level rise would increase depth in the shoal area, though the 

effects would be minimal. Reductions in pH, changes in temperature, and changes in wetlands 

(i.e., inundation or burial by overwash) resulting from climate change may affect the 

composition of prey and predator fish species in the analysis area. However, over the time frame 

of the SRIPP, these impacts are expected to be minimal. 

Summary: The magnitude of the cumulative impacts on fish from the temporary SRIPP impacts 

and past, present, and future projects would be minimal because there is a large area of habitat 

available within the regional context of the analysis area. 

Marine Mammals 

Geographic Scope: The geographic scope of the areas evaluated for cumulative effects on marine 

mammals includes the inner continental shelf waters offshore of Virginia and Maryland. 

Impacts from SRIPP: If multiple dredging operations occur at the same time on shoals on the 

Assateague Ridge shoal complex, the noise associated with the operations may contribute to 

cumulative impacts on marine mammals in the area. As described in Section 4.3.9, since 

dredging operations are generally of relatively short duration, significant cumulative effects from 

associated noise are not anticipated. Dredging may impact marine mammals through noise 

generated during sand removal, changes to benthic habitats, and vessel collisions during 

transport of the material to a pump-out station offshore of the shoreline. It is assumed that noise 

would cause avoidance responses in species. Because the dredging operations would be limited 

to one or two shoals, it is not expected that multiple dredging operations would result in 

significant cumulative impacts to the prey base of threatened and endangered marine mammals. 

The SRIPP vessel and dredging noises, when combined with other underwater noise levels in the 

region, particularly from U.S. Navy operations in the VACAPES Range Complex as well as 

noise generated from seismic surveys from offshore oil and gas development, may result in 

temporary adverse impacts on marine mammals traveling through the area. In addition to natural 

airborne and underwater noise (breaking waves, wind), anthropogenic sources of noise include 

military, general aviation, and commercial aircraft; shipping and fishing vessels; dredging; 

nearshore construction activities; military explosive use; oil and gas exploration and extraction; 

mineral exploration and extraction; and geophysical surveys. 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: Sources of adverse effects to marine mammals in the action area include 

incidental takes in state-regulated fishing activities from commercial fishing, vessel collisions 

with private vessels, ingestion of plastic debris from fishing operations and other activities and 
Environmental Consequences 

354 

pollution from atmospheric loading of pollutants or spills. NASA may fly aircraft with lasers 

occasionally over the ocean; however, NASA consulted with NMFS regarding its typical mission 

operations and concluded that the effects would be insignificant and discountable. Additionally, 

falling rocket debris from rocket launches could potentially affect marine mammals, though this 

is highly unlikely. In a consultation for the expansion of the WFF Launch Range, NMFS 

concluded that the effect of falling rocket debris to marine mammals would be “insignificant and 

discountable.” 

MMS (2004) reported on dredging and marine mammal collisions. Vessel collisions with 

endangered whales are one of the major factors limiting their recovery. There has never been a 

report of a whale strike or mortality by a hopper dredge in the United States (NMFS, 2004), 

although there is one report of a right whale calf mortality resulting from a strike by a dredging 

vessel in South Africa (MMS, 2004). It is generally thought that hopper dredges move slow 

enough to minimize the risk of a strike with a marine mammal. Additionally, potential collisions 

with debris VACAPES activities, while unlikely, may occur. 

Airborne noise attributable to military activities in the VACAPES Range Complex emanates 

from multiple sources including naval ship power plants, military aircraft, targets, bombs, 

missiles, small arms, and water-based demolitions. Sound from military sources in the 

VACAPES Range Complex is virtually all transitory, and can be widely dispersed or 

concentrated in small areas for varying periods. Sound levels from naval ships are analogous to 

the sound levels of commercial shipping. There are no underwater explosive ordnance areas in 

the VACAPES Range Complex that overlap with the SRIPP project area (Figure 56). An EIS 

completed in 2009 to address potential impacts from activities within the VACAPES Range 

Complex (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2009) stated that although it is possible a single animal 

may be significantly affected when considering all the events in the training complex, no 

significant effects are predicted and no significant impacts to populations of marine mammals 

are anticipated when the potential impacts due to sonar activities are included with the potential 

impacts due to range complex activities. 

Effects from Climate Change: The impact of climate change on marine mammals is likely to be 

related to changes in sea temperatures, potential change in sea water chemistry due to melting 

ice, increased rainfall and ocean acidification, sea-level rise, the loss of polar habitats and 

potential shifts in the distribution and abundance of prey species (NMFS, 2010). However, over 

the time frame of the SRIPP, these impacts are expected to be minimal. 

Summary: It is generally thought that hopper dredges move slow enough to minimize the risk of 

a strike with a marine mammal, so no cumulative impacts are anticipated from other dredging 

activities. Because the amount of additional noise attributable to SRIPP activities would be 

negligible compared to the VACAPES activities, there would be no significant impact to marine 

mammals in territorial waters. 

Birds 

Geographic Scope: The geographic scope of the areas evaluated for cumulative effects on 

migratory birds includes the inner continental shelf waters offshore of Virginia and Maryland for 

water-based impacts, as well as Wallops, Assateague and Assawoman Islands for land-based 

impacts. 
Environmental Consequences 

 355 

Impacts from SRIPP: As described in Section 4.3.2.2, dredging operations at Unnamed Shoals A 

or B may cause seabirds to vacate the shoal area, where they sometimes feed on schooling fish. 

Direct site-specific adverse effects would also occur on bottom-feeding seabird species, such as 

seaducks. These birds feed on fish and invertebrates that would be temporarily removed or 

displaced during and immediately following a dredging event. Over the lifetime of the SRIPP, an 

estimated 10 dredging events at Shoals A and B could reduce the value of these shoals for 

feeding. 

Onshore impacts for beach nesting and foraging birds could include startling, crushing eggs by 

motorized vehicles, and reduction in prey base along the newly created shoreline. Excavating 

sand from north Wallops Island would also lower the beach elevation, possibly resulting in a 

higher risk of flooding to shorebird nests. However, it is expected that the newly created beach 

would create a substantial amount of new shorebird nesting and foraging habitat where there 

currently is none, a beneficial effect. 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: Other dredging projects and disturbances at shoals within the region would 

reduce the availability of seabirds to use alternative shoals for feeding; however given that there 

are approximately 24 shoals of relatively shallow water depth (less than approximately 8 meters) 

within the analysis area, the additive effects are not expected to be substantial. Other additive 

offshore impacts within the analysis area may include entanglement with commercial fishing 

gear (e.g., gillnets) and a reduction in forage fish from commercial fishing. The historic loss of 

vegetated tidal wetlands has resulted in additive adverse impacts to birds that feed on marine 

organisms, including fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. However, given the large available area 

available for foraging within the analysis area, impacts are not expected to have been significant. 

Additionally, any recent or future impacts wetland would be (or have already been) mitigated 

such that functional values to marsh-feeding birds would not be lost. 

Temporary increases in noise are anticipated as a result of current and planned onshore projects 

in the analysis area. Temporary interruption of foraging and nesting activities for shorebirds may 

occur as a result of launch and static fire testing activities proposed for the Expansion of the 

WFF Launch Range project, the UAS Airstrip, or from existing WFF Launch Range activities. 

The nesting area designated on the northern end of Wallops Island is not expected to be affected 

by noise. Birds along the southern part of Wallops Island would be closer to the launch pads, and 

would be more susceptible to effects, which could include startling, deafening, and missed 

nesting attempts. Noise generated from rocket launches is generally low-frequency, of short 

duration, and occurs infrequently. Naturally occurring background noises in the existing and 

potential nesting areas, such as wave action and thunderstorms, are more frequent and of longer 

duration than noise from a rocket launch. No long-term changes to ambient noise levels are 

anticipated. Also, regarding effects from rocket launches, it is possible that lower intensity noise 

and lighting disturbances during launch preparations would deter birds from congregating near 

the pad, thus reducing the potential for injury or death when the rocket is launched. 

In the event the new beach becomes suitable habitat for shorebirds, indirect cumulative effects 

on nesting shorebirds may occur from security patrols on the Wallops Island beach. Motorized 

vehicle use on beaches is a threat to Piping Plovers, as well as other shorebirds that nest on 

beaches and dunes. Vehicles can crush eggs, adults, and chicks (Burger, 1987). Continued 

recreational use of the Wallops Island beach could also present adverse effects (direct mortality 

or harassment) on nesting shorebirds including Piping Plovers. Pedestrians may flush incubating 

plovers from nests (Flemming et al., 1988), exposing eggs to predators or excessive 
Environmental Consequences 

356 

temperatures. Repeated exposure of eggs on hot days may cause overheating, rendering the 

embryos unviable (Bergstrom, 1991); excessive cooling may kill embryos or retard their 

development, delaying hatching dates (Welty, 1982). Pedestrians can also disturb unfledged 

chicks (Burger, 1991), driving them from preferred habitats, decreasing available foraging time, 

and causing expenditure of energy. 

Indirect effects to birds are likely to include an increased predation rate due to human activity on 

the beach. Human activity may result in litter on the ground, which could attract predators due to 

increased food availability. The increased numbers of predators may increase risk of disturbance, 

nest loss, and adult mortality of plovers and increase losses of sea turtle eggs and nests. Gulls, 

foxes, and raccoons can also be a major source of loss of eggs and juvenile plovers. WFF 

employs a variety of techniques to reduce predation on nesting shorebirds. The use of predator 

exclosures (fences around nests) has been successful in reducing predation on Piping Plover eggs 

(Melvin et al., 1992). However, these devices provide no protection for mobile adults or plover 

chicks, which generally leave the exclosure within a day of hatching and move extensively along 

the beach to feed. To reduce the risks of predation to nesting shorebirds and sea turtles on the 

Wallops Island beach, WFF employs biologists from USDA Wildlife Services who routinely 

perform predator removal. 

Construction of the proposed UAS Airstrip would result in the loss of between 8 and 16 ha (20 

and 40 ac) of forest and shrub/thicket vegetation at the north end of Wallops Island west of the 

proposed SRIPP renourishment area and the Piping Plover habitat. Additive impacts from 

construction would likely be minimal as the species affected by the SRIPP would not be 

expected to be present within the construction footprint. However, it is possible that adjacent 

marsh nesting and foraging waterbirds that also feed along the Wallops Island shoreline would 

be cumulatively affected (startled) by construction noise, especially if both the SRIPP and 

construction of the airstrip were to take place concurrently; however the impact would be 

temporary and minor. Because of the amount of habitat present, habitat loss is not anticipated to 

be a significant cumulative effect on birds, within the project area. During the actual operation of 

the existing and proposed UAS airstrips, shorebirds may be disturbed by aircraft maneuvering or 

overflying an area where nesting occurs. For operations at the current UAS airstrip on south 

Wallops Island, NASA consulted with USFWS and concluded that such activities would not 

likely adversely affect plovers if aircraft avoided known nesting areas by at least 300 m (1,000 

ft). However, operation of aircraft, including UAS, has potential to affect plovers during and 

outside of nesting season. Shorebirds could perceive aircraft as potential avian predators. It is 

expected that not all aircraft operation is likely to result in disturbance, and plovers are most 

likely to be disturbed by flights at low altitude down the beach or just offshore. Effects on 

shorebirds may include flushing from nests when incubating eggs, and interruption of feeding or 

courtship. Because most of the noises associated with UAS operations are of low intensity and 

short duration, shorebirds would likely return to normal behavior within a few minutes of the 

noise. 

In support of its Alternative Energy Project, NASA recently conducted over twelve months of 

mortality surveys at three existing towers on Wallops Island to determine the risk of these 

structures to birds in the area. Although none of the birds found during these surveys would be 

expected to be directly affected by the SRIPP, the survey indicated the general potential for avian 

mortality. As such, migratory birds affected by the SRIPP could be cumulatively impacted by the 

existing tall structures and towers on Wallops Island. Resulting effects would not be expected to 
Environmental Consequences 

 357 

be substantial, however. Additionally, the two residential-scale wind turbines proposed under the 

Alternative Energy project would be on Wallops Mainland and Main Base, well away from the 

habitats of avian species likely to be affected by the SRIPP. 

Effects from Climate Change: As discussed under wetlands in Section 4.7.2.1 above, sea-level 

rise would likely cause the natural barrier islands along the Delmarva coast to retreat inland and 

therefore reduce the amount of island area and consequentially reduce shorebird habitat area. 

This habitat modification due to sea-level rise would not occur to the same degree on Wallops 

Island because of the SRIPP thus cumulative effects of sea-level rise may have less of an impact 

on Wallops Island compared to the other barrier islands along the Delmarva coast. According to 

Wilke et al. (2008), overwash events are documented as one of the primary causes of nest loss 

for American Oystercatchers. An increase in the frequency of these events could lead to low 

rates of reproductive success, which would be insufficient to maintain a stable population. 

Moreover, Boettcher et al. (2007) state “one of the major impending threats facing Piping 

Plovers and other beach nesting species is an increase in the frequency of beach flooding as a 

result of global climate change and sea-level rise, which may lead to chronic reproductive failure 

and eventual loss of breeding habitat.” Sea-level rise of approximately 0.5 m (1.5 feet) over the 

50-year analysis time frame would also flood portions of the tidal marshes west of Assateague, 

Wallops, and Assawoman Islands. Marsh nesting species would be most severely affected as 

rising water levels would likely result in more flooding and reduced nesting success (Erwin et 

al., 2006). Erosion of marsh islands may further reduce availability of preferred nesting sites, 

potentially resulting in selection of alternative nesting sites. 

Summary: Offshore, the cumulative reduction in benthic invertebrate fauna from the SRIPP 

when combined with other proposed and potential dredging activities and anticipated sea-level 

rise which would increase depth in the shoal area, could negatively affect fish and in turn, marine 

birds that forage for fish in the project area. However, nearby shoals such as Blackfish Bank, 

Chincoteague Shoals, and the multitude of other unnamed shoals in the area which would not be 

used for SRIPP renourishment activities would provide alternate foraging grounds for marine 

birds which would mitigate any adverse cumulative impacts. The cumulative reduction in 

benthic invertebrate fauna from placement of a sand berm onshore, when combined with other 

proposed onshore activities and anticipated sea-level rise, could negatively affect benthic 

organisms and in turn, birds that forage for these organisms. However, nearby barrier islands in 

the area including Assateague, Assawoman, etc. would provide alternate foraging grounds for 

marine birds which would reduce the intensity of adverse cumulative impacts. It should be noted 

that if habitat on the naturally maintained barrier islands is lost due to the effects of climate 

change, their ability to provide suitable foraging and nesting areas nearby would be reduced, 

thereby making the Wallops beach all the more important to shorebird viability. In conclusion, 

given that the SRIPP would create an elevated beach where there currently is none, at a time 

when the availability of suitable beach habitat would likely be declining, the long-term effects 

would be beneficial. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

The SRIPP may contribute incrementally to the cumulative impacts on threatened and 

endangered species in the project area. Cumulative impacts may result from; (1) the offshore 

dredging operation and the vessel transport of fill material, and (2) the placement of the sand on 

the shoreline. NASA determined that Expansion of the WFF Launch Range project would have 
Environmental Consequences 

358 

the following impacts on threatened and endangered species: 1) may affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect seabeach amaranth; whales; the leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, and Atlantic green 

sea turtles; and the Red Knot, and 2) may affect and is likely to adversely affect the loggerhead 

sea turtle and Piping Plover. The Alternative Energy Project would not result in any effects to 

threatened and endangered species. No evaluations of effects to federally listed species have 

been made for the North UAS Airstrip project yet. 

Potential adverse cumulative impacts on threatened or endangered species could result in the 

following impacts from past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities in the project area, 

together with the SRIPP: 

 Increase in ambient noise 

 Increase in ambient light 

 Creation of potential new habitat on Wallops Island Shoreline 

 Removal of current or potential habitat. 

Cumulative impacts to specific groups/species are presented below.

Sea Turtles 

Geographic Scope: The geographic scope of the areas evaluated for cumulative effects on sea 

turtles includes the inner continental shelf waters offshore of Virginia and Maryland for waterbased impacts, as well as Wallops, Assateague and Assawoman Islands for land-based impacts. 

Impacts from SRIPP: NMFS estimates that the SRIPP may result in 9 sea turtle takes over the 

lifetime of the current SRIPP EIS Alternative One (see Section 4.3.10). Given the NMFS 

estimate that at least 90 percent of the injured/killed turtles for the SRIPP would be loggerheads 

(NMFS, 2010), at least 8 of the turtle takes for the SRIPP Alternative One of this PEIS would 

likely be loggerheads, and one may be a Kemp’s ridley sea turtle. Based on Table 61, there is an 

average of 3 sea turtle takes per year from dredging operations in the USACE Norfolk District. 

The SRIPP would average approximately 0.18 sea turtle takes per year over the 50 year lifetime 

of the project, or less than 5 percent of the current yearly takes. Approximately three sea turtles 

takes may occur during dredging operations for the initial beach fill operations and six sea turtles 

takes may occur during dredging for the nine renourishment events. 

The proposed SRIPP would create a beach where one currently does not exist and augment the 

existing beach at the northern and southern ends of Wallops Island. The new beach would 

provide additional potential habitat for sea turtle nesting; it is reasonable to assume that turtles 

may nest and utilize this additional habitat at some point after sand placement. 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: Turtles are more likely to be directly affected by dredging than other 

threatened and endangered species in the area. As described in Section 4.3.10, the primary direct 

effect to sea turtles is entrainment in the drag heads. Indirect effects to turtles are the same as 

those described for marine mammals above and are not anticipated to be significant. 

Table 61 summarizes the number of sea turtle takes, by month, from projects conducted in the 

USACE Norfolk District from 1980 to 2009. For the 30-year reporting period, a total of 63 sea 

turtle takes were recorded. Of the 63 total takes, 53 were loggerhead sea turtles. From 2000 to 
Environmental Consequences 

 359 

2009, there have been no recorded takes of sea turtles for projects within the USACE Norfolk 

District (USACE, 2009c). 

Table 61: Cumulative Sea Turtle Takes by Month and Species between 1980 and 2009, 

USACE Norfolk District 

Month

Atlantic 

Green 

Kemp’s 

Ridley Leatherback Loggerhead Unidentified Total 

Jan 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Feb 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mar 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Apr 0 0 0 2 0 2 

May 0 0 0 8 1 9 

Jun 1 0 0 10 0 11 

Jul 0 0 0 2 1 3 

Aug 0 1 0 7 1 9 

Sep 0 1 0 10 1 12 

Oct 0 3 0 12 0 15 

Nov 0 0 0 2 0 2 

Dec 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 1 5 0 53 4 63 

Source: USACE, 2009c 

Predation of eggs and young by mammals, birds, and ghost crabs may eliminate up to 100 

percent of the nests and any hatchlings that emerge on beaches where predation is not managed 

(National Research Council, 1990). WFF uses a variety of techniques to reduce predation on 

nesting sea turtles. Additionally, WFF employs biologists from USDA Wildlife Services who 

routinely perform predator removal to reduce the risk to nesting sea turtles on the Wallops Island 

beach. Indirect effects to sea turtles are likely to include an increased predation rate due to 

human activity on the beach. 

Recreational activities may inadvertently disturb nesting females, crush eggs within the nest, or 

crush, entrap, or disturb hatchlings attempting to leave the nest. Vehicle use on the beaches may 

compact beach sand and/or disturb female turtles attempting to nest. However, as recreational 

use of the Wallops beach is relatively low, and is limited to WFF employees (who receive 

protected species awareness training), these effects are not expected to be substantial. 

With the exception of some populations of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, almost all adult sea turtle 

nesting behavior occurs at night along coastal beaches. Studies indicate that adult turtles will 

avoid nesting on beaches that are brightly lit with artificial lighting or when bright lights form a 

backdrop beyond the dunes. This avoidance behavior constitutes habitat loss for the species 

involved because turtles may emerge at alternative sites along the coast which are a less suitable 

nesting habitat (Witherington and Martin, 1996). 

Sea turtle hatchling emergence also occurs principally at night, although some emergence may 

occur in early-morning or late afternoon. Immediately after emergence, hatchlings orient toward 

the sea. Sea turtle hatchlings have an inborn tendency to move in the brightest direction. On a 

natural beach, the brightest direction is most often the open view of the night sky over, and 

reflected by, the ocean. Hatchlings also tend to move away from darkly silhouetted objects 
Environmental Consequences 

360 

associated with the dune profile and vegetation. Bright, artificial light sources have been shown 

to interfere with sea-finding orientation, as the hatchlings move toward the bright lights. 

Hatchlings are believed to be more sensitive to bright lights than adult turtles. 

Although the SRIPP would not add permanent light sources to the beach, existing WFF buildings 

and towers are sources of light along the shoreline of Wallops Island. Some infrastructure that is 

proposed for the Expansion of the WFF Launch Range project has exterior lighting requirements, 

but ”turtle friendly” lights would be used, which are believed to be the least visible and 

disruptive to both sea turtles and migratory birds. 

Effects from Climate Change: The impact of climate change on sea turtles is likely to be related 

to changes in sea temperatures, potential change in sea water chemistry due to melting ice, 

increased rainfall and ocean acidification, sea-level rise, and potential shifts in the distribution 

and abundance of prey species (NMFS, 2010). Additionally, with rising sea levels, turtle nests 

would be more susceptible to flooding during storm events. However, over the time frame of the 

SRIPP, these additive impacts are expected to be minimal. 

Summary: Cumulative adverse effects on sea turtles may occur due to the multiple dredging 

operations planned in the offshore areas of Maryland and Virginia, non-SRIPP activities and 

projects at WFF, and other shoreline restoration projects in the region when combined with the 

SRIPP activities. However, given that the SRIPP would create an elevated beach where there 

currently is none, at a time when the availability of suitable beach habitat would likely be 

declining, the long-term effects would be beneficial. During project planning, NASA consults 

with NMFS and USFWS regarding potential effects on sea turtles; NASA would continue to 

implement all mitigation and monitoring measures that were determined through the Section 7 

consultation process. 

Piping Plover 

Geographic Scope: The geographic scope of the areas evaluated for cumulative effects on Piping 

Plover includes Wallops, Assateague, and Assawoman Islands. 

Impacts from SRIPP: Impacts on Piping Plovers from the SRIPP would be the same as those 

described above in Section 4.7.2.2 under the beach nesting birds discussion. 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: Impacts on Piping Plovers from non-SRIPP activities and projects would 

be the same as those described above in Section 4.7.2.2 under the beach nesting birds discussion. 

Effects from Climate Change: Impacts on Piping Plovers from climate change would be the same 

as those described above in Section 4.7.2.2 under the beach nesting birds discussion. 

Summary: When adding the potential impacts from the SRIPP, the Expansion of the WFF 

Launch Range, the UAS Airstrip project, and existing rocket activities, adverse cumulative 

impacts may occur to Piping Plovers due to loss of habitat, noise impacts, and injury/deaths from 

off-road vehicle use and predation. The combination of all of these activities, when considered 

together, results in more frequent disturbance and, as a result, plovers would experience low 

levels of disturbance on a regular basis. The SRIPP along with other WFF projects would 

contribute to long-term adverse impacts on habitat loss in the overall region, although not to an 

extent considered significant when considered in conjunction with the amount of habitat 

available at Wallops Island, WFF, and along the Eastern Shore. Additionally, given that the 

SRIPP would create an elevated beach where there currently is none, at a time when the 
Environmental Consequences 

 361 

availability of suitable beach habitat would likely be declining, the long-term effects would be 

beneficial. 

Marine Mammals 

Geographic Scope: The geographic scope of the areas evaluated for cumulative effects on marine 

mammals includes the inner continental shelf waters offshore of Virginia and Maryland 

Impacts from SRIPP: Impacts on marine mammals from the SRIPP would be the same as those 

described above in Section 4.7.2.2. 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: Impacts on marine mammals from non-SRIPP activities and projects would 

be the same as those described above in Section 4.7.2.2. 

Effects from Climate Change: Impacts on Piping Plovers from climate change would be the same 

as those described above in Section 4.7.2.2. 

Summary: Cumulative impacts to T&E marine mammal species are similar to those described 

for non-listed marine mammal species above. 

Threatened and Endangered Species Mitigation 

To mitigate adverse effects on protected species from all impact-producing factors, NASA would 

continue to coordinate with USFWS and USDA personnel in monitoring the Wallops Island 

beach for Piping Plover and sea turtle activity. Any nests discovered would be appropriately 

marked with a GPS unit and identified with signage. Areas designated as recreational use beach 

would be modified based upon plover and sea turtle nesting activity. Furthermore, the security 

contractor at WFF is in the process of installing a closed circuit monitoring system to allow 

surveillance from a central location. Upon completion of the closed circuit system, beach patrols are 

expected to decrease. As such, impacts to all listed species on the beach as a result of security patrols 

would likely diminish over time. Additionally, WFF Environmental Office staff would continue 

its outreach program to all users of the beach, including security staff and recreational users. 

Elements of the outreach program include installation of signage at all beach access points and 

development and dissemination of fact sheets, both of which contain information regarding the 

listed species that may be on the beach and the appropriate reporting protocol if the presence of a 

species is suspected.

4.7.2.3 Socioeconomic Environment 

Geographic Scope: The geographic scope of the areas evaluated for cumulative effects on the 

socioeconomic environment are Accomack County and, specifically for commercial and 

recreational fishing, the inner continental shelf waters offshore of Virginia and Maryland. 

Economic 

Impacts from SRIPP: Construction activities would result in beneficial economic impacts to the 

overall economy. In addition to a temporary increase in the number of workers at WFF, 

economic impacts from the Proposed Action would result from construction material purchases 

in the region generating local sales, construction payroll expenditures for labor on-and off-site, 

and related spending by supplying firms and laborers or “multiplier effects” created by the 
Environmental Consequences 

362 

project investment. These economic benefits would occur for a relatively limited time during 

actual construction. 

The SRIPP would reduce the potential losses of work days and jobs that could result from storm 

damages, and therefore delays to Wallops Island missions, or the loss of the infrastructure 

resulting in elimination of WFF’s and tenant’s technological capabilities. 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: Estimated tax revenue increases for the Expansion of the WFF Launch 

Range Project and Wallops Research Park combined are $133 million due to the creation of an 

estimated 833 permanent jobs. Approximately $28,000 would enter the local economy based on 

per diem rates alone over the 6-month construction period for the Alternative Energy Project. As 

discussed in Chapter 4 of this PEIS, the local economy typically benefits approximately 

$1,000,000 from the launch team alone, $2,000,000 for services and commodities support, and 

$3,000,000 to $5,000,000 from tourism per launch event from Launch Complex 0 at Wallops 

Island (Reed, pers. comm.). No estimates of economic benefits have been made for the UAS 

Airstrip project at this time. 

Additionally, the value of each sounding rocket mission is $3 million and currently 

approximately 30 sounding rocket missions occur per year ($90 million annually). This money 

primarily stays at NASA and in the local economy. The value of each Expendable Launch 

Vehicle mission, 2-8 of which may occur annually, is $200 million, with about $3 million of that 

being provided locally for range support excluding tourism ($6-24 million annually). 

Approximately 20 UAS missions could occur per week, each with a value of $100,000, with 

about $20,000 of that going directly to WFF for a week of flight (approximately $1 million 

annually). In total, these sounding rocket, Expendable Launch Vehicle, and UAS missions and 

activities at Wallops Island add up to approximately $115 million annually (Pittman, pers. 

comm.). 

Summary: Jobs and tax revenue from WFF’s existing activities, proposed projects, and the other 

regional projects described in Section 4.7.1.2 would result in beneficial cumulative economic 

impacts on the local economy of the Eastern Shore and the Maryland and Virginia coastal areas. 

The projects and activities described above that occur on Wallops Island would benefit directly 

from the SRIPP through the continuation of activities by reducing potential losses of work days 

and jobs that could result from the loss of the infrastructure, resulting in elimination of WFF’s 

and tenant’s technological capabilities. Additionally, the Alternative Energy and Wallops 

Research Park Projects cumulatively add to the economic benefits from WFF operations. 

Commercial and Recreational Fisheries 

Impacts from SRIPP: The maximum SRIPP dredge area on either Unnamed Shoal A or 

Unnamed Shoal B would be approximately 520 ha (1,280 ac). The potential future dredge areas 

for the Atlantic Coast of Maryland Shoreline Protection Project total over 2,000 ha (4,590 ac) 

(USACE, 2008). The potential future dredge area of Sandbridge Shoal is approximately 1,620 ha 

(4,000 ac) throughout eight planned renourishment cycles (USACE, 2009b). Cumulatively, these 

projects comprise approximately 3,900 ha (9,600 ac). 

There are over 777,000 ha (1,920,000 ac) of seafloor within 48 km (30 mi) of the Virginia 

shoreline, and approximately 233,000 ha (576,000 ac) of seafloor within 48 km (30 mi) of the 

Maryland coastline (USACE, 2008). Combined, there is nearly 1,036,000 ha (2,560,000 ac) of 
Environmental Consequences 

 363 

seafloor offshore of Maryland and Virginia. Cumulatively, the reasonably foreseeable future 

dredging projects offshore will affect less than 0.4 percent of the seafloor potentially utilized by 

fishermen. The potential conflicts between commercial and recreational fishermen and the 

dredging operations would be temporary and localized. 

Non-SRIPP Impacts: Commercial and recreational fishing activities result in impacts on fish and 

fisheries the SRIPP project area. Additionally, other offshore projects and activities described in 

Section 4.7.1.2 above would have similar impacts on fisheries, habitat, and marine organisms as 

described for the SRIPP (i.e., elevated turbidity levels during dredging, disruption to benthos). 

WFF’s launch range operations also have the potential to temporarily affect commercial and 

recreational fishing in the vicinity of Wallops Island. For safety purposes, during the last several 

hours of a launch countdown, NASA requires that portions of the ocean east of Wallops Island 

are cleared of boat traffic. During most launches, NASA communicates with vessels to obtain 

their voluntary movement out of the hazard area. Other times, for larger missions, NASA may 

require the area be cleared, and coordinates with local authorities, including USCG and USACE 

to establish the legally enforceable off-limits areas. Clear zones typically last for several hours 

and depending on launch conditions, they could be established for specific times over the course 

of several days up to a week or more for each mission. The need for such clear zones could 

adversely affect commercial and recreational fishing by displacing boaters from preferred fishing 

grounds until operations are complete. However, there are times when boat passage through a 

hazard area is allowed if there is sufficient time during the launch countdown. 

Summary: Dredging for the SRIPP would have a minor incremental cumulative effect on 

commercial and recreational fisheries in the area when combined with other dredging activities 

in MD and VA and periodic temporary closures of a portion of the ocean east of Wallops Island 

launches. Any effects from dredging activities would be highly localized and short-term. The 

establishment of offshore clearance areas would be a more frequent disturbance, however with 

appropriate coordination, effects are expected to continue to be minimal. To ensure minimal 

impacts on those fishing in offshore areas, NASA routinely communicates with the local 

community to ensure that the public is apprised of upcoming activities. For its launch range 

operations, NASA regularly issues Notices to Mariners in advance of its operations. 

Additionally, it works to remain abreast of local fishing activities by tracking fishing 

tournaments on its range schedule such that operations can be conducted with as limited 

disruption to fishermen as possible. 
Environmental Consequences 

364 

4.8 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND APPROVALS 

The following list of potential permits, licenses, and approvals would likely be required for the 

Proposed Action. The agency responsible for each is included after the identified permit, license, 

or required consultation. Any required permits, licenses, or approvals would be obtained prior to 

implementation of the SRIPP activities. 

 CWA Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit, USACE 

 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit, USACE 

 CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Virginia Water Protection Permit, VDEQ 

 Virginia Stormwater Management Program Permits, VDCR 

 VMRC Permits 

 Federal Consistency Determination, VDEQ 

 Biological Opinion, USFWS and NMFS 

 Magnuson-Stevens Act, EFH consultation, NOAA 

 VDHR Section 106 Consultation 

 BOEMRE and USACE MOA for use of Federal offshore sand resources 
Mitigation and Monitoring 

 365 

CHAPTER FIVE: MITIGATION AND MONITORING 

Because the SRIPP Proposed Action would take place in a complex and dynamic environment 

over a 50-year period, NASA would implement and continuously evaluate mitigation measures 

to ensure they are effective and appropriate. Due to a certain degree of uncertainty inherent in 

predicting how the Proposed Action activities would affect physical and biological resources, 

NASA would implement an adaptive management strategy for the SRIPP comprised of the 

following three elements: 

 Base planning on existing and adequate knowledge of the project area, well-defined 

project goals, and current technology; 

 Implement the Proposed Action with the initially planned mitigation measures described 

below; and 

 Monitor and evaluate results. 

The cycle would then reinitiate, driven by the monitoring results and project performance. 

Results could validate existing practices or reveal the need for alterations in project 

implementation or mitigation techniques. By monitoring and evaluating how measures are 

working, NASA would ensure that mitigation measures are optimized. 

The following sections discuss NASA’s proposed mitigation measures and monitoring as they 

apply to the Proposed Action Alternatives and within the framework of adaptive management. 

5.1 MITIGATION 

CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.20) define mitigation to include: (1) avoiding the impact 

altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting 

the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by 

repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the 

impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the lifetime of the action; 

and (5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 

Mitigation measures are either institutional in that they are inherent in project alternative 

selection, or they are incorporated into the construction, operation, and maintenance of the 

project. 

Mitigation techniques can include operational measures or technology-based methods. They can 

be short- or long-term and may be designed to avoid, minimize, remediate, or compensate for 

environmental impact. The following sections describe the mitigation measures that would be 

implemented for the components of the alternatives: seawall extension, offshore dredging, sand 

placement, groin or breakwater construction, and north Wallops Island borrow site excavation. 

5.1.1 Physical Environment 

5.1.1.1 Seawall Extension 

The main physical effects of seawall construction activities would be soil and sediment 

disturbance and potential pollution releases from construction equipment. 
Mitigation and Monitoring 

366 

NASA would implement erosion and sediment control BMPs to minimize erosion. Spill 

prevention BMPs would be implemented to reduce potential impacts on soils and sediments 

during seawall construction, and all work would be performed in accordance with WFF’s ICP. 

5.1.1.2 Offshore Dredging 

The main physical effects of dredging the proposed offshore shoals would be removal of sand 

from the shoal, suspended sediment/turbidity, redistribution of sediment outside the dredge 

footprint, and changes to bathymetry. The dredge contractor would be responsible for proper 

storage and disposal of any hazardous material such as oils and fuels used during the dredging 

and beach nourishment operations. The U.S. EPA and USCG regulations require the treatment of 

waste (e.g., sewage, gray water) from dredge plants and tender/service vessels and prohibit the 

disposal of debris into the marine environment. The dredge contractor would be required to 

implement a marine pollution control plan to minimize any direct impacts to water quality from 

construction activity.

Offshore dredging would result in changes to the bathymetry of the selected offshore borrow 

site. To minimize impacts on the bathymetry, dredging would be conducted so that a relatively 

shallow, uniform thickness of material is removed from the borrow area. 

5.1.1.3 Beach Construction and Sand Placement 

To minimize impacts on sediments, the beach would be restored to a comparable sediment type 

(a similar percentage of sand, silt and clay), grain size, and color as the existing beach material. 

5.1.1.4 Groin and Breakwater Construction 

During groin construction, there would be an accumulation of sediment on the updrift side of the 

groin, and some shoreline erosion would occur on the downdrift side. The extent of the erosion 

would depend on the direction and rate of longshore sediment transport in the groin area. NASA 

would renourish the beach to reduce the potential for downdrift erosion by placing sand all along 

the Wallops Island shoreline. Additionally, the groin would be located within the sediment 

transport nodal zone along the beach to ensure minimal potential downdrift. 

5.1.1.5 North Wallops Island Sediment Removal 

The main physical effects of excavation activities on north Wallops Island for beach fill material 

would be sediment disturbance and potential pollution releases from construction equipment. 

NASA would implement erosion and sediment control BMPs to minimize erosion. Spill 

prevention BMPs would be implemented to reduce potential impacts on soils and sediments 

during excavation, construction, and beach fill work. All work would be performed in 

accordance with WFF’s ICP. 

5.1.1.6 MEC 

To minimize the risk of adverse impacts from UXO in the North Wallops Island borrow area, an 

MEC Avoidance Plan that addresses the potential hazards would be prepared. A visual and 

magnetic survey of the area to locate MEC would be completed and potential hazards removed 

prior to excavation. 
Mitigation and Monitoring 

 367 

5.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species 

5.1.2.1 Onshore 

The main biological effects of seawall construction activities would be disturbance of potential 

beach habitat for shorebirds and sea turtles in the southern portion of the project area. To limit 

negative impacts on shorebirds during construction activities, NASA would educate all personnel 

working in the construction area on recognizing protected species and their likely habitat so that 

appropriate avoidance and minimization measures can be incorporated into activities. 

Piping plover and sea turtle nests have not been documented in this portion of the project area; 

however, they may nest immediately to the south. If a nest or crawl tracks are found, NASA 

would consult with USFWS to develop site-specific mitigation measures. 

Consistent with the 2010 USFWS BO (Appendix D), NASA would implement the following 

measures to minimize impacts during the initial phase of the project: 

1. NASA would conduct routine surveys and monitoring for listed species and implement 

measures to avoid potential impacts whenever possible; 

2. NASA would conduct surveys and monitoring to determine the effects of the proposed 

action on listed species and their habitat; and 

3. NASA would actively manage habitats and human activity on the beaches to avoid and 

minimize potential impact on listed species. 

To fulfill these measures, NASA would also comply with the following terms and conditions. 

1. NASA would fully implement the activities related to listed species in Chapter Five of 

the SRIPP Draft PEIS: Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (NASA, 2010d) for seawall 

extension, offshore dredging, and sand placement activities. NASA would produce an 

annual report summarizing the survey and monitoring efforts, the location and status of 

all occurrences of recorded protected species, and any additional relevant information. 

Reports would be submitted to USFWS’s Virginia Field Office in digital format at the 

address provided in the SRIPP BO by December 31 of each year. 

2. NASA would develop a training and familiarization program for all personnel conducting 

construction activities and NASA operations in areas where listed species may occur. 

This training program would include basic biological information about all listed species 

and be sufficient to allow personnel to tentatively identify the species and its likely 

habitat and incorporate appropriate avoidance and minimization measures into their 

activities. 

3. Excavation of sand from the north Wallops Island borrow area for future renourishment 

would be conducted outside of plover and sea turtle nesting season (March 15 through 

November 30 or the last date of potential sea turtle hatchling emergence based on when 

the last eggs were laid). Sand would be stockpiled outside of the north Wallops Island 

borrow area and outside of potential nesting habitat for plovers and sea turtles prior to 

placement for renourishment. 

4. Once the newly constructed beach is in place, NASA would conduct surveys for injured, 

dead, or impaired birds and wildlife after launches of rockets that produce an expected 

sound intensity greater than 150 dB seaward of the dune or seawall. These surveys would 
Mitigation and Monitoring 

368 

be conducted as soon as possible following launches and within 2 hours of the launch or 

the first daylight following launch. If surveys cannot be conducted within this period, 

NASA would place remotely operated video cameras on the beach to document and 

record responses of plovers and similar birds and any sea turtles. Cameras would be 

placed a maximum of 100 m (330 ft) apart and extend to the limit of the project area 

where sound intensity is expected to exceed 150 dB. Surveys for dead, injured, or 

impaired wildlife would still be conducted as soon as possible following a launch, in 

addition to the use of cameras. Reports and DVDs would be provided to USFWS within 

15 days of each launch event. 

5. Concentrations of contaminants (hydrogen chloride, aluminum oxide, and other 

potentially toxic substances) normally present in rocket exhaust would be measured on 

the beach closest to the flame trench following launches involving use of solid 

propellants. Measurements would be taken daily until the levels reach background levels 

or conservative estimated non-toxic levels of these contaminants for birds, sea turtles, and 

other wildlife species. This information would be used to determine the typical exposure 

to contaminants on the beaches over time following a launch. Measurements would be 

taken, analyzed, and submitted to USFWS for at least the first five launches after the 

placement of beach and dune adjacent to NASA infrastructure. Reports would be 

submitted to USFWS’s Virginia Field office in digital format within 30 days of each 

launch event. 

6. NASA would report any evidence of potential nesting activity of green sea turtles or 

leatherback sea turtles on Wallops Island to USFWS’s Virginia Field Office within one 

business day of observing the activity. 

7. Care would be taken to preserve biological material of any dead specimens of proposed 

or listed species found in the best possible state. NASA would also ensure that evidence 

intrinsic to determining the cause of death of the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed. 

Upon locating a dead specimen, NASA would immediately notify USFWS. 

Additionally, the sand fencing that would be installed at the toe of the dune would be 

perpendicular to the shoreline with regular spacing between sections to allow wildlife passage 

between the dune area and the ocean. 

5.1.2.2 Offshore 

As a requirement of the 2010 NMFS BO (Appendix E), NASA would implement the following 

measures to minimize impacts of incidental take of sea turtles: 

1. NASA would contact NMFS within 3 days before dredging and again within 3 days 

after completion of dredging. NASA would report to NMFS whether: 

a. During April 1 through November 30, when sea turtles are known to be present in the 

project area, hopper dredges are outfitted with state-of-the-art sea turtle deflectors on 

the drag head and operated in a manner that will reduce the risk of interactions with 

sea turtles; 

b. An NMFS-approved observer is on board the vessel for any dredging occurring in the 

April 1 – November 30 time frame; 
Mitigation and Monitoring 

 369 

c. All dredges are equipped and operated in a manner that provides 

endangered/threatened species observers with a reasonable opportunity for detecting 

interactions with listed species and that provides for handling, collection, and 

resuscitation of turtles injured during project activities; and 

d. Measures are taken to protect any turtles that survive entrainment in the dredge. 

2. All interactions with listed species would be properly documented and promptly 

reported to NMFS. 

NASA would also ensure that the following terms and conditions are met to minimize and 

monitor the impact of incidental take: 

1. NASA would contact NMFS’ Section 7 Coordinator to alert NMFS to the 

commencement and cessation of dredging activities, to give NMFS an opportunity to 

provide NASA with any updated contact information or reporting forms, and to provide 

NMFS with information of any incidents with listed species. 

2. If a sea turtle or its parts are taken in dredging operations, the take would be 

documented on the form included as Appendix H of the BO and submitted to NMFS 

along with the final report. 

3. NASA would contact NMFS within 24 hours of any interactions with sea turtles, 

including non-lethal and lethal takes. Until alerted otherwise, NASA would contact the 

Section 7 Coordinator. 

4. NASA would ensure that any sea turtles observed during project operations are 

measured and photographed (including sea turtles or body parts observed at the dredge 

location or on board the dredge, hopper, or scow) and the corresponding form 

completed and submitted to NMFS within 24 hours by fax. 

5. In the event of any lethal takes of sea turtles, any dead specimens or body parts would 

be measured, photographed, and preserved (refrigerated or frozen) until disposal 

procedures are discussed with NMFS. 

6. If a dead sea turtle or sea turtle part is taken in dredging operations, a genetic sample 

would be taken following the procedure outlined in the 2010 NMFS BO. 

7. If a decomposed turtle or turtle part is entrained during dredging operations, an incident 

report would be completed and the specimen would be photographed. Any turtle parts 

that are considered “not fresh” (i.e., obviously dead prior to the dredge take) would be 

frozen and transported to a nearby stranding or rehabilitation facility for review. NASA 

would submit an incident report for the decomposed turtle part, as well as photographs, 

to NMFS within 24 hours of the take and request concurrence that this take should not 

be attributed to the Incidental Take Statement. NMFS would have the final authority in 

determining whether the take should count toward the Incidental Take Statement. 

8. Any time that a take occurs, NASA would immediately contact NMFS to review the 

situation. At that time, NASA would inform NMFS of the amount of material dredged 

so far and the amount remaining to be dredged during that cycle. Also at that time, 

NASA and USACE would discuss with NMFS whether any new management measures 

could be implemented to prevent the total incidental take level from being exceeded. 
Mitigation and Monitoring 

370 

9. NASA would submit a final report summarizing the results of dredging and any takes of 

listed species to NMFS within 30 working days of the completion of each dredging 

contract. 

10. If the take estimate for any contract is exceeded, NASA and the USACE would work 

with NMFS to determine whether the additional take represents new information 

revealing effects of project activities that may not have been previously considered. 

In addition to the above measures required by NMFS, NASA would employ the following: 

1. As the NMFS-approved observer would be on board the dredge only from April 1 

through November 30, a lookout/bridge watch would be present on the dredge at all 

times from December l through March 31 to alert the captain when a listed whale is 

spotted within 1 kilometer (km) (0.62 mi) of the dredge. The lookout will be 

knowledgeable in listed species identification. From April 1 through November 30, the 

NMFS-approved observer would assume this responsibility. 

2. If a NMFS-approved observer or the lookout/bridge watch observes a whale within 1 

km (0.62 mi) of the dredge, all pumps would be turned off (i.e., dredging will stop) until 

the whale leaves the area (i.e., is farther than 1 km [0.62 mi] from the dredge). 

3. All dredge operators would be required to monitor the right whale sighting reports (i.e., 

sighting advisory system, dynamic management areas, seasonal management areas) to 

remain informed on the whereabouts of right whales in the vicinity of the action area. 

4. All dredge operators would conform to the regulations prohibiting the approach of right 

whales closer than 500 yds (1,500 ft) (50 CFR 224.103 (c)). If a dredge vessel comes 

within the 500-yd (1,500-ft) buffer zone created by a surfacing whale, it would depart 

the area immediately at a safe, slow speed. 

5. For dredging operations at night, the work area would be lit well enough to ensure that 

the observer/lookout can perform his/her work safely and effectively and that all 

mitigation measures can be performed to the extent practicable. 

6. NASA would require its dredging contractor to provide information regarding whale 

sightings. This information would be reported to NMFS’ Protected Resources Division 

Section 7 Coordinator. 

In accordance with the ESA, NASA would reinitiate formal consultation with USFWS or NMFS 

when: 1) the amount of extent of incidental take is exceeded; 2) new information reveals that the 

agency action may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not 

considered in the BO; 3) the action is subsequently modified in a manner that has an effect on the 

listed species or critical habitat not considered in the BO; or 4) a new species is listed or critical 

habitat designated that may be affected by the SRIPP. Additionally, in its 2010 BO, USFWS 

clearly states that any incidental take authorization is only applicable to the initial beach 

construction and seawall extension. As such, NASA would reinitiate consultation with USFWS 

for subsequent renourishment cycles. Although the NMFS BO addresses the SRIPP in its 50-year 

entirety, NASA would continue to coordinate with the agency prior to each renourishment cycle 

to ensure the BO’s validity. 
Mitigation and Monitoring 

 371 

5.1.3 Essential Fish Habitat 

Dredging at the proposed borrow sites would be conducted in a manner generally consistent with 

the recommendations made in two recent MMS publications examining the dredging of offshore 

shoals in the mid-Atlantic (CSA International, Inc. et al., 2009 and Dibajnia and Nairn, 2010). 

These recommendations include targeting depocenters for extraction, avoiding active erosional 

areas, shallow dredging over large areas rather than deep pits, dredging shoals in less than 30 m 

(98 ft) of water, and avoiding longitudinal dredging over the entire length of shoal. 

More specifically, for initial fill: 

 NASA would target Shoal A sub-area A-1 (an accretional area) for initial fill. Shoal A 

sub-area A-2 would only be used during off-nominal conditions; 

 Dredging would be uniform over a large area and would not create deep pits; 

 Cut depth would not be excessive at approximately 2-3 m (6.6-9.8 ft); and 

 Dredging would not occur over the entire length of the shoal. 

To stabilize the dune area and reduce borrow requirements (and potential effects on offshore 

shoals), NASA would plant the dunes with native vegetation and install sand fencing to trap 

windblown sand. 

More detail on NASA’s dredging plan is included in Appendix J. NASA would follow the same 

general dredging guidelines for planning renourishment fill cycles as for initial fill and would 

consider use of either Shoal A or Shoal B for offshore borrow material. Because specific details 

on the use of either offshore shoal would be developed in the future once actual renourishment 

volume requirements are known, NASA would continue to coordinate and consult with NMFS 

throughout the 50-year life of the SRIPP to avoid and minimize impacts on EFH. 

5.1.4 Cultural Resources 

It is unknown at this time what methods and exact locations a contractor may use to pump sand 

from dredge barges to Wallops Island. Because these methods may affect unidentified cultural 

resources, NASA would consult with VDHR prior to pump-out operations. NASA’s contractor 

would supply NASA with a dredge plan prior to implementation, which NASA would review 

with VDHR and jointly decide whether further investigation is required and, if warranted, agree 

on a survey method. If underwater resources are discovered during the survey, they would be 

reported to VDHR along with a proposed avoidance buffer. VDHR’s concurrence with the 

survey report would conclude the Section 106 process. In the event that previously unrecorded 

historic properties are discovered during project activities, NASA would stop work in the area 

and contact VDHR immediately. 

If an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources would occur at either of the offshore 

shoals within BOEMRE’s jurisdiction, the dredge would immediately halt operations within 305 

m (1,000 ft) of the area of the discovery. NASA would report the discovery to the Regional 

Supervisor, Leasing and Environment, Gulf of Mexico Region within 72 hours of discovery. The 

Regional Supervisor would then inform NASA as to how to proceed. 
Mitigation and Monitoring 

372 

5.2 MONITORING 

NASA would implement a monitoring program that focuses on three areas of the SRIPP; 

threatened and endangered species, the beach profile, and offshore shoals. The purpose of the 

monitoring program is to; (1) determine potential impacts to threatened and endangered species 

from the various components of the program, (2) evaluate the post-construction performance of 

the seawall extension and beach fill, (3) identify the need for beach renourishment and the 

quantity of material needed, and (4) assess the bathymetric changes to the sand shoal(s) after 

dredging. 

NASA would ensure that the monitoring program is implemented by appropriately qualified, 

experienced personnel. 

5.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species 

5.2.1.1 Seawall Extension and Sand Placement 

In addition to complying with USFWS’ required mitigation measures, NASA would employ a 

trained observer to monitor the area daily during when sand placement activities are within 

Piping Plover or sea turtle nesting season to ensure that impacts are avoided or minimized. When 

work on the beach overlaps sea turtle or Piping Plover nesting season, daily monitoring would be 

conducted within the first several hours of sunrise by an observer trained in accordance with 

NASA’s Protected Species Monitoring Plan (NASA, 2010c). Monitoring would occur at least 

within a 300 m (984 ft) buffer of construction activities during Piping Plover and sea turtle 

nesting season to ensure Piping Plovers and sea turtles are not directly affected by construction 

activities. If any Piping Plover or sea turtle nests are detected within the proposed work area, 

NASA would avoid the area until it has coordinated with USFWS to employ site-specific 

measures to minimize potential effects. 

Potential habitat areas for seabeach amaranth would be surveyed immediately prior to 

renourishment or sand removal activities at the north end of Wallops Island to ensure that the 

species is not present. In the event that the seabeach amaranth is encountered during project 

activities, NASA would work with USFWS to ensure appropriate measures are taken to protect 

the species and its habitat. 

5.2.1.2 Dredging Operations 

An NMFS-approved observer would be on board the dredging vessel for any dredging occurring 

between April 1 and November 30. This experienced endangered species observer would 

monitor dredging operations for evidence of sea turtle takes and would advise the vessel operator 

to slow the vessel or maneuver safely when sea turtles or marine mammals are spotted to further 

reduce the potential for interaction with vessels. A lookout/bridge watch would be present on the 

dredge at all times from December l through March 31 to alert the captain when a listed whale is 

spotted within 1 kilometer (km) (0.62 mi) of the dredge. 

5.2.1.3 North Wallops Island Excavation 

As there is currently a bald eagle nest on north Wallops Island, NASA would survey an area 200 

m (660 ft) around the proposed work site to determine the presence of additional nests. If nests 

are identified, NASA would consult with USFWS and VDGIF to minimize effects. 

Additionally, when more specific plans for excavation at the north end of Wallops Island are 
Mitigation and Monitoring 

 373 

known in the future (based on monitoring of the shoreline as described in Chapter 5 of this 

PEIS), NASA would conduct surveys for other protected species, consult with NMFS, USFWS, 

and VDGIF, and prepare the appropriate level of NEPA documentation prior to excavation. 

5.2.2 Beach Profile 

As funding allows, NASA would conduct pre- and semi-annual post-construction monitoring in 

the designated shoreline monitoring area following the initial beach fill. NASA would conduct 

combined subaerial (above water) and subaqueous (below water) monitoring surveys along the 

Wallops Island shoreline. 

The objective of the annual beach profile post-construction monitoring program would be to 

evaluate the post-construction performance of the seawall extension and beach fill project. This 

evaluation would also be used to identify the need for beach renourishment. 

The monitoring program would consist of data collection, including subaerial beach crosssection surveys, subaqueous beach profile surveys, aerial photographs, and storm data 

summaries. The monitoring program would also compare the post-construction data with the preconstruction data and evaluate the performance of the project. 

The horizontal and vertical survey datums would adhere to Virginia State Plane Coordinate 

System, South Zone, North American Datum 1983/1993 (High Accuracy Reference Network) 

U.S. Survey Feet and North American Vertical Datum 1988, U.S. Survey Feet, respectively. The 

vertical accuracy for the survey would be International Hydrographic Organization Order 1 

(standards of accuracy recommended for coastal areas with depths up to 100 m [330 ft] and sand 

or silt bottoms). 

Consistent with the SRIPP adaptive management framework, beach profile monitoring protocol 

could be modified in the future based upon such factors as project performance or changes in 

technology. Additionally, more specific details regarding the monitoring protocol outlined in this 

section would be developed by the survey team prior to commencing work. 

5.2.2.1 Pre-Construction 

NASA would conduct a survey of the pre-construction profile baseline of the expanded project 

monitoring area. The expanded project monitoring area would be along the lengths of Wallops 

and Assawoman Islands, starting 0.8 km (0.5 mi) north of Chincoteague Inlet at the north to 

Gargathy Inlet at the south, a distance of approximately 29 km (18 mi). In the cross-shore 

direction, the survey elevation data would extend from behind the proposed dune line to seaward 

of the depth of closure (estimated to be at approximately -4.5 to -6 m (-15 to -20 ft) MLW). Near 

Chincoteague Inlet the ebb shoal complex creates a large shallow offshore area; therefore, 

surveys in this area would extend a maximum of 3.2 km (2 mi) offshore if the depth of closure is 

not reached. 

Sufficient control points would be established to cover the entire expanded monitoring area and 

be able to support future long-term post-construction monitoring program needs. The control 

points would consist of 72 pipe benchmarks at intervals of 457 m (1,500 ft) along the monitoring 

baseline. The baseline would be located to maximize the survival of the pipe benchmarks during 

severe storm events. The benchmarks would be 3.8 cm (1.5 in) galvanized pipes driven into the 

beach to a depth of about 1.8 m (6 ft) and extending upward above the sand level approximately 

0.6 m (2 ft) with a threaded cap on top. Vertical elevation of the tops of the pipes and horizontal 
Mitigation and Monitoring 

374 

coordinates would be required for the pipe benchmarks. Control point number, elevation data, 

and horizontal coordinates would be engraved on the threaded cap. 

NASA would perform beach cross-section surveys along new and/or previously established 

baselines on set stations every 152 m (500 ft) from Chincoteague Inlet to Assawoman Inlet and 

every 305 m (1,000 ft) from Assawoman Inlet to Gargathy Inlet and from Chincoteague Inlet to 

0.8 km (0.5 mi) north of Chincoteague Inlet. The beach survey would extend from the baseline, 

offshore to a depth of -1.5 m (-5 ft) MLW, except in the seawall area where the beach survey 

would extend from the baseline to the seaward edge of the existing seawall crest. The profile 

surveys would locate the Mean High Water Level (MHWL) at each profile. Additional “spot 

shots” would be taken between profiles to locate the MHWL between profiles. 

Beach survey data would be processed in Computer-Assisted Design (CAD), Beach Morphology 

Analysis Package (BMAP), and xyz formats. 

To compare the accuracy of LiDAR data to that collected by the more traditional survey 

methods, NASA would obtain pre-construction LiDAR topographic survey data (subaerial only) 

provided by a qualified LiDAR survey contractor over the full extended monitoring area. The 

LiDAR topographic survey would be conducted concurrently with the pre-construction beach 

profile survey and would encompass the land area from the profile baseline and seaward to 

include the beach and the seawall. The vertical accuracy for the survey would be International 

Hydrographic Organization Order 1. The LiDAR survey data would be processed in CAD and 

xyz formats such that profiles and MHWL location could be established and compared with 

those established by the land-based survey. Decisions regarding the need for additional LIDAR 

surveys would be based on this evaluation. 

NASA would obtain an initial set of digital geographically referenced color orthophotographs 

over the full extended monitoring area (29 km [18 mi] +/-). The intent of the orthophotographs 

would be to supplement the shoreline location between the beach profile survey points and to 

visually identify changes in the shoreline and beach area. The photographs would be taken at the 

same time of year that beach profile data would be collected. Aerial targets would be set by 

NASA at each baseline point prior to the aerial photography flight. The aerial photography flight 

and data collection would be conducted during mean lower low water as determined by the tidal 

gauge located at the Chincoteague USCG Station. The scale of the digital photographs would be 

1:24,000. Rectified orthophotograph files would be combined with the beach profile files and the 

hydrographic survey files to create a single survey data file and shoreline change analysis of the 

entire area. Monitoring program shorelines and shoreline data available from other sources (e.g., 

NPS, NOAA, and USACE) would be directly imported into a shoreline change program (e.g., 

U.S. Geological Survey’s Digital Shoreline Analysis System, BMAP, and others) for analysis of 

patterns and trends. 

Profile Comparisons 

The USACE’s BMAP within Coastal Engineering and Design Analysis System (CEDAS) would 

be used for initial profile comparisons and analyses. Once the surveying data are compiled, the 

new survey profiles developed by combining the beach cross-sections, the offshore hydrographic 

survey, and the new profiles developed from the LiDAR survey would be overlaid on previous 

survey profiles, and the proposed authorized template profile to evaluate relative differences. 

Using BMAP, the following shoreline position and volumetric calculations would be performed: 
Mitigation and Monitoring 

 375 

 Shoreline change at mean high water; 

 Shoreline change at the design berm elevation; 

 Volume change between overlapping extents of new and previous survey profiles; and 

 Volume surplus/deficit between the new survey profiles and the proposed authorized 

beach fill template. 

5.2.2.2 Post-Construction 

NASA would perform a combined subaerial and subaqueous monitoring survey in the project 

monitoring area along the lengths of Wallops and Assawoman Islands, starting 0.8 km (0.5 mi) 

north of Chincoteague Inlet at the north to Gargathy Inlet at the south, a distance of 

approximately 29 km (18 mi). In the cross-shore direction, the survey elevation data would 

extend from behind the dune line to seaward of the depth of closure, estimated to be at 

approximately -4.5 to -6 m (-15 to -20 ft) MLW. Near Chincoteague Inlet, the ebb shoal complex 

creates a large, shallow, offshore area; therefore, surveys in this area would extend a maximum 

of 3.2 km (2 mi) offshore if the depth of closure is not reached. 

NASA would perform two beach cross-section surveys each year of the post-construction 

monitoring program. The first survey would likely be a Pre-Winter Survey (i.e., October) and 

would include beach cross-sections along the previously established baseline on set stations 

every 152 m (500 ft) from Chincoteague Inlet to Assawoman Inlet and every 305 m (1,000 ft) 

from Assawoman Inlet to Gargathy Inlet, and from Chincoteague Inlet to 0.8 km (0.5 mi) north 

of Chincoteague Inlet. This survey would be completed as soon as practicable following 

completion of the initial beach fill. The second survey would be a Post-Winter Survey (i.e., 

April) and would include beach cross-sections along the previously established baseline on set 

stations every 152 m (500 ft) from 0.8 km (0.5 mi) south of the south end of the beach fill 

placement to 0.8 km (0.5 mi) north of the north end of the beach fill placement. The profile 

surveys would locate the MHWL at each profile. Additional “spot shots” would be taken 

between profiles to locate the MHWL between profiles. The beach cross-section surveys would 

extend from the baseline and offshore to a depth of -1.5 m (-5 ft) MLW. Beach survey data 

would be processed in CAD, BMAP, and xyz formats. 

NASA would perform two offshore hydrographic surveys each year of the monitoring program. 

The first survey would be a Pre-Winter Survey (i.e., October) and would include hydrographic 

survey profiles along the previously established baseline on set stations every 152 m (500 ft) 

from Chincoteague Inlet to Assawoman Inlet and every 305 m (1,000 ft) from Assawoman Inlet 

to Gargathy Inlet, and from Chincoteague Inlet to 0.8 km (0.5 mi) north of Chincoteague Inlet. 

The survey would be conducted as soon as practicable following completion of the initial beach 

fill. The second survey would be a Post-Winter Survey (i.e., April) and would include 

hydrographic survey profiles along the previously established baseline on set stations every 152 

m (500 ft) from 0.8 km (0.5 mi) south of the south end of the beach fill placement to 0.8 km (0.5 

mi) north of the north end of the beach fill placement. The hydrographic survey would be 

conducted using a single-beam echosounder collecting data along transect lines as described 

above. The offshore survey would extend from -1.2 m (-4 ft) MLW to the depth of closure -4.5 

to -6 m (-15 to -20 ft) MLW. If possible (weather permitting), the hydrographic survey would be 

conducted within 2 weeks of the beach survey. Bathymetric survey data would be processed in 

CAD, BMAP, and xyz formats. 
Mitigation and Monitoring 

376 

NASA would obtain two sets of geographically referenced digital color orthophotographs each 

year of the monitoring program. The first set of photographs would be Pre-Winter photographs 

(i.e., October) over the full extended monitoring area (0.8 km [0.5 mi] north of Chincoteague 

Inlet and south to Gargathy Inlet). The second set of photographs obtained would be Post-Winter 

photographs (i.e., April) over the full extended monitoring area. The photographs would be taken 

at the same time of year that beach profile data would be collected. Aerial targets would be set at 

selected baseline points prior to the aerial photography flight. The aerial photography flight and 

data collection would be conducted during MLW as determined by the tidal gauge located at the 

Chincoteague USCG Station. The scale of the digital photographs would be 1:24,000. The 

rectified orthophotograph files would be combined with the beach profile files and the 

hydrographic survey files to create a single survey data file and shoreline change analysis of the 

entire area. Monitoring program shorelines and shoreline data available from other sources (e.g., 

NPS, NOAA, and USACE) would be directly imported into a shoreline change program (e.g., 

U.S. Geological Survey’s Digital Shoreline Analysis System, BMAP, and others) for analysis of 

patterns and trends. 

Profile Comparisons 

The BMAP tool of USACE’s CEDAS would be used for initial profile comparisons and 

analyses. Once the surveying data are compiled, the new survey profiles would be overlaid on 

previous survey profiles and the authorized template profile to show relative differences. Using 

BMAP, the following shoreline position and volumetric calculations would be performed: 

 Shoreline change at mean high water; 

 Shoreline change at the design berm elevation; 

 Volume change between overlapping extents of new and post-fill survey profiles; and 

 Volume surplus/deficit between the new survey profile and the assumed authorized beach 

fill template. 

Storm Data Collection 

NASA would collect storm data for each moderate to severe storm event affecting the project. 

The data would include type of storm, date and duration, wind data from the National Climatic 

Data Center, tide and surge data, wave data, air temperature and pressure, wind speed and 

direction, wind gust, and sea surface temperature from the National Data Buoy Center. This data 

would be collected for all monitoring years and included in an annual summary report and 

related mapping. Field visits to the project area would also be conducted to evaluate the storm 

impacts on the project area. Formal subaerial and subaqueous post-storm surveys (comparable to 

those described above under pre-and post-construction monitoring) would be conducted as 

practicable.

Shoreline and Volumetric Change 

In addition to relative profile comparisons, the shoreline and volumetric change based on threedimensional surfaces of the study area within a GIS environment would be evaluated. These 

types of analyses expand on the two-dimensional profile comparisons and are recommended for 

identifying areas of concern along the shoreline and evaluating sediment transport trends. New 
Mitigation and Monitoring 

 377 

survey data would be incorporated into GIS to allow mapping and further analysis of shoreline 

and volumetric change. This includes developing a digital terrain model from the new survey 

data. Shoreline positions would be extracted from the digital terrain model and plotted in GIS for 

comparison with historical shoreline positions. Additionally, volume change grids would be 

calculated to plot the morphologic changes in relative survey periods. Color-shaded grids 

showing areas of erosion and accretion within the nearshore study area would be developed from 

the three-dimensional comparisons. The pre-construction LiDAR data would be processed and 

included as part of the analysis. 

5.2.2.3 Project Design Life Analysis 

Based on results of shoreline change and volume analyses, areas of concern in the study area 

would be identified. The results of the analyses would be used to evaluate performance of the 

beach nourishment project and to determine maintenance areas for future renourishment. 

5.2.2.4 Monitoring Summary and Mapping 

A report summarizing the data collection, coastal engineering analyses, observed trends from the 

shoreline change and volumetric change analyses, project design life estimates, identified areas 

of concern, statement of overall quantity needed to bring the entire beach up to the template, and 

recommended future work would be prepared semi-annually. The following items would also be 

included in the summary report: 

 Profile comparison plots with summarized results (e.g., shoreline change, volume 

change) 

 Large-scale map(s) showing relative shoreline positions and corresponding shoreline 

change rates for the reporting period 

 Large-scale map(s) showing volumetric change over the study area extent 

NASA would share all monitoring results and reporting with resource agencies and any other 

interested parties. This report would be used to assess the project performance with respect to 

storm damage protection and sand loss. Replenishment of the sand fill would be needed at 

intervals that would be determined by the monitoring measurements. When the trends in the 

volume changes indicate that a minimum fill volume is being approached it would be necessary 

to plan for such a renourishment operation. 

It is expected that the sand placed on the beach would disperse over time to the south, to the 

north, and offshore. The relative rates of these losses would also be determined from 

interpretation of the monitoring data. These results would be reviewed in each of the monitoring 

reports to determine whether project modifications could be developed to reduce the rates of loss 

or to likewise lower maintenance costs. For example, it may be shown that the dominant net sand 

transport accounting for the overall fill volume loss is in a longshore direction. Based on the 

present understanding of the coastal system, once the fill is placed, this net direction could be to 

either the north or the south. It may be shown that a sand retention structure could be located 

adjacent to, or nearby, the placement area to help retain the sand or to capture the escaping sand 

so that it could be episodically returned with appropriate equipment. The monitoring would be 

used to determine whether such a structure would be effective to the north or south of the fill. If a 

comparison with the existing project maintenance practice shows that such a structure would be 
Mitigation and Monitoring 

378 

cost-effective in reducing the need for renourishment sand from the offshore shoals then a 

modification to the preferred option may be considered. Such a development would require 

additional NEPA analysis, agency consultation, and permitting. 

5.2.3 Offshore Shoals 

NASA would provide NMFS pre- and post-borrow bathymetric maps of the dredged areas. The 

post-borrow survey would be performed soon after dredging was completed, likely not more than 

2 weeks after completion of the initial fill phase of the project. NASA would follow standard 

USACE bathymetric survey procedures as stated in USACE survey manual publication number 

EM 1110-2-1003 (USACE, 2002). Survey data would be provided to interested resource 

agencies as soon as practicable thereafter. Future plans for dredging would be based on an 

assessment of bathymetric changes of the shoals between dredging cycles.
List of Preparers 

 379 

CHAPTER SIX: LIST OF PREPARERS 

Name Education and experience Areas of Responsibility in EIS 

URS

Shari Silbert Environmental Scientist, B.S. Chemistry, 

B.S. Biology, 16 years experience 

Wallops Environmental Office Onsite 

Project Manager, Document 

Development and Review 

Jeffrey 

Reidenauer 

URS Principal Scientist, Ph.D. Biological 

Oceanography, PWS, CSE, 24 years 

experience 

Project Management, Physical 

Oceanographic Processes, Bathymetry, 

Marine Life, EFH 

Alan Niedoroda URS Vice President, PhD. Coastal 

Processes, 41 years experience 

ITR of Geography and 

Geomorphology, Oceanography and 

Coastal Processes 

Suzanne Richert URS Senior Scientist, M.S. Soil Science, 

10 years experience 

Project Management, NEPA 

Compliance, Social and Economic 

Environment Sections 

Ida Namur URS Senior Scientist, B.S. Environmental 

Science, 8 years experience 

Biological Environment and Social 

and Economic Environment Sections 

Ashley Kurzweil URS Environmental Scientist, B.S. 

Biology, 3 years experience 

Various Biological Sections 

Sheyna Wisdom URS Senior Noise Analyst/Biologist, B.S. 

Biology, M.S. Marine Science, 13 years 

experience 

Marine Mammals 

Stephen Robey URS Senior Scientist, B.S. Resource and 

Environmental Management, 10 years 

experience. 

Marine Mammals 

Lisa Baraff URS Marine Mammal Biologist, B.A. 

Human Ecology, M.S. Marine Biology, 

28 years experience 

Marine Mammals

Angela Chaisson URS Senior Practice Leader for 

NEPA/Natural Resources, B.S. Wildlife 

Resources, CWB, 20 years experience 

Independent Technical Reviewer, 

NEPA Compliance 

Janet Frey URS Senior Environmental Engineer, 

B.A. Geology, 23 years experience 

Independent Technical Reviewer, 

NEPA Compliance 

Jagadish Prakash URS Senior Urban Planner, M.C.R.P 

(Masters in City and Regional Planning), 

8 years experience 

Social and Economic Environment 

Sections 

Mike Kendall URS Senior Air Program Manager Air 

Services Group, B.A. Geography, R.S., 

26 years regulatory and consulting 

experience 

Air Quality 

Sally Atkins URS Project Scientist, M.A. 

Environmental Management, 10 years 

experience 

Air Quality 

Christopher 

Ditton 

URS Geographical Information Systems, 

B.S. Geography, 10 years experience 

Figures 
List of Preparers 

380 

Name Education and experience Areas of Responsibility in EIS 

Ted Hogan URS Senior Environmental Scientist, 

M.S. Water Resources Management, 38 

years experience 

Coastal Vegetation Communities 

Identification 

Christopher Reed URS Principal Engineer, Ph.D. 

Engineering Science and Mechanics, 29 

years experience 

Physical Oceanography, Coastal 

Engineering 

Chris Polglase URS Principal Archaeologist, M.A. 

Anthropology, RPA, 25 years experience 

Independent Technical Reviewer 

JB Pelletier URS Principal Underwater Archaeologist, 

M.A. History-Nautical Archaeology, 

RPA, 23 years experience 

Cultural Resources Sections and 

Remote Sensing Survey 

Carrie Albee URS Principal Architectural Historian, 

M.A. Architectural History, 12 years 

experience 

Cultural Resources Sections 

Valerie Speidel EG&G Environmental Analyst/Specialist 

Wallops Environmental Office, M.S. 

Food Science and Technology, 7 years 

experience 

Independent Technical Reviewer 

Susan Patton URS Principal Technical Editor, M.S. 

Geology, 22 years experience 

Editorial Reviewer 

Young Cho URS Senior Document Control Word 

Processor, 10 years experience 

Formatting 

Rob Fernandez URS Senior Technical Editor, B.S. 

Journalism/English, 15 years experience 

Editorial Reviewer 

Ivy Porpotage URS Senior Technical Editor, BS 

Chemical Engineering, MFA, Creative 

Writing, 12 years experience 

Editorial Reviewer 

NASA 

Paul Bull Civil Engineer, BS Civil Engineering, 

Master of Engineering (Civil), P.E., 16 

years experience 

SRIPP Project Manager, Development 

of Alternatives, Document review

Joshua Bundick Environmental Protection Specialist, B.A. 

Environmental Sciences; 8 years 

experience 

SRIPP PEIS Project Management, 

Alternatives Screening, Document 

Review, Biological Resources, 

Cumulative Impacts 

Carolyn Turner WFF Lead Environmental Engineer, B.S. 

Geology, MS Environmental 

Engineering; PG, CHMM, 20 years 

experience 

Document Review 

Joel Mitchell Environmental Engineer, M.S. 

Environmental Management, 10 years 

experience 

Document Review 
List of Preparers 

 381 

Name Education and experience Areas of Responsibility in EIS 

BOEMRE 

Geoff Wikel Oceanographer, M.S. Marine Science, 

M.P.P. Public Policy, 11 years experience 

Document Review 

Dirk Herkof Meteorologist, M.S., B.S. Meteorology, 

35 years experience 

Air Quality Analysis for Dredging and 

Beach Fill 

USACE 

George Mears USACE Project Manager, BS Geology, 

ME, Environmental Engineering; MBA, 

Management, PMP, 13 years 

Project Manager, Resource 

Scheduling, Planning, Outreach, and 

SRIPP study/EIS reviews 

David King Oceanographer , Ph.D. Oceanography, 22 

years experience 

Numerical Modeling and Development 

of Project Alternatives 

Gregg Williams Project Manager/Civil Engineer, Civil 

Engineering Technology, B.S., 17 years 

experience 

SRIPP Alternatives Planning and 

Design 

Mark Hudgins Civil Engineer, B.S. Civil Engineering, 

M.E. Coastal Engineering, P.E., 23 years 

experience 

Coastal Engineering, SRIPP Planning 

and Design 

Robert Huntoon Geotechnical Engineer, B.S. Civil 

Engineering, 5 years experience 

Geotechnical Evaluation for Rock 

Revetment Extension and Potential 

North End Sand Renourishment Site 
List of Preparers 

382 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 

 383 

CHAPTER SEVEN: AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONSULTED 

7.1 INTRODUCTION 

NEPA states that “There shall be an early and open process for determining the scope of issues 

to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action.” 

Stakeholders and the general public have been engaged as the SRIPP and this EIS developed. 

Stakeholders include Federal, State and local governments, business interests, landowners, 

residents, and environmental organizations. 

7.2 SCOPING PROCESS 

During the SRIPP planning process, NASA provided several opportunities for public and 

stakeholder involvement, the first of which was a stakeholder and regulatory agency meeting 

held at WFF on November 20, 2008. On March 24, 2009 NASA announced its intent to prepare 

an EIS and conduct scoping in the Federal Register. NASA sent scoping letters to 71 targeted 

stakeholders and agencies in April 2009. NASA formally invited the two cooperating agencies 

(BOEMRE and USACE) to participate in the PEIS process via letters in April, 2009. The public, 

agencies, and NASA employees were also invited to provide comments on the SRIPP EIS Web 

site at http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/shoreline_eis.html. 

The first public scoping meeting was held on April 21, 2009 at the WFF Visitor’s Center. A 

public information meeting was also held at the WFF Visitor’s Center on December 8, 2009. The 

comments received during the initial public scoping were categorized into the topics shown in 

Table 62 below. A total of 146 comments were received. Multiple recommendations, 

discussions, or thoughts on the same theme from the same commenter were considered as one 

comment under that topic. NASA considered all scoping comments in preparing the Draft PEIS. 
Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 

384 

Table 62: Responses to Scoping by Comment Topic 

Comment Topic 

No. of 

Comments 

Groin impacts on downdrift islands 26 

Relocation of at-risk infrastructure/sea-level rise 19 

Miscellaneous recommendation or comment 12 

Alternatives 12 

Funding 10 

More explanation in EIS 10 

Impacts on benthos and birds at borrow sites 9 

Evaluate baseline conditions 8 

Monitoring of effects 7 

Impacts on shoreline north of WFF 6 

Threshold criteria for project success and evaluation 6 

Commercial and recreational fishing 4 

Positive comment 4 

Regional sediment budget modeling 4 

Blackfish Bank shoal 3 

Compensation for stakeholder losses 3 

Recommended mitigation measures 2 

Seawall 1 

Total 146 

7.3 FISHERIES SURVEY 

In April and May 2009, NASA surveyed commercial and recreational fishermen primarily at the 

ports of Ocean City, MD, Chincoteague, VA, and Wachapreague, VA to assess potential impacts 

on the fishing industry from SRIPP activities. A total of 66 responses were received during the 

survey. Thirty-six of the respondents (55 percent) reported fishing within 8 km (5 mi) of one or 

more if these sites. Of those 36 respondents, 24 (67 percent) said they at least fished Blackfish 

Bank. Based on the results of the survey, NASA decided to look beyond Blackfish Bank for a 

source of borrow material. 
Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 

 385 

7.4 WEB SITE 

Throughout the duration of the SRIPP NEPA process, NASA has maintained a Web site that 

provides the public with the most up to date project information. The Web site may be accessed 

at http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/shoreline_eis.html. 

7.5 DRAFT PEIS 

The public was notified of the opportunity to review and comment on this Draft SRIPP PEIS by 

announcements in the Federal Register and local newspapers. The Draft PEIS was also available 

for public review at the following locations: 

NASA WFF Technical Library 

Building E-105 

Wallops Island, VA 23337 

(757) 824-1065 

Hours: Mon–Fri: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

NASA Headquarters Library 

300 E Street SW, Suite 1J20 

Washington, DC VA 20546 

(202) 358-0168 

Hours: Mon–Fri: 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

Island Library 

4077 Main Street 

Chincoteague, VA 23336 

(757) 336-3460 

Hours: Mon: 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. 

Tues: 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Wed, Fri, Sat: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Northampton Free Library 

7745 Seaside Rd 

Nassawadox, VA 23413 

Phone: (757) 414-0010 (757) 442-2839 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday: 

9 am - 6 pm 

Thursday: 9 am - 9 pm 

Friday: 9 am - 6 pm 

Saturday: 9 am - 1 pm 

Eastern Shore Main Public Library 

23610 Front Street 

P.O. Box 360 

Accomac, VA 23301 

Phone: (757) 787-3400 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday: 

9 a.m. to 6 p.m. 

Thursday: 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. 

Saturday: 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. 

Copies of the Draft PEIS were sent directly to 125 stakeholders. 

Additionally, NASA held a public comment meeting to discuss the Draft PEIS at the WFF 

Visitor’s Center on March 16, 2010. 

All comments received on the Draft PEIS were categorized into the topics shown in Table 63 

below. A total of 315 comments were received. 

Public comments on the Draft PEIS are included in Appendix L. NASA’s responses to 

comments received on the Draft PEIS are included in Appendix M of this Final PEIS. 
Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 

386 

Table 63: Comments by Category Received on Draft PEIS 

Comment Topic 

No. of 

Comments 

Editorial 34 

Alternatives 23 

Project Support 21 

North Wallops Island Borrow Site 18 

Permitting 15 

Project Impacts 16 

Mitigation and Monitoring - Nesting season 12 

Dredging 11 

Sea-level Rise 11 

Groin or Breakwater 13 

Habitat 9 

Project Impacts - Shoreline 9 

Wildlife 9 

Adaptive Management 8 

Affected Environment 8 

Cumulative Impacts 8 

Mitigation and Monitoring - Shoreline 8 

Birds 6 

Environmental Impacts - Miscellaneous 6 

Invertebrates 6 

Munitions 6 

Cost-Benefit Analysis 5 

GENESIS model 5 

Mitigation and Monitoring - General 5 

Project Design 5 

Solid and/or Hazardous Materials/Waste 5 

Cultural Resources 4 

Mitigation and Monitoring - Wildlife 4 

Project Effectiveness 4 

Bathymetry 3 

Environmental Justice 3 

Grain Size 3 

Renourishment 3 

Air Quality 2 

Figures 2 

Future NEPA Documentation and Agency Coordination 2 

Dredging 1 

Environmental Justice 1 

Mitigation and Monitoring - Shoals 1 

Total 315 
Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 

 387 

7.6 FINAL PEIS 

NASA considered all Draft PEIS comments in preparing the Final PEIS. A Notice of 

Availability will be published in the Federal Register and local newspapers to inform the public 

that the Final PEIS is available for review. A limited number of copies of the Final PEIS are 

available by contacting: 

Joshua A. Bundick 

NASA Wallops Flight Facility, Code 250.W 

Wallops Island, VA 23337 

Phone: (757) 824-2319 

Fax: (757) 824-1819 

Joshua.A.Bundick@nasa.gov

Copies of the Final PEIS may be reviewed at the locations listed in Section 7.4 above. 

Additionally, copies of the Final PEIS have been sent directly to the 143 stakeholders identified 

in Table 64. 

7.7 RECORD OF DECISION 

NASA will not render a Record of Decision until at least 30 days following the publication of the 

U.S. EPA’s Notice of Availability of the Final PEIS in the Federal Register. The Record of 

Decision will be available for public review on the project’s Web site; copies will be provided 

upon request. 

7.8 SUMMARY 

In summary, NASA solicited public and agency review and comment on the environmental 

impacts of the SRIPP through: 

1. Facilitating stakeholder meetings; 

2. Surveying recreational and commercial fishermen; 

3. Seeking input during the scoping process; 

4. Publishing a Notice of Availability of the Draft PEIS in the Federal Register and local 

newspapers; 

5. Publishing the Draft PEIS on the project Web site; 

6. Directly mailing the Draft PEIS to interested parties; 

7. Consulting with local, State, and Federal agencies; 

8. Publishing a Notice of Availability of the Final PEIS in the Federal Register and local 

newspapers; 

9. Publishing the Final PEIS on the project Web site; and 

10. Directly mailing the Final PEIS to interested parties. 

Table 64 shows which agencies/stakeholders: (1) received copies of the scoping letter, (2) 

provided responses to the scoping letters or Web site, (3) received copies of the Draft PEIS, (4) 

commented on the Draft PEIS, and (5) received copies of the Final PEIS. 
Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 

388 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Agencies, Organizations, and 

Table 64: Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted for the SRIPP PEIS 

Name Organization 

Sent a 

Scoping 

Letter 

Expressed 

Interest / 

Commented 

During 

Scoping 

Sent a 

Copy of 

Draft 

PEIS 

E

C

Federal AgenciesMr. Roger Amato BOEMRE, Leasing Division X X Mr. James Bennett BOEMRE, Environmental Division X X Mr. Dirk Herkhof BOEMRE, Environmental Division X X Mr. Horst Greczmiel CEQ, Office of NEPA Oversight X Mr. Willie Taylor DOI, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Ms. Susan Bromm EPA, Office of Federal Activities X Ms. Alaina DeGeorgio EPA, Region III X X Ms. Renee Searfoss EPA, Region III X X Mr. Jeffrey D. Lapp EPA, Region III Mr. Peter Colosi NMFS, Protected Resources Division X X Ms. Julie Crocker NMFS, Protected Resources Division X X Mr. John Nichols NMFS, Habitat Conservation Division X X X Mr. David O’Brien NMFS, Habitat Conservation Division X X Ms Trish Kicklighter NPS, Assateague Island National Seashore X X Ms. Courtney Schupp NPS, Assateague Island National Seashore X X Mr. Doug Crawford NOAA, Command and Data Acquisition Station X X Mr. Robert Cole USACE, Norfolk District X X X Dr. David King USACE, ERDC Vicksburg X X X Mr. Nicholas Konchuba USACE, Norfolk District X X Mr. George Mears USACE, Norfolk District X X Mr. Christopher Spaur USACE, Baltimore District 
Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 

390 

Name Organization 

Sent a 

Scoping 

Letter 

Expressed 

Interest / 

Commented 

During 

Scoping 

Sent a 

Copy of 

Draft 

PEIS 

E

C

Mr. John Walters USCG, Waterways Management Section X X LT Mark Merriman USCG, Chincoteague Group X X Mr. Gary LeCain USGS, Environmental Affairs Program Dr. Marilyn Ailes U.S. Navy, SCSC X X X Mr. Rich Bitting U.S. Navy, SCSC X X CAPT James Boorujy U.S. Navy, Fleet Forces Command X X CDR John Keegan U.S. Navy, SCSC X X Ms. Joelle Buffa USFWS, CNWR X X Ms. Amanda Daisey USFWS, CNWR X X Mr. Louis Hinds, III USFWS, CNWR X X X Mr. Tony Leger USFWS, Northeast Regional Office X X Mr. Tylan Dean USFWS, Virginia Field Office X X Mr. Mike Drummond USFWS, Virginia Field Office X X Ms. Cindy Schulz USFWS, Virginia Field Office X X State Agencies Ms. Catherine Harold Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department X X Mr. Richard Baldwin MARS X X Mr. Keith Tignor VDACS Ms. Kristal McKelvey VDCR, Central Office X Ms. Rene Hypes VDCR, Central Office X Mr. Tom Smith VDCR, Central Office X Ms. Roberta Rhur VDCR, Central Office X Ms. Dorothy Field VDCR, Eastern Office X Mr. David Sacks VDCR, Planning and Recreational Resources X Ms. Alli Baird VDCR, Coastal Zone Locality Liaison 
Agencies, Organizations, and 

Name Organization 

Sent a 

Scoping 

Letter 

Expressed 

Interest / 

Commented 

During 

Scoping 

Sent a 

Copy of 

Draft 

PEIS 

E

C

Mr. Frank Daniel VDEQ, Tidewater Regional Office X X Ms. Cindy Keltner VDEQ, Tidewater Regional Office X Ms. Ellie Irons VDEQ, Office of Environmental Impact Review X X X Ms. Laura McKay VDEQ, Coastal Zone Program X X Mr. Paul Herman VDEQ, Federal Facilities Restoration Program X Mr. Kotur Narasimhan VDEQ, Division of Air Program Coordination X Ms. Cindy Keltner VDEQ Mr. Paul Kohler VDEQ, Waste Division Ms. Ruth Boettcher VDGIF, Wildlife Diversity Division X X X Ms. Amy Ewing VDGIF, Wildlife Diversity Division X Mr. David Whitehurst VDGIF, Wildlife Diversity Division X Mr. Raymond Fernald VDGIF, Nongame and Environmental Programs X X Ms. Diedre Forsgren VDH, Office of Drinking Water X Ms. Ethel Eaton VDHR, Office of Review and Compliance X X Mr. Ronald Grayson VDHR, Office of Review and Compliance X X Mr. Matt Heller VDMME X Ms. Karen Duhring VIMS, Center for Coastal Resources Management X X Ms. Pamela Mason VIMS, Center for Coastal Resources Management X Dr. Mark Luckenbach VIMS, Eastern Shore Laboratory X X Mr. Rob O’Reilly VMRC, Fisheries Management Division X Mr. George Badger, III VMRC, Habitat Division X X Mr. Robert Grabb VMRC, Habitat Division X X 
Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 

392 

Name Organization 

Sent a 

Scoping 

Letter 

Expressed 

Interest / 

Commented 

During 

Scoping 

Sent a 

Copy of 

Draft 

PEIS 

E

C

Mr. Mike Meier VMRC, Habitat Division X Mr. Tony Watkinson VMRC, Habitat Division X X Local Government Mr. Steven Miner Accomack County Administration X X Mr. Grayson Chesser Accomack County Board of Supervisors X X X Mr. Jack Gray Accomack County Board of Supervisors X X Ms. Laura Belle Gordy Accomack County Board of Supervisors X X Ms. Sandra Hart Mears Accomack County Board of Supervisors X X Mr. Donald Hart, Jr. Accomack County Board of Supervisors X X Mr. Stephen Mallette Accomack County Board of Supervisors X X Mr. E. Philip McCaleb Accomack County Board of Supervisors X X Ms. Wanda Thornton Accomack County Board of Supervisors X X Mr. Ronald Wolff Accomack County Board of Supervisors X X Mr. David Fluhart Accomack County Building and Zoning X X Ms. Elaine Meil Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission X Mr. Larry Trala Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission X Ms. Katherine Nunez Northampton County Administration X X Mayor Michael McDermott Pocomoke City, Maryland X X Mr. James Ring Somerset County Board of Supervisors X X Mr. Robert Ritter Town of Chincoteague, Virginia X X Mayor John Tarr Town of Chincoteague, Virginia X X Mayor William Sessoms, Jr. City of Virginia Beach X Mayor Molly Joseph Ward City of Hampton X 
Agencies, Organizations, and 

Name Organization 

Sent a 

Scoping 

Letter 

Expressed 

Interest / 

Commented 

During 

Scoping 

Sent a 

Copy of 

Draft 

PEIS 

E

C

Mr. Richard Pollit Wicomico County Administration X X Ms. Louise Gulyas Worcester County Board of Supervisors X X Other Organizations & Individuals Dr. Arthur Schwartzchild Anheuser Busch Coastal Research Center X X X Ms. Kathy Phillips Assateague Coastal Trust X X Mr. Nick Olmstead BaySys Technologies, Inc. X X Mr. Paul Mentz BMT SYNTEK Technologies, Inc. X X Mr. Mike Handforth Chincoteague Charter Boat Association X X Ms. Suzanne Taylor Chincoteague, Virginia Chamber of Commerce X X Mr. Denard Spady Citizens for a Better Eastern Shore X X Mr. Jim Rapp Delmarva Low Impact Tourism Experiences X X Mr. Jeff Davis Eastern Shore Chamber of Commerce X X Mr. Steven Habeger Eastern Shore Defense Alliance X X Ms. Donna Bozza Eastern Shore of Virginia Tourism Commission X X Mr. Billy Moore Gerald M. Moore and Son, Inc. X X Mr. Frank Roberts Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance X X Mr. Jack Miles JH Miles and Company, Inc. X Ms. Amber Parker Marine Science Consortium X X Mr. Dave Wilson, Jr. Maryland Coastal Bays Program X X Dr. Paul Friesema Northwestern University X Dr. Michael Fenster Randolph-Macon College X X Mr. Duane Gladding Self X Mr. Steven Habeger Self X X 
Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 

394 

Name Organization 

Sent a 

Scoping 

Letter 

Expressed 

Interest / 

Commented 

During 

Scoping 

Sent a 

Copy of 

Draft 

PEIS 

E

C

Ms. Cindy Kane Self X Mr. Jack Kennedy, Jr. Self X X Mr. Vince Mascitti Self X X Mr. Fred McKee Self X X Mr. Robert Meyers Self X Mr. Jim Rapp Self X X Mr. Calvert Seybolt Self X X Mr. Stephen Shuhayda Self X Mr. Denard Spady Self X X Mr. Marcus Thomas Self X Mr. Danhof Vandyke Self X Ms. Carole Voss Self X X Mr. Ronald Walsh Self X Mr. Jeff Watson Self X X Mr. Lawrence Whitlock Self X X Mr. Don Williams Self X X Ms. Jacqueline Thomas Self X Mr. Joseph Robbins Self X Ms. Gwynn Crichton The Nature Conservancy X Mr. Joseph Fehrer The Nature Conservancy Mr. Bill Kittrell The Nature Conservancy X Mr. David Phemister The Nature Conservancy X Mr. Michael Lipford The Nature Conservancy, Virginia State Office X X Mr. Stephen Parker The Nature Conservancy, Virginia Coast Reserve X X X 
Agencies, Organizations, and 

Name Organization 

Sent a 

Scoping 

Letter 

Expressed 

Interest / 

Commented 

During 

Scoping 

Sent a 

Copy of 

Draft 

PEIS 

E

C

Mr. Barry Truitt The Nature Conservancy, Virginia Coast Reserve X X Mr. Randy Fox Trails End Campground X X Dr. Karen J. McGlathery Virginia Coast Reserve Long-Term Ecological Research Project X X Mr. David Burden Virginia Eastern ShoreKeeper X X Federal & State Elected Officials Honorable Mr. Glenn Nye U.S. House of Representatives X X Honorable Mr. Benjamin Cardin U.S. Senate X Honorable Ms. Barbara Mikulski U.S. Senate X X Honorable Mr. Mark Warner U.S. Senate X X Honorable Mr. James Webb U.S. Senate X X Honorable Mr. Lynwood Lewis, Jr. Virginia House of Delegates X X Honorable Mr. Ralph Northam Virginia Senate X X 
Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 

396 

This page intentionally left blank. 
References 

 397 

CHAPTER EIGHT: REFERENCES 

Able, K.W. & M.O. Fahey. 1998. The First Year 

in the Life of Estuarine Fishes in the 

Middle Atlantic Bight. Rutgers 

University press, New Brunswick, NJ. 

324 pp. 

Accomack County. 2001. Code of Regulations, 

County of Accomack, VA, Article II: 

Noise, Sec. 38-32 through 35. 

http://www.municode.com/resources/gat

eway.asp?pid=13191&sid=46. Site 

accessed March 9, 2009. 

Accomack County. 2008. Accomack County 

Comprehensive Plan. Adopted May 14, 

2008. 

http://www.esva.net/~accomack/Plannin

g/2008_comprehensive_plan_update.ht

ml. Site accessed January 9, 2010. 

Adams, C.E., T.J. Berger, W.C. Boicourt, J.H. 

Churchill, M.D. Earle, P. Hamilton, 

F.M. Vukovich, R.J. Wayland, and D.R. 

Watts. 1993. A Review of the Physical 

Oceanography of the Cape Hatteras, 

North Carolina Region. Volume I: 

Literature Synthesis. OCS Study MMS 

93/0031. Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation, and 

Enforcement, Atlantic Outer Continental 

Shelf Region. 152 p. 

Alexander, R.R., R.J. Stanton, and J.R Dodd. 

1993. Influence of sediment grain size 

on the burrowing bivalves. Palaios 8: 

289 – 303. 

Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, Inc. 2008. Final 

Report, Vibracore Sampling, Wallops 

Flight Facility. Prepared for Norfolk 

USACE. Submitted by Alpine Ocean 

Seismic Survey, Inc., 70 Oak Street, 

Norwood, NJ 07648. January 17. 

Baird, R. W. 2001. Status of harbor seals, 

Phoca vitulina, in Canada. Canadian 

Journal of Field-Naturalist. 115: 663-

675 

Barlow, P.M., 2003, Ground water in 

freshwater- saltwater environments of 

the Atlantic coast: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1262 

Barco, S. G., W. A. McLellan, J. M. Allen, R. 

A. Asmutis-Silvia, R. Mallon-Day, E. 

M. Meagher, D. A. Pabst, J. Robbins, 

R. E. Seton, W. M. Swingle, M. T. 

Weinrich and P. J. Clapham. 2002. 

Population identity of humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in 

the waters of the U.S. mid-Atlantic 

states. Journal of Cetacean Research 

and Management. 4(2): 135-141. 

Barr, J. F., C. Eberl, and J. W. McIntyre. 2000. 

Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata). In 

The Birds of North America, No. 513 

(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds 

of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, 

PA 

Basco, D. 2006. Shore protection projects. 

Coastal Engineering Manual, Part V: 

Coastal Project Planning and Design, 

Chapter V-3, Engineer Manual 1110-

2-1100. Washington, DC: U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. 

Benfield, M.C. and T.J. Minello. 1996. 

Relative effects of turbidity and light 

intensity on reactive distance and 

feeding of an estuarine fish. Environ. 

Biol. Fishes 46:211-216. 

Bergstrom, P. W. 1991. Incubation 

temperatures of Wilson’s plovers and 

killdeers. Condor 91 : 634-641. 

Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, 

Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. 
References 

398 

Hanawa, Le Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. 

Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley and A. 

Unnikrishnan, 2007, Observations; 

oceanic climate change and sea level, in 

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. 

Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. 

Tignor and H.L. Miller, eds., Climate 

Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis, Contribution of Working Group I 

to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate, 

Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 

York, N.Y., USA. 

Boettcher, R., T. Penn, R. Cross and K. 

Terwilliger. 2007. An overview of the status and 

distribution of Piping Plovers 

(Charadrius melodus) in Virginia. 

Waterbirds 30 (Special 

Publication 1):138‐151. 

Bordage, D., and J. L. Savard. 1995. Black 

Scoter (Melanitta nigra). In The Birds of 

North America, No. 177 (A. Poole and 

F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Philadelphia, and The 

American Ornithologistsâ€TM Union, 

Washington, D.C. 

Boulva, J. and I. A. McLaren 1979. Biology of 

the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, in 

eastern Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries 

Research 200: 1-24. 

Bowman, M.L. and R. Dolan. 1985. The 

relationship of Emerita talpoida to 

beach characteristics. Journal of Coastal 

Research, 1(2): 151 – 163. 

Brooks, D. A. 1996. Physical Oceanography of 

the Shelf and Slope Seas from Cape 

Hatteras to Georges Bank: A Brief 

Overview. p. 47-74 In K. Sherman, N.A. 

Jaworski, T.J. Smayda (eds.), The 

Northeast Shelf Ecosystem: Assessment, 

Sustainability, and Management. 

Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA. 

564 pp. 

Bryant, Preston L., Jr. The Honorable. 2008. 

Governor’s Commission on Climate 

Change, Final Report: A Climate 

Change Action Plan. December. 

Bruun, P. 1962. Sea level rise as cause of shore 

erosion. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. Proc., J. 

Waterways Harbors Div., 88: 117-130. 

Buckley, P. A., and F. G. Buckley. 2002. 

Royal Tern (Sterna maxima). In The 

Birds of North America, No. 700 (A. 

Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of 

North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Buehler, D. A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Halieaeetus 

leucocephalus). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 564 (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Burger, J. 1987. Physical and social 

determinations of nest-site selection in 

piping plover in New Jersey. The 

Condor 89:811-818. 

Burger, J. 1991. Foraging behavior and the 

effect of human disturbance on the 

piping plovers (Charadrius 

melodus). Journal of Coastal 

Research 7:39-52. 

Burlas, M., G. L Ray, & D. Clarke. 2001. The 

New York District’s Biological 

Monitoring Program for the Atlantic 

Coast of New Jersey, Asbury Park to 

Manasquan Section Beach Erosion 

Control Project. Final Report. U.S. 

Army Engineer District, New York and 

U.S. Army Engineer Research and 

Development Center, Waterways 

Experiment Station. 
References 

 399 

Bustard, R. 1972. Sea Turtles. Natural History 

and Conservation. Collins LondonSydney 220 pp. 

Butman, C.A. 1987. Larval settlement of softsediment invertebrates: The spatial 

scales explained by active habitat 

selection and the emerging role of 

hydrodynamical processes. Oceanogr. 

Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 25: 113 – 165. 

Byles, R.A., and C.K. Dodd. 1989. Satellite 

biotelemetry of loggerhead sea turtles 

Caretta caretta from the east coast of 

Fla. Proceeding of the 9th Annual 

Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation 

and Biology. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Tech Mem 

NMFS-SEFC-232. 

Byrnes, M.R., 1988. Holocene Geology and 

Migration of a Low-Profile Barrier 

Island System, Metompkin Island, 

Virginia. PhD Dissertation, 

Oceanography Department, Old 

Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, 419 

pp. 

Byrnes, M.R., R. M. Hammer, T.D. Thibaut, and 

D.B Synder. 2004. Effects of sand 

mining on physical processes and 

biological communities offshore New 

Jersey, U.S.A. J. Coastal Res., 20(1): 

25 – 43. 

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, B.A. Vittor, S.W. 

Kelley, D.B. Snyder, J.M. Cote, J.S. 

Ramsey, T.D. Thibaut, N.W. Phillips, 

and J.D. Wood. 2003. Collection of 

Environmental Data Within Sand 

Resource Areas Offshore North Carolina 

and the Implications of Sand Removal 

for Coastal and Beach Restoration. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, 

and Enforcement, Leasing Division, 

Sand and Gravel Unit, Herndon, VA. 

OCS Report MMS 2000-056, Volume 

I and Volume II. 

Carr, A.F. 1986. Rips, FADS and little 

loggerheads. Bioscience,36, 92-100. 

CETAP (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment 

Program). 1982. Characterization of 

marine mammals and turtles in the 

Mid- and North Atlantic areas of the 

U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Contract 

AA551-CT8-48 Prepared for U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, D.C. by Cetacean and 

Turtle Assessment Program, 

University of Rhode Island, Graduate 

School of Oceanography, Kingston, 

Rhode Island. 

Churchill, J.H. 1989. The effect of 

commercial trawling on sediment 

resuspension and transport over the 

Middle Atlantic Bight continental 

shelf. Continental Shelf Research, 9: 

841 – 864. Clapham, P.J. and J.G. 

Mead. 1999. Megaptera novaeangliae. 

Mammalian Species 604:1-9. 

Clarke D., C. Dickerson, and K. Reine. 2002. 

Characterization of Underwater 

Sounds Produced by Dredges. 

American Society of Conference 

Proceedings. 119, 64, 

DOI:10.1061/40680(2003)64 

Commonwealth of Virginia. 1975. 

Groundwater Conditions in the Eastern 

Shore of Virginia, Planning Bulletin 

45, State Water Control Board, 

December 1. 

Conkwright, R.D. and R.A.G. Gast. 1994a. 

Potential Offshore Sand Resources in 

Northern Maryland Shoal Fields. 

Coastal and Estuary Geology File 

Report No. 94-8. Maryland Geological 

Survey. September 1994. 48 pp. 
References 

400 

Conkwright, R.D. and R.A.G. Gast. 1994b. 

Potential Offshore Sand Resources in 

Central Maryland Shoal Fields. Coastal 

and Estuary Geology File Report No. 

94-9. Maryland Geological Survey. 

September 1994. 49 pp. 

Conkwright, R.D. and R.A.G. Gast. 1995. 

Potential Offshore Sand Resources in 

Southern Maryland Shoal Fields. 

Coastal and Estuary Geology File 

Report No. 95-4. Maryland Geological 

Survey. October 1995. 43 pp. 

Conkwright, R.D, and C.P. Williams. 1996. 

Potential Offshore Sand Resources in 

Central Maryland Shoal Fields. Coastal 

and Estuary Geology File Report No. 

96-3. Maryland Geological Survey. 

October 1996. 58 pp. 

Corkeron, P.J. and R.C. Connor. 1999. Why do 

baleen whales migrate? Marine 

Mammal Science. 15(4):1228-1245. 

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. 

LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands 

and deepwater habitats of the United 

States. U. S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, 

D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center Home 

Page.http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resour

ce/1998/classwet/classwet.htm (Version 

04DEC98). 

Crain, D. A., A. B. Bolten, and K. A. Bjorndal. 

1995. Effects of beach nourishment on 

sea turtles: review and research 

initiatives. Restoration Ecology 3(2): 

95-104. 

CSA International, Inc., Applied Coastal 

Research and Engineering, Inc., Barry 

A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., C.F. Bean, 

L.L.C., and Florida Institute of 

Technology. 2009. Analysis of Potential 

Biological and Physical Impacts of 

Dredging on Offshore Ridge and Shoal 

Features. Prepared by CSA 

International, Inc. in cooperation with 

Applied Coastal Research and 

Engineering, Inc., Barry A. Vittor & 

Associates, Inc., C.F. Bean, L.L.C., 

and the Florida Institute of Technology 

for the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, 

Leasing Division, Marine Minerals

Branch, Herndon, VA. OCS Study 

MMS 2010-010. 160 pp. + apps. 

Cuthbert, F. J., and L. R. Wires. 1999. Caspian 

Tern (Sterna caspia). In The Birds of 

North America, No. 403 (A. Poole and 

F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Cutter, G.R., Jr. and R.J. Diaz. 2000. Benthic 

Resource Mapping and Resource 

Evaluation of Potential Sand Mining 

Areas, 1998-1999. In: Environmental 

Survey of Potential Sand Resource 

Sites Offshore Delaware and Maryland 

(Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 

ed.), Part 1. Final Report to the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation, and Enforcement, 

International Activities and Marine 

Minerals Division, Herndon, VA. 

Contract No. 1435-01-97-CT-30853. 

514 pp. 

Desfosse, J. C., J. A. Musick, A. D. Estes, and 

P. Lyons. 1990. Stock identification of 

summer flounder (Paralichthys 

dentatus) in the southern mid-Atlantic 

Bight. Final Report to Virginia Marine 

Resources Commission, WB-86-01-

02. 

Davis, R., & Dolan, R. 1993. Nor’easters. 

American Scientist, 81(5), 428. 

Retrieved from Academic Search 

Premier database. 

Dean, R.G. 2002. Beach Nourishment – 

Theory and Practice. Advanced Series 
References 

 401 

on Ocean Engineering – Volume 18. 

World Scientific, New Jersey. 399pp. 

Diaz, H. 1980. The mole crab Emerita talpoida: 

A Case of Changing Life History 

Pattern. Ecological Monographs, 50, 

437-456. 

Diaz, R.J., G.R. Cutter, Jr. and C.H. Hobbs, III. 

2004. Potential impacts of sand mining 

offshore Maryland and Delaware: Part 2 

– Biological considerations. J. Coastal 

Res. 20(1): 61 – 69. 

Diaz, R.J., C.O. Tallent and J.A. Nestlerode. 

2006. Benthic Resources and Habitats 

at the Sandbridge Borrow Area: A Test 

of Monitoring Protocols. In: MMS 

OCS Study 2005-056. Field Testing of 

a Physical/Biological Monitoring 

Methodology for Offshore Dredging and 

Mining Operations. Pgs 1 – 49. 

Dibajnia, M. and R.B, Nairn. (in press). 

Investigations of Dredging Guidelines to 

Maintain and Protect the Geomorphic 

Integrity of Offshore Ridge and Shoal 

Regimes. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service. 

XXX OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 

2010-XXX. 150 pp. + appendices. 

Dolan, R., Hayden, B., Jones, C. 1979. Barrier 

Island Configuration. Science. 401-403. 

DOI: 10.1126. April. 

Dolan, R., H. Lins, and B. Hayden. 1988. MidAtlantic coastal storms. J. Coastal Res. 

4(3): 417 – 433. 

Dolan, R., Sasha Dofflemeyer, Cynthia 

Donoghue and Jodi Jones Smith. 2004. 

Analysis of Changes in the Beach 

Sediment and Beach-face Organisms 

Associated with Sand Bypassing from 

Oregon Inlet to Pea Island, North 

Carolina, 1990 to 2002. Coastal 

Research Associates, Charlottesville, 

Virginia. 

Donnelly, C., N. Kraus and M. Larson. 2006. 

State of knowledge on measurement 

and modeling of coastal overwash. 

Journal of Coastal Rzlkesearch 22(4): 

965-991. 

Eastern Shore Chamber of Commerce. 2007. 

Community Economic Development 

for the Eastern Shore: Summit Report 

- June 2007. Prepared by: Virginia 

Tech Office of Economic 

Development. 

http://www.esvachamber.org/ecoprofil

e.html. Site accessed February 3, 2009. 

Eckman, J.E. 1983. Hydrodynamic processes 

affecting benthic recruitment. Limnol. 

Oceanogr. 28: 241 – 257. 

Edwards, G.A. and L. Irving. 1943. The 

influence of temperature and season on 

the oxygenconsumption of the 

sandcrab Emerita talpoida. J. Cellular 

Comp. Physiol. 21:169-182. 

Environment Canada. 2006. Greenhouse Gas 

Sources and Sinks in Canada. National 

Inventory Report. 1990-2004. 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/GHG/invento

ry_report/2004_report/ann13_e.cfm. 

Site accessed January 13, 2010. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

1974. Information on Levels of 

Environmental Noise Requisite to 

Protect Public Health and Welfare 

with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 

Prepared by the EPA Office of Noise 

Abatement and Control. March. 

EPA. 2004. Aerial Photographic Analysis of 

NASA Wallops Flight Facility Site, 

Wallops Island, Virginia.

EPA. 2009a. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level 

Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic 

Region. U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program, Synthesis and Assessment 

Product 4.1. Lead Agency: U.S. EPA. 
References 

402 

Other Key Participating Agencies: U.S. 

Geological Survey, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. 

Contributing Agencies: Department of 

Transportation. CCSP 4.1 January 15. 

Final Report. 

EPA. 2009b. Technology Transfer Network 

Clearinghouse for Inventories & 

Emissions Factors: Emissions Factors 

and AP-42. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/. Site 

accessed January 13, 2010. 

http://www.epa.gov/ispd/sectorinfo/sect

orprofiles/ports/ports-emission-invapril09.pdf 

EPA. 2009c. Current Methodologies in 

Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related 

Emission Inventories. Final Report. 

April. 

EPA. 2010. Air and Radiation Web site. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. 

Site accessed August 24, 2010. 

Erwin, R.M., G.M. Sanders, D.J. Prosser, and 

D.R. Cahoon. 2006. High tides and 

rising seas: potential effects on estuarine 

waterbirds. In: Terrestrial Vertebrates in 

Tidal Marshes: Evolution, Ecology, and 

Conservation [Greenberg, R. (ed.)]. 

Studies in avian biology no. 32. Cooper 

Ornithological Society, Camarillo, CA, 

pp. 214-228. 

Fauchald, K. and P.A. Jumars. 1979. The diet of 

worms: a study of polychaete feeding 

guilds. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 

17: 193 – 284. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA). 1991. Projected Impact of 

Relative Sea Level Rise on the National 

Flood Insurance Program. 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/eff

ects/downloads/flood_insurance.pdf. 

October. 

Fenster, M.S., R. Dolan, and R.A. Morton. 

2001. Coastal storms and shoreline 

change: signal or noise? Journal of 

Coastal Research, 12(1): 294 – 310. 

Fenster, M.S., Dolan, R., and Jones-Smith, J., 

2008. What grain size distributions 

reveal about sediment sources and 

sinks for the Virginia barrier islands. 

Geological Society of America, 

Southeastern Section – 57th Annual 

Meeting. 

Field, M.E., 1979. Sand bodies on Coastal 

Plain shelves: Holocene record of the 

U.S. Atlantic inner shelf off 

Maryland. Journal of Sedimentary 

Petrology, v. 50, no. 2, 505-528. 

Finkelstein, K., 1983, Cape formation as a 

cause of erosion on adjacent 

shorelines; Proceedings Coastal Zone 

‘83, American Society of Civil 

Engineers, 620-640. 

Filadelfo, R.J. 2001. Navy vs. Commercial 

Ship Traffic- Unclassified Version, 

Memorandum. Prepared by the Center 

for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, VA. 

Flemming, S.P., R.D. Chiasson, P.C. Smith, 

P.J. Austin-Smith, and R.P. Bancroft. 

1988. Piping plover status in Nova 

Scotia related to its reproductive and 

behavioral responses to human 

disturbance. Journal of Field 

Ornithology 59(4):321-330. 

Forsell, D. 2003. Special Report on the 

distribution and abundance of 

wintering seaducks and waterbirds in 

Mid-Atlantic Coastal waters 

emphasizing the mouth of the 

Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Fish and 
References 

 403 

Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field 

Office, Annapolis, MD. 10 pp. 

Forsell, D. and C. Watson. 2006. Waterbird Use 

of Offshore Shoals and Possible 

Species-specific Impacts of How Shoals 

are Removed. In: Summary of First 

Regional Workshop on Dredging, Beach 

Nourishment, and Birds on the South 

Atlantic Coast. M. P. Guilfoyle, R. A. 

Fischer, D. N. Pashley, and C. A. Lott, 

Eds. USACE ERDC/EL TR-06-10. 

September. 

Garrison, L.P., P.E. Rosel, A.A. Hohn, R. Baird, 

and W. Hoggard. 2003. Abundance of 

the coastal morphotype of bottlenose 

dolphin Tursiops truncatus, in U.S. 

continental shelf waters between New 

Jersey and Florida during winter and 

summer 2002. NMFS/SEFSC report 

prepared and reviewed for the 

Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction 

Team. Available from: Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia 

Beach Dr., Miami, FL 33149. 

Gerstein, E. 2002. Manatees, bioacoustics and 

boats: Hearing tests, environmental 

measurements and acoustic phenomena 

may together explain why boats and 

animals collide. Feature Article. 

American Scientist. March-April 2002 

Volume 90, Number 2. pg 154. 

Gilbert, J. R. and N. Guldager 1998. Status of 

harbor and gray seal populations in 

northern New England, NMFS, 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 

Water St., Woods Hole, MA. 

NMFS/NER Cooperative Agreement 

14-16-009-1557. 

Gochfeld, M. and J. Burger. 1994. Black 

Skimmer (Rynchops niger).In The Birds 

of North America, No. 108 (A. Poole 

and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The 

Academy of Natural Sciences; 

Washington, D.C.: The American 

Ornithologists’ Union. 

Gochfeld, M., and J. Burger. 1996. Family 

Sternidae (Terns). Pp. 624-667 in del 

Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., & Sargatal, J., 

eds. Handbook of the Birds of the 

World. Vol. 3. Lynx Edicions, 

Barcelona. 

Gochfeld, M., J. Burger, and I. C. T. Nisbet. 

1998. Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii). 

In The Birds of North America, No. 

370 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The 

Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Gordon, R. B., D. C. Rhoads, and K. K. 

Turekian, 1972. The Environmental 

Consequence of Dredge Spoil 

Disposal in Central Long Island 

Sound: 1. the New Haven Spoil 

Ground and New Haven Harbor. 

Department of Geology and 

Geophysics, Yale University. 39 pp. 

Gravens, M. B., Ebersole, B.A., Walton. T.L., 

and Wise, R.A. 2006. Beach-fill 

design. Coastal Engineering Manual, 

Part V, Coastal Project Planning and 

Design, Chapter V-4, Engineer 

Manual 1110-2-1100. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/chl.aspx

?p=s&a=ARTICLES;104. 

Grippo, M.A., Cooper, S., and Massey, G.M. 

2007. Effect of beach renourishment 

projects on waterbird and shorebird 

communities. Journal of Coastal 

Research, 23(5), 1088-1096. West 

Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-

0208. 

Grosslein, M. D., and T. Azarovitz (eds.), 

1982. Ecology of the middle Atlantic 

Bight fish and shellfish Monograph 
References 

404 

15. Fish Distribution. MESA New York 

Bight Atlas. New York Sea Grant Inst., 

Albany, N.Y. 

Hain, J.H.W., M.J. Ratnaswamy, R.D. Kenney, 

and H.E. Winn. 1992. The fin whale, 

Balaenoptera physalus, in waters of the 

northeastern United States continental 

shelf. Reports of the International 

Whaling Commission 42:653-669.

Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Russell, G., 

Lea, D.W., and Siddall, M., 2007, 

Climate change and trace gases: 

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal 

Society A, v. 365, p. 1925-1954. 

Hackney, C.T., M.H. Posey, S.W. Ross, and 

A.R. Norris, eds. 1996. A Review and 

Synthesis of Data: Surf Zone Fishes and 

Invertebrates in the South Atlantic Bight 

and the Potential Impacts from Beach 

Nourishment. Prepared for U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Wilmington 

District, Wilmington, NC. 

Hall, S.J. 1994. Physical disturbance and marine 

benthic communities: life in 

unconsolidated sediments. Oceanogr. 

Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 32: 179 – 239. 

Halsey, S. D. 1979. New model of barrier island 

development. In: LEATHERMAN, S.P. 

(ed.), Barrier Islands from the Gulf of 

St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, 

Academic Press, New York. 185–210. 

Hardaway, C.S., Jr., D.A. Milligan, G.R. 

Thomas, and C.H. Hobbs, III. 1998. 

Preliminary shoreline adjustments to 

Dam Neck Beach Nourishment Project, 

southeast Virginia coast. In: 

Environmental studies relative to 

potential sand mining in the vicinity of 

the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia: 

Final Report. Virginia Institute of 

Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA. 

Harrington, B. A. 2001. Red Knot (Calidris 

canutus). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 563 (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Harris, M.S. 1992. The Geomorphology of 

Hog Island, Virginia: A Mid-Atlantic 

Coast Barrier. MS Thesis. University 

of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. 

Hatch, J. J., and D. V. Weseloh. 1999. Doublecrested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax 

auritus). In: The Birds of North 

America, No. 441 (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Hayes, M. O. 1979. Barrier island morphology 

as a function of wave and tide regime, 

in Leatherman, S. P. ed., Barrier 

islands from the Gulf of St. Lawrence 

to the Gulf of Mexico: Academic 

Press, New York, NY, pp 1-29. 

Hayes, M.O. and R.B. Nairn. 2004. Natural 

maintenance of sand ridges and linear 

shoals on the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic 

continental shelves and the potential 

impacts of dredging. Journal of 

Coastal Research, 20(1): 138 – 148. 

Herbich, J.B. (ed.). 2000. Handbook of 

Dredging Engineering. The McGrawHill Companies. 2nd Edition. 

Hirth, H.F. 1971. Synopsis of biological data 

on the Green Turtle Chelonia mydas

(Linnaeus) 1758. F.A.O. Fish Synop.,

No. 84. Hobbs, C.H. III, Krantz, D.E., 

Wikel, G.L (unknown) Coastal 

Processes and Offshore Geology. 

Submitted as a chapter for The 

Geology of Virginia, Chuck Bailey ed. 

Hitchcock, D.R., R.C. Newell, and L.J. 

Seiderer. 1999. Investigation of 

benthic and surface plumes associated 

with marine aggregate mining in the 
References 

 405 

United Kingdom, Final Report. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service. MMS OCS Study 

No. 99-0029. Contract No. 14-35-0001-

30763. 163 pp. 

Hobbs III, C.H., C.B. Landry, and J.E. Perry III. 

2008. Assessing anthropogenic and 

natural impacts on ghost crabs (Ocypode 

quadrata) at Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore, North Carolina. Journal 

Coastal Research 24(6): 1450 – 1458. 

Hoezel, A. R., C.W. Potter and P.B. Best. 1998. 

Genetic differentiation between 

parpatric ‘nearshore’ and ‘offshore’ 

populations of the bottlenose dolphin. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society of 

London 265: 1177-1183. 

Hollister, C.D. 1973. Atlantic continental shelf 

and slope of the United States - texture 

of surface sediments from New Jersey to 

southern Florida: USGS Prof. Pap. 23 p. 

Hopkins, S. R. and J. I. Richardson (eds.). 1984. 

Recovery plan for marine turtles. Natl. 

Marine Fish. Serv., Washington, D.C. 

355 p. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC). 2001. Climate change 2001; 

The scientific basis, contribution of 

Working Group I to the third assessment 

report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change: Cambridge, England, 

Cambridge University Press, 944 p. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-

wg1.htm 

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007; The physical 

science basis, Contribution of Working 

Group I to the fourth assessment report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change: Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and 

New York, N.Y., USA. 

IPCC. 2009. Climate Change Science 

Compendium. United Nations 

Environment Programme. September. 

IWC (International Whaling Commission). 

2001. Report of the Workshop on the 

Comprehensive Assessment of Right 

Whales: A worldwide comparison. 

Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management (Special Issue 2):1-60. 

Jefferson, T.A., S. Leatherwood, and M.A. 

Webber. 1993. FAO species 

identification guide. Marine mammals 

of the world. Rome, Italy: Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations. 

Jehl, J. R., Jr., J. Klima, and R. E. Harris. 

Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus 

griseus). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 564 (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Jones & Stokes. 2007. Addressing Climate 

Change in NEPA and CEQA 

Documents. Updated in August. 

www.climatechangefocusgroup.com. 

Kastler, J.A. and P.L. Wiberg. 1996. 

Sedimentation and boundary changes 

of Virginia salt marshes. Estuarine, 

Coastal, and Shelf Science, 42(6), 683-

700. 

Katona, S. K., V. Rough and D. T. Richardson 

1993. A field guide to whales, 

porpoises, and seals from Cape Cod to 

Newfoundland. Washington, DC, 

Smithsonian Institution Press. 316 pp. 

Kenney, R.D., M.A.M. Hyman, and H.E. 

Winn. 1985. Calculation of standing 

stocks and energetic requirements 

of the cetaceans of the northeast 

United States outer continental shelf. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-F/NEC-41:1-99. 

Kenney, R. D. 1990. Bottlenose dolphins off 

the northeastern United States. Pages 
References 

406 

369-386. In: S. Leatherwood and R. R. 

Reeves (editors), The bottlenose dolphin 

Academic Press, San Diego, 653 pp. 

Kennett, J.P. 1982. Marine Geology. PrenticeHall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New 

Jersey. 752 p. 

Kikukawa, A., N. Namezaki, K. Hirate, and H. 

Ota. 1998. Factors affecting nest beach 

selection by sea turtles: A multivariate 

approach. In: S. P. Epperly and J. Braun 

(compilers). Proceedings of the 17th 

annual symposium on sea turtles biology 

and conservation, 65-66. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-415. 

Kikukawa, A., N. Namezaki, K. Hirate, and H. 

Ota. 1999. Factors affecting nesting 

beach selection by loggerhead turtles 

(Caretta caretta): A multivariate 

approach. Journal of Zoology 249: 447-

454. 

Knowlton, A.R., J.B. Ring, and B. Russell. 

2002. Right whale sightings and survey 

effort in the mid Atlantic region: 

migratory corridor, time frame, and 

proximity to port entrances. Final Rep. 

to National Marine Fisheries Ship Strike 

Working Group. 25 p. Available at: 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/shipstrike/mi

datanticreportrFINAL.pdf 

Kochel, R.C., Kahn, J., Dolan, R., Hayden, B.P., 

and May, P. 1985. Mid-Atlantic barrier 

island geomorphology: Journal of 

Coastal Research, v. 1, p. 1-9. 

Komar, P.D. and Allan, J.C., 2008. Increasing 

Hurricane-Generated Wave Heights 

along the U.S. East Coast and their 

climate controls. Journal of Coastal 

Research, 24(2), 479-488. West Palm 

Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. 

Layman, C.A. 2000. Fish assemblage structure 

of the shallow ocean surf-zone on the 

eastern shore of Virginia barrier 

islands. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

Science, 51: 201 – 213. 

Leatherman, S. P. 1982. Barrier Island 

Handbook. University of Maryland, 

109 pp. 

Leatherwood, S. and R. R. Reeves 1983. The 

Sierra Club handbook of whales and 

dolphins. Sierra Club Books, San 

Francisco. 302 pp. 

Leber, K.M., 1982. Seasonality of 

macroinvertebrates on a temperate, 

high wave energy sandy beach. 

Bulletin of Marine Science 32: 86–98. 

Lutcavage, M. and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspects 

of the biology of sea turtles in 

Virginia. Copeia 1985; 440-456. 

Lutcavage, M. 1981. The status of marine 

turtles in Chesapeake Bay and Virginia 

coastal waters. Masters thesis. Virginia 

Institute of Marine Science, College of 

William and Mary at Gloucester Point, 

Virginia. 

MacWhirter, B., P. Austin-Smith, Jr., and D. 

Kroodsma. 2002. Sanderling (Calidris 

alba). In The Birds of North America, 

No. 653 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). 

The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Marine Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund 

(MALSF). 2009. A generic 

investigation into noise profiles of 

marine dredging in relation to the 

acoustic sensitivity of the marine fauna 

in UK waters with particular emphasis 

on aggregate dredging: Phase I 

Scoping and review of key issues. 

MEPF Ref No: MEPF 08/P21. 
References 

 407 

McIntyre, J. W., and J. F. Barr. 1997. Common 

Loon (Gavia immer). In The Birds of 

North America, No. 313 (A. Poole and 

F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The 

American Ornithologists’ Union, 

Washington, D.C 

McNicholl, M. K., P. E. Lowther, and J. A. Hall. 

2001. Forster’s Tern (Sterna forsteri). In

The Birds of North America, No. 595 

(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of 

North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Meylan, A. 1982. Sea turtle migration - evidence 

from tag returns. In: Bjorndal, K.A. 

(Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea 

Turtles. Washington, DC: Smithson. 

Inst. Press, pp. 91-100. 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS). 

2008. MARS Web site. 

http://www.marsspaceport.com/. Site 

accessed January 29, 2009. 

McBride, R.A. and Moslow, T.F., 1991. Origin, 

evolution, and distribution of shoreface 

sand ridges, Atlantic inner shelf, U.S.A. 

Marine Geology, 97: 57-85. 

McLachlan, A. 1990. Dissipative beaches and 

macrofaunal communities on exposed 

intertidal sands. Journal of Coastal 

Research 6: 57 - 71. 

McNicholl, M. K., P. E. Lowther, and J. A. Hall. 

2001. Forster’s Tern (Sterna forsteri). In

The Birds of North America, No. 595 

(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of 

North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Melvin, S.M., L.H. MacIvor, and C.R. Griffin. 

1992. Predator exclosures: a technique 

to reduce predation of piping plover 

nests. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20: 

143-148. 

Minerals Management Service (MMS). 1999. 

Environmental Report, Use of Federal 

Offshore Sand Resources for Beach 

and Coastal Restoration in New 

Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and 

Virginia. Prepared by The Louis 

Berger Group, Inc. November. 

MMS. 2001. Numerical Modeling Evaluation 

of the Cumulative Physical Effects of 

Offshore Sand Dredging for Beach 

Nourishment. Applied Coastal 

Research and Engineering, Inc. 

Prepared by Sean W. Kelley, John S. 

Ramsey, and Mark R. Byrnes. 

Prepared for U.S. Department of the 

Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation, and 

Enforcement, International Activities 

and Marine Minerals Division 

(INTERMAR), Herndon, VA. OCS 

Report MMS 2001-098, 95 pp. + 106 

pp. appendices. 

MMS. 2004. Review of Existing and Emerging 

Environmentally Friendly Offshore 

Dredging Technologies. OCS Report 

MMS 2004-076. Prepared by W.F. 

Baird & Associates Ltd. and Research 

Planning, Inc. 441 pp. 

MMS. 2005. Notice to Lessees (NTL) 2005-

G07, Archaeological Resource 

Surveys and Reports, and with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

and Guidelines for Archaeology and 

Historic Preservation (Federal 

Register 48, No 190, 1983). 

Moffatt & Nichol, 1986. Wallops Island Shore 

Protection Study. NASA/Goddard 

Space Flight Facility, Wallops Island, 

Virginia. 72 pp. 

Moffatt & Nichol. 1987. Shore Protection 

Alternatives, Goddard Space Flight 

Center, Wallops Island Virginia. Phase 
References 

408 

A Report. Final Submittal. Prepared by 

Moffatt and Nichol, Engineers, 3717 

National Drive, Suite 107, Raleigh, 

North Carolina 27612. 

Moffatt & Nichol. 1989. Study of Wallops 

Island Seawall Repair Alternatives 

Phase B. Final Submittal. Presented to 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Goddard Space Flight 

Center, Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops 

Island, Virginia. May 3. 

Moffatt & Nichol. 1992. Wallops Island 

Shoreline Evolution Modeling Study. 

Prepared for NASA/Goddard Space 

Flight Center, Wallops Flight Facility, 

Wallops Island, Virginia. Prepared by 

Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, 3717 

National Drive, Suite 107, Raleigh, 

North Carolina 27612. May 8. 

Moffatt & Nichol. 1998. Wallops Island Seawall 

Study, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Goddard Space Flight 

Center, Wallops Flight Facility. 

Purchase Order Number S-80448-Z. 

Prepared by Moffatt & Nichol 

Engineers, 2209 Century Drive, Suite 

500, Raleigh, North Carolina 27612. 

August 28. 

Molina, K. C., J. F. Parnell and R. M. Erwin. 

2009. Gull-billed Tern (Sterna nilotica), 

The Birds of North America Online (A. 

Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds 

of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/

140doi:10.2173/bna.140 

Moulding, J. and D. Nelson. 1988. Beach 

nourishment issues related to sea turtle 

nesting. In: W. Lyke and T. Hoban 

(compilers). Proceedings of the 

symposium of coastal water resources. 

Technical Publication Series TPS-88-1. 

American Water Resources, Bethesda, 

Maryland, pp. 87-93. 

Mowbray, T. B. 2002. Northern Gannet 

(Morus bassanus). In The Birds of 

North America, No. 693 (A. Poole and 

F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. In 

The Birds of North America 

Mullin, K. D. and G. L. Fulling. 2003. 

Abundance and distribution of 

cetaceans in the southern U.S. North 

Atlantic Ocean during summer 1998. 

Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 101:603-613. 

Musick, J. A. 1974. Seasonal distribution of 

the sibling hakes, Urophycis chuss and 

U. tenuis (Pisces, Gadidae) in New 

England. Nat. Mar. Fish. Ser. Fish. 

Bull. 72: 481-495. 

Musick, J. A., J. A. Colvocoresses, E. J. Foell. 

1986. Seasonality and distribution, 

availability and composition of fish 

assemblages in Chesapeake Bight. 

Chapter 21, In: A. Yanez y. Arancibia 

(ed.), Fish Community Ecology in 

Estuaries and Coastal Lagoons: 

Towards an Ecosystem Integration. 

Univ. Mexico Press., Mexico City. 

Nammack, M.F., J.A. Musick, and J.A. 

Colvocoresses. 1985. Life history of 

spiny dogfish off the northeastern 

United States. Transactions of the AFS 

114:367-76. 

NASA. 1996. Environmental Justice 

Implementation Plan. 

NASA. 2003a. EA for AQM-37 Operations at 

the NASA GSFC WFF, Wallops Island, 

Virginia. Prepared by EG&G 

Technical Services. 
References 

 409 

NASA. 2003b. Cultural Resources Assessment 

of Wallops Flight Facility, Accomack 

County, Virginia. Prepared by URS 

Group, Inc. and EG&G Technical 

Services. 

NASA. 2004. Historic Resources Survey and 

Eligibility Report for NASA/WFF. 

Prepared by URS Group, Inc. and 

EG&G Technical Services. 

NASA. 2005. Final Site-Wide Environmental 

Assessment, Wallops Flight Facility, 

Virginia. Prepared for NASA Goddard 

Space Flight Center. Prepared by URSEG&G. January. 

NASA. 2008a. Environmental Resources 

Document, Wallops Flight Facility. July. 

NASA. 2008b. Environmental Assessment for 

Wallops Research Park . August. 

NASA. 2009a. Final MARS Environmental 

Assessment, Wallops Flight Facility, 

Virginia. Prepared for NASA Goddard 

Space Flight Center. Prepared by URSEG&G. August. 

NASA. 2009b. Benthic Video Survey of SRIPP 

Proposed Borrow Sites Technical 

Memorandum. Prepared for WFF by 

URS Corp, Inc. November. 

NASA. 2009c. SRIPP Cultural Resources Study 

of Proposed Borrow Sites. Prepared for 

WFF by URS Corp, Inc. November. 

NASA. 2009d. Commercial and Recreational 

Fisheries Study, Shoreline Restoration 

and Infrastructure Protection Program at 

NASA Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops 

Island, VA. Prepared by URS. May. 

NASA. 2010b. NASA Climate Change: 

NASA’s Eyes on the Earth Web site. 

http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/. 

Site accessed January 7, 2010. 

NASA. 2010c. Wallops Island Protected 

Species Monitoring Plan. Prepared by 

URS, Inc. Wallops Environmental 

Office, Wallops Island, Virginia. 

April. 

NASA. 2010d. Biological Assessment, 

Wallops Flight Facility Shoreline 

Restoration and Infrastructure 

Protection Program. February. 

NASA. 2010f. Seabeach Amaranth Survey of 

Wallops Island Shoreline. Conducted 

by WFF Code 250 Envioronmental 

Office. 

Audubon Society. 2010. Important Bird Areas 

Program Web site. 

http://web4.audubon.org/bird/iba/. Site 

accessed October 18, 2010. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2003. Shoreline 

Restoration at Assateague Island 

National Seashore. Betsie Blumberg. 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/yearinrevie

w/yir2003/06_D.html. Site accessed 

November 3, 2009. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

1991. Recovery plan for the humpback 

whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Silver Spring, Maryland 105 pp. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/rec

overy/whale_humpback.pdf. 

NMFS. 2004. Endangered Species Act Section 

7 Consultation on Dredging of Gulf of 

Mexico Navigation Channels and Sand 

Mining (“Borrow”) Areas Using 

Hopper Dredges by COE Galveston, 

New Orleans, Mobile, and 

Jacksonville Districts (Consultation 

Number F/SER/2000/01287), 119 pp. 
References 

410 

NMFS. 2005. Endangered Fish and Wildlife; 

Notice of Intent to Prepare and 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

January 11. 70 FR 1871. 

NMFS. 2006a. Draft recovery plan for the fin 

whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Silver 

Spring, Maryland: National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

NMFS. 2006b. Draft recovery plan for the sperm 

whale (Physeter macrocephalus). 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Silver Spring, MD. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recov

ery/draft_spermwhale.pdf. Site accessed 

January 9, 2010. 

NMFS. 2007. Endangered Species Act Section 7 

Consultation, Biological Opinion.

Wallops Island Shoreline Restoration 

and Infrastructure Protection Program 

(F/NER/2007/03720). September 25. 

NMFS. 2009. Total Commercial Fishery 

Landings At Major U. S. Ports 

Summarized By Year And Ranked By 

Poundage. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webpls

/MF_LPORT_YEARP.RESULTS. Site 

accessed January 9, 2010. 

NMFS. 2010. Incidental Take Authorizations 

Web site. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incident

al.htm. NOAA Fisheries Office of 

Protected Resources. Accessed June 15, 

2010. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). 2004. 

Variations in Sea Level. 

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRD/GPS/Pro

jects/CB/SEALEVEL/sealevel.html#rec

ord. Accessed April 15, 2010. 

NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

(NEFSC). 2007. Ecosystem Advisory 

Web site: Spring Condition by Shelf 

Subregions. 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/omes/OME

S/fall2007/adv3.html. Site accessed 

September 24, 2009. 

NOAA/NMFS. 2008. FEIS to Implement 

Vessel Operational Measures to 

Reduce Ship Strikes to North Atlantic 

Wright Whales. 

NOAA, 2009a. Cetaceans: Whales, Dolphins, 

and Porpoises. NOAA Fisheries, 

Office of Protected Resources. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/

mammals/cetaceans/. Site accessed 

August 5, 2009. 

NOAA, 2009b. Marine Turtles NOAA 

Fisheries, Office of Protected 

Resources. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/t

urtles/. Site accessed August 17, 2009. 

NOAA. 2009c. November 11-13 Nor’easter. 

www.erh.noaa.gov. Site accessed 

December 28, 2009. 

NOAA Office of Protected Resources. 2009. 

Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum) obtained from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/f

ish/shortnosesturgeon.htm. Site 

accessed January 9, 2010. 

NOAA Coastal Services Center. 2010. Beach 

Nourishment: A Guide for Local 

Government Officials - Cross-shore 

and Longshore Transport Models for 

Large Scale Geological Processes. 

NOAA Web site. Site accessed June 

29, 2010. 

National Research Council (NRC), 1987. 

Responding to Changes in Sea Level: 

Engineering Implications. Committee 

on Engineering Implications of 

Changes in Relative Mean Sea Level, 
References 

 411 

Marine Board, National Research 

Council. ISBN: 0-309-59575-4, 160 pg. 

NRC. 1995. Environmental issues associated 

with beach nourishment. In: Beach 

nourishment and protection. National 

Academy Press, Washington, D. C., pp. 

107-126. 

NRC. 1990. Committee on Sea Turtle 

Conservation. Decline of seaturtles: 

causes and prevention. National 

Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 259 

pp. 

NRC. 2003. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. 

The National Academies Press, 

Washington, D.C. 192 pp. 

Nedwell, J.R., and B. Edwards. 2004. A review 

of measurements of underwater manmade noise carried out by Subacoustech 

Ltd, 1993 – 2003. Subacoustic Report 

Reference: 534R0109. 131 pp. 

Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1987. 

Correlation of loggerhead turtle nest 

digging times 

with beach sand consistency. Abstract of 

the 7th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle 

Conservation and Biology. 

Nelson, D. A. and D. D. Dickerson. 1988. 

Effects on beach nourishment on sea 

turtles. In: Tait, L.S. (compiler) 

Proceedings of the Fifth Annual 

National Conservation on Beach 

Preservation Technology: new 

directions in beach management, St. 

Petersburg, Florida. Florida Shore and 

Beach Preservation Assessment, 

Tallahassee, Florida. 

Nelson. D.A. 1988. Life history and 

environmental requirements of 

loggerhead turtles. US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Biological Report 88(23), 

Washington, DC. 

Nelson, D.A., K. Mauck, and J. Fletemeyer. 

1987. Physical effects of beach 

nourishment on sea turtle nesting, 

Delray Beach, Florida. Technical 

Report EL-87-15. Army Corps of 

Engineers Waterways Experiment 

Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Nelson, W.G. 1985. Physical and Biological 

Guidelines for Beach Restoration 

Projects. Part I. Biological Guidelines. 

Report No. 76. Florida Sea Grant 

College, Gainesville. 

Nelson, W.G. 1993. Beach restoration in the 

southeastern US: environmental 

effects and biological monitoring. 

Ocean Coastal Management, 19:157-

182. 

Newell, R.C., L.J. Seiderer, and D.R. 

Hitchcock, 1998. The impact of 

dredging works in coastal waters: A 

review of the sensitivity to disturbance 

and subsequent recovery of biological 

resources on the seabed. 

Oceanography and Marine Biology 

Annual Review, 36: 127-178. 

Nicholls, R.J., P.P. Wong, V.R. Burkett, J.O. 

Codignotto, J.E. Hay, R.F. McLean, S. 

Ragoonaden and C.D. Woodroffe, 

2007: Coastal systems and low-lying 

areas. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, 

Adaptation and Vulnerability. 

Contribution of Working Group II to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, 

J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and 

C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, UK, 

315-356. 

Niedoroda, A.W., D.J.P. Swift and J.A. 

Thorne. 1989. Modeling shelf storm 

beds: controls of bed thickness and 

bedding sequence. In: Shelf 
References 

412 

sedimentation, shelf sequences and 

related hydrocarbon accumulation, R.A. 

Mortin & D. Nummedal (eds.) 

GCSSEPM Foundation, Seventh Annual 

Research Conference, pp. 15 – 39. 

Nisbet, I. C. T. 2002. Common Tern (Sterna 

hirundo). The Birds of North America, 

No. 618 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The 

Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Nol, Erica and Robert C. Humphrey. 1994. 

American Oystercatcher (Haematopus 

palliatus), The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell 

Lab of Ornithology; Birds of North 

America Online. 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/

082doi:10.2173/bna.82. 

Nol, E., and M. S. Blanken. 1999. Semipalmated 

Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus). In 

The Birds of North America, No. 444 

(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of 

North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 

(NARWC) 2009. Whale Facts. 

http://www.rightwhaleweb.org/. Site 

accessed August 5, 2009. 

Olney, J. and D.M. Bilkovic. 1998. Part 3. 

Literature Survey of Reproductive 

Finfish and Ichtyoplankton Present in 

Proposed Sand Mining Locations within 

the Middle Atlantic Bight In: 

Environmental Survey of Potential Sand 

Resource Sites Offshore Delaware and 

Maryland (Virginia Institute of Marine 

Science, ed.), 2000, Final Report to the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation, and Enforcement, 

International Activities and Marine 

Minerals Division, Herndon, VA. 

Contract No. 1435-01-97-CT-30853. 

514 pp. 

Oertel, G.F. and Kraft, J.C., 1994. New Jersey 

and Delmarva barrier islands. In: R.A. 

Davis, Jr. (Editor), Geology of 

Holocene barrier island systems. 

Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Federal 

Republic of Germany, pp. 207-232. 

Oreskes, Naomi. 2004. Beyond The Ivory 

Tower: The Scientific Consensus on 

Climate Change. Science 306 (5702), 

1686. [DOI: 

10.1126/science.1103618]. December. 

Palka, D., A. Read and C. Potter 1997. 

Summary of knowledge of white-sided 

dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) 

from U.S. and Canadian Atlantic 

waters. Report of the International 

Whaling Commission 47: 729-734. 

Palmer, M.A. 1988. Dispersal of marine 

meiofauna: a review and conceptual 

model explaining passive transport and 

active emergence with implications for 

recruitment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 48: 

81 – 91. 

Parnell, J. F., R. M. Erwin, and K. C. Molina. 

1995. Gull-billed Tern (Sterna 

nilotica). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 140 (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Philadelphia and The 

American Ornithologists Union, 

Washington, D.C. 

Payne, P. M. and L. A. Selzer 1989. The 

distribution, abundance and selected 

prey of the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina 

concolor, in southern New England. 

Marine Mammal Science 5(2): 173-

192. 
References 

 413 

Payne, P.M., L.A. Selzer, and A.R. Knowlton. 

1984. Distribution and density of 

cetaceans, marine turtles, and seabirds in 

the shelf waters of the northeastern 

United States, June 1980-December 

1983, based on shipboard observations. 

NOAA/NMFS Contract No. NA-81-FAC-00023. 245 pp. 

Pekala, J.M., 1996, Stratigraphy and geologic 

history of Anna Maria Island, Manatee 

County, Florida, unpublished M.S. 

Thesis: Department of Geology, 

University of South Florida, 144 p. 

Perry, S.L., D.P. DeMaster, and G.K. Silber. 

1999. The great whales: History and 

status of six species listed as endangered 

under the U.S. Endangered Species Act 

of 1973. Marine Fisheries Review 

61(1):1-74. 

Peterson, C.H., D.H.M. Hickerson, and G.G. 

Johnson. 2000. Short-term consequences 

of nourishment and bulldozing on the 

dominant large invertebrates of a sandy 

beach. J. Coastal Res. 16(2): 368 – 

378. 

Peterson, C.H., M.J. Bishop, G.A. Johnson, 

L.M. D’Anna, and L.M. Manning. 2006. 

Exploiting beach filling as an 

unaffordable experiment: benthic 

intertidal impacts propagating upwards 

to shorebirds. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 

338(2006): 205 – 221. 

Phoel, W. C. 1985. Community structure of 

demersal fishes on the inshore U.S. 

Atlantic continental shelf: Cape Anna, 

Massachusetts to Cape Fear, North 

Carolina. Ph.D. dissertation presented to 

the School of Marine Science, Virginia 

Institute of Marine Science, College of 

William & Mary, 95 pp. 

Posey, M, W Lindberg, T. Alphin and F. Vose. 

1996. Influence of storm disturbance 

on an offshore benthic community. 

Bulletin of Marine Science 59: 523-

529. 

Posey, M.H. and T.D. Alphin. 2002. Resilience 

and stability in an offshore benthic 

community: responses to sediment 

borrow activities and hurricane 

disturbance. J. Coastal Res., 18(4): 685 

– 697. 

Rahmstorf, S., 2007, A semi-empirical 

approach to projecting future sea-level 

rise: Science, v. 315, p. 368-370. 

Rahmstorf, S., Cazenave, A., Church, J.A., 

Hansen, J.E., Keeling, R. F., Parker, 

D.E., and Somerville, R.C.J., 2007, 

Recent climate observations compared 

to projections: Science Express, 

10.1126/science.1136843. 

Reeves, R. R., P. J. Clapham, R. L. Brownell, 

Jr. and G. K. Silber. 1998. Recovery 

Plan for the blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus). Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 39 

pp. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/rec

overy/whale_blue.pdf 

Reine, K. and D. Clarke. 1998. “Entrainment 

by hydraulic dredges-A review of 

potential impacts.” Technical Note 

DOER-E1. U.S. Army Engineer 

Research and Development Center, 

Vicksburg, MS. 

Reilly, F., Jr. and F.J. Bellis. 1983. The 

ecological impact of beach 

nourishment with dredgedmaterials on 

the intertidal zone at Bogue Banks, 

North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, CERC Misc. Rep. 83-3, 1-

74. 
References 

414 

Responsive Management. 2000. Boating and 

Boaters Survey Web site. 

http://www.responsivemanagement.com

/boating.php 

Rhoads, D.C. 1974. Organism-sediment 

relations on the muddy sea floor. 

Oceanography and Marine Biology 

Annual Rev. 12:263-300. 

Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine mammals of the 

world: Systematics and distribution. 

Lawrence, Kansas: Society for Marine 

Mammalogy. 

Richardson, D. T. 1976. Assessment of harbor 

and gray seal populations in Maine 

1974-1975. Final report to Marine 

Mammal Commission. Contract No. 

MM4AC009 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, 

and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine 

Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, 

Inc., San Diego, CA. 

Richardson, T.M. and McBride, R.A. 2007. 

Historical Shoreline Changes and 

Morphodynamics of Parramore Island, 

Virginia (1852-2006). Proceedings, 

Coastal Sediments ‘07, American 

Society of Civil Engineers, New 

Orleans, Louisiana. 

Rooth, J.E., Stevenson, J.C., Cornwell, J.C., 

2003. Increased sediment accretion rates 

following invasion by Phragmites 

australis: the role of litter. Estuaries 26, 

475–483. 

Rumbold, D. G., P. W. Davis, and C. Perretta. 

2001. Estimating the effect of beach 

nourishment on Caretta caretta 

(loggerhead sea turtle) nesting. 

Restoration Ecology 9(3): 304-310. 

Ryder, C. E. 1993. The effect of beach 

renourishment on sea turtle nesting and 

hatching success at Sebastian Inlet State 

Recreation Area East-Central, Florida. 

M. S. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute and State University, 

Blacksburg, Virginia, pp. 103. 

Scharle, B. 2009. Personal communication 

regarding USDA Wildlife Service 

Piping Plover Surveys on Wallops 

Island. July 23. Cited in NASA (2009) 

Final Biological Assessment for 

Proposed and Ongoing Orbital Launch 

Operations at Wallops Flight Facility. 

August. 

Schwartz, M. 2005. Encyclopedia of Coastal 

Science (Encyclopedia of Earth 

Sciences Series). M. Schwartz Editor. 

Springer Netherlands. pp. 352. 

Schneider, D. C. and P. M. Payne 1983. 

Factors affecting haul-out of harbor 

seals at a site in southeastern 

Massachusetts. Journal of Mammalogy 

64(3): 518-520. 

Shepard, F. P. and Wanless, H.R. 1971. Our 

Changing Coastlines. McGraw-Hill, 

N.Y., 579 pps. 

Sherman, K., M. Grosslein, D. Mountain, D. 

Busch, J. O’Reilly, and R. Theroux. 

1996. The Northeast shelf ecosystem: 

an initial perspective. pp. 103 – 126 in: 

K. Sherman, N.A. Jaworski, and T.J. 

Smayda, (eds.). The Northeast Shelf 

Ecosystem: Assessment, 

Sustainability, and Management. 

Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA. 

Shields, M. 2002. Brown Pelican (Pelecanus 

occidentalis). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 609 (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Swason 

distributions and abundance of 

loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles 

in waters of the northeastern United 

States. Herp. Mongraphs 6:43-67. 

Shortal, J. A. 1978. A new dimension: Wallops 

Island flight test range—the first 
References 

 415 

fifteen years NASA Reference 

Publication 1028.

Slacum, Jr., H.W., W.H. Burton, E.T. Methratta, 

E.D. Weber, R.J. Lanso, & J. DewBaxter. (in press). Assemblage 

Structure in Shoal and Flat-bottom 

Habitats on the Inner Continental Shelf 

of the Middle Atlantic Bight, U.S.A. 

Marine and Coastal Fisheries: 

Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem 

Science. 

Slacum, H.W. Jr., W.H. Burton, J.H. Vølstad, J. 

Dew, E. Weber, R. Llansó, and D. 

Wong. 2006. Comparisons Between 

Marine Communities Residing on Sand 

Shoals and Uniform-bottom Substrate in 

the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Final Report to 

the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation, and Enforcement, 

International Activities and Marine 

Minerals Division, Herndon, VA. OCS 

Report MMS 2005-042, 149 pp. + app. 

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. 

Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, Jr., 

D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. 

Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. 

Thomas, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Marine 

mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial 

scientific recommendations. Aquatic 

Mammals, Special Issue 33. 

Steinitz, M. J., M. Salmon, and J. Wyneken. 

1998. Beach renourishment and 

loggerhead turtle reproduction: a seven 

year study at Jupiter Island, Florida. 

Journal of Coastal Research 14(3): 

1000-1013. 

Stern, S.J. 2002. Migration and movement 

patterns. Pages 742-748 in Perrin, W.F., 

B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. 

Encyclopedia of marine mammals. San 

Diego, California: Academic Press. 

Stevick, P.T., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, N. 

Friday, S.K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. 

Lien, D.K. Mattila, P.J. Palsbøll, J. 

Sigurjónsson, T.D. Smith, N. Øien, 

and P.S. Hammond. 2003. North 

Atlantic humpback whale abundance 

and rate of increase four decades after 

protection from whaling. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 258: 263 - 

273. 

Strange, E.M. 2008d. The Atlantic side of the 

Virginia eastern shore. Section 3.9 in: 

Background Documents Supporting 

Climate Change Science Program 

Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1: 

Coastal Elevations and Sensitivity to 

Sea Level Rise [Titus, J.G. and E.M. 

Strange (eds.)]. EPA 430R07004. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, pp. 258-261. 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/c

oastal/background.html 

Swift, D.J.P. and M.E. Field. 1981. Evolution 

of a classic sand ridge field: Maryland 

sector, North American inner shelf. 

Sedimentology 28: 461 – 482. 

Tedesco, Kathy, Richard A. Feely, Christopher 

L. Sabine and Catherine E. Cosca. 

2005. Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2

on Ocean Chemistry and Biology. 

National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration Research. 

Archive of Spotlight Feature Articles. 

October 3. 

http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/

spot_gcc.html. Site accessed August 

22, 2010. 

The Local Fisherman. 2009. Fishing 

Chincoteague Inlet. 

http://www.thelocalfisherman.com/fis

hing-chincoteague-inlet/. Site accessed 

12/28/2009. 
References 

416 

The Nature Conservancy. 1995. USGS-NPS 

Vegetation Mapping Program. 

Vegetation Classification of Assateague 

Island National Seashore. November 14. 

Theroux, R.B. and R.L. Wigley. 1998. 

Quantitative composition and 

distribution of the macrobenthic 

invertebrate fauna of the continental 

shelf ecosystems of the northeastern 

United States. NOAA Technical Report 

NMFS 140. 

Thompson, B. C., J. A. Jackson, J. Burger, L. A. 

Hill, E. M. Kirsch, and J. L. Atwood. 

1997. Least Tern (Sterna antillarum). In

The Birds of North America, No. 290 

(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The 

Academy of Natural Sciences, 

Philadelphia, PA, and The American 

OrnithologistsTM Union, Washington, 

D.C. 

Torres, L. G., P. E. Rosel, C. D’Agrosa and A. J. 

Read. 2003. Improving management of 

overlapping bottlenose dolphin ecotypes 

through spatial analysis and genetics. 

Marine Mammal Science 19:502-514. 

Town of Chincoteague. 2009. Town of 

Chincoteague Comprehensive Plan. 

April. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1992. 

Final Feasibility Report and 

Environmental Assessment Sandbridge, 

Virginia Beach, Virginia. USACE, 

Norfolk District. 

USACE. 1994. Beach Erosion Control and 

Hurricane Protection Study, Virginia 

Beach, Virginia - General Reevaluation 

Report, Main Report, Environmental 

Assessment, and Appendices. Norfolk 

District. 

USACE. 1998. Ocean City, Maryland and 

vicinity water resources study. Final 

feasibility and environmental impact 

statement with appendices. USACE, 

Baltimore District, Baltimore, MD. xx 

pp. 

USACE. 2002. Coastal Engineering Manual. 

Engineer Manual 1110-2-1100, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, 

Washington, D.C. (in 6 volumes). 

http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng

-manuals/. 

USACE. 2004. Regional Sediment 

Management (RSM) Demonstration 

Program. ERDC/RSM-TN-14, 

September 2004. Coastal Overwash 

Part 1: Overview of Processes. U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Engineer 

Research and Development Center. 

USACE. 2006. Beach Erosion Mitigation and 

Sediment Management Alternatives at 

Wallops Island, VA. Prepared by 

Andrew Morang, Greggory G. 

Williams, and Jerry W. Swean. 

September. Coastal and Hydraulics 

Laboratory ERDC/CHL TR-06-21. 

USACE. 2007. Focused Archive Search 

Report, Ordnance and Explosives 

Impact areas and Chemical Warfare 

Materials Ocean Dump Sites off 

Wallops Island, Accomack County, 

Virginia. USACE St Louis District. 

January. 

USACE. 2008. Atlantic Coast of Maryland 

Shoreline Protection Project Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement General Reevaluation 

Study: Borrow Sources for 2010-2044. 

August. 

USACE. 2009a. North End Sand Borrow Site, 

NASA Wallops Flight Facility, 
References 

 417 

Wallops Island, Virginia. Report of 

Subsurface Exploration and Laboratory 

Testing. Prepared by USACE Norfolk 

District, Geo Environmental Section, 

Fort Norfolk, 803 Front Street, Norfolk, 

VA 23510. November. 

USACE. 2009b. Environmental Assessment, 

Sandbridge Beach Erosion Control and 

hurricane protection project, Virginia 

Beach, Virginia. 

USACE. 2009c. Sea Turtle Data Warehouse 

2009. 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/seaturtles/. 

Site accessed November 11, 2009. 

USACE. 2009d. Water Resource Policies and 

Authorities Incorporating Sea-Level 

Change Considerations in Civil Works 

Programs. EC 1165-2-211. Circular No. 

1165-2-211. July. 

USACE. 2010a. Storm Damage Reduction 

Project Design for Wallops Island. 

USACE, Engineer Research and 

Development Center. Prepared by D.B. 

King, Jr., D.L. Ward, M.H. Hudgins & 

G.G. Williams. ERDC/LAB TR-0X-X. 

November. 

USACE. 2010b. Coastal and Hydraulics 

Laboratory Wave Information Studies 

Web site. 

http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/wis. Site 

accessed January 9, 2010. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Chincoteague Zip 

Code. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ 

Accessed January 29, 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008a. State & County 

QuickFacts. Accomack County. 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/5

1000.html. Site accessed August 3, 

2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008b. Populations 

Estimate Program. Virginia Population 

Estimate. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/. 

Accessed August 3, 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. State and County 

QuickFacts. Web site last Revised: 

Monday, 16-Aug-2010. 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/

51/51001.html. Site accessed August 

24, 2010. 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 2009a. Navigation 

Rules Online Web site. 

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/nav

rules/rotr_online.htm. Site accessed 

December 17, 2009. 

USCG. 2009b. Private Aids to Navigation. 

http://www.uscg.mil/D11/DP/PatonOn

e.asp. Site accessed December 30, 

2009. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

1994. Accomack County Soils 

Description and Preliminary Soils 

Map, Accomack County, Virginia. 

Accomack County Soil Conservation 

Service. November. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. 2009. 

VACAPES Range Complex Final 

Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas EIS. March. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

2007. Designated National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers. 

http://www.rivers.gov/wildriverslist.ht

ml. Site accessed August 14, 2009. 

USFWS. 2008. Federally Endangered, 

Threatened, Proposed and Candidate 

Species, Accomack county, Virginia. 

Virginia Field Office. September 24. 
References 

418 

USFWS. 2009a. Questions and Answers: 

Double Crested Cormorant 

Management. 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/Curr

entBirdIssues/Management/cormorant/F

inalRule/Q&As2003.htm. Site accessed 

September 11, 2009. 

USFWS. 2009b. Other Critters of Chincoteague 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/chinco/ot

hercritters.html. Site accessed August 

14, 2009 

USFWS. 2010a. Chincoteague National Wildlife 

Refuge Endangered Species, Federally 

Listed Species Web site. 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/chinco/en

dangeredspecies.html. Site accessed 

October 18, 2010. 

Vasslides, J.M. and K.W. Able. 2008. 

Importance of shoreface sand ridges as 

habitat for fishes off the northeast coast 

of the United States. Fish. Bull. 106: 98 

– 107. 

VDEQ. 2008a. Coastal Zone Management 

Program. 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/coastal/law

spols.html. Site accessed August 7, 

2009. 

VDEQ. 2008b. Air Regulations Web site. 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, Chapter 

30. 

http://www.deq.state.va.us/air/regulation

s/air30.html. Site accessed March 12, 

2009. 

VDEQ. 2009. State Water Control Board. 9 

VAC 25-260 Virginia Water Quality 

Standards. Statutory Authority: § 62.1-

44.15 3a of the Code of Virginia. With 

Amendments Effective August 20, 

2009. 

http://www.deq.state.va.us/wqs/downloa

d.html. Site accessed December 13, 

2009. 

Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries (VDGIF). No Date. Sea 

Turtles in Virginia. 

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/habitat/la

ndowners/infosheets/sea_turtles.pdf. 

Site accessed November 17, 2009. 

VDGIF. 2005. Virginia’s Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 

http://bewildvirginia.org/wildlifeaction-plan/front-matter.pdf. Site 

accessed October 18, 2010. 

VDGIF. 2009. Threatened, Endangered, and 

Special Concern Species. 

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/v

irginiatescspecies.pdf. Site accessed 

September 16, 2009. 

VDGIF. 2010. Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need. 

http://bewildvirginia.org/species/. Site 

Accessed September 30, 2010. 

Virginia Employment Commission (VEC). 

2009a. VEC Web Site. Virginia 

Statewide Workforce Connection 

Labor Market Information. Released 

September 2009. 

http://www.vawc.virginia.gov/lmi/area

/areaprofiledata.asp?session=areadetail

&geo=5101000000. Site accessed 

October 28, 2009. 

VEC. 2009b. VEC Web Site. Accomack 

County, Virginia Workforce 

Connection Labor Market Information. 

Released September 2009. 

http://www.vawc.virginia.gov/lmi/area

/areaprofiledata.asp?session=areadetail

&geo=5104000001. Site accessed 

October 28, 2009. 
References 

 419 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). 

2006. Field testing of a 

physical/biological monitoring 

methodology for offshore dredging and 

mining operations. Prepared for MMS. 

OCS Study MMS 2006-056. 429 pp. 

VIMS. No Date. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

(SAV) in Chesapeake Bay. 

http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/AboutSAV.

html. Site accessed 8/14/2009. 

Viscido, S.V., D.E. Stearns, and K.W. Able. 

1997. Seasonal and spatial pattern of an 

epibenthic decapod crustacean 

assemblage in north-west Atlantic 

continental shelf waters. Estuarine, 

Coastal and Shelf Science 45: 377 - 

392. 

Waring, G. T., C. P. Fairfield, C. M. Ruhsam 

and M. Sano 1992. Cetaceans associated 

with Gulf Stream Features off the 

Northeastern USA Shelf. ICES [Int. 

Counc. Explor. Sea] C.M. 1992/N:12. 

Waring G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield, and 

K. Maze-Foley (eds). 2007. U.S. 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments — 2007. 

NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 205. 415 

p. 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/public

ations/tm/tm205/ 

Waring G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield, and 

K. Maze-Foley (eds). 2009. U.S. 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments — 2008. 

NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 210. 440 

p. 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/

tm/tm210/ 

Waring, G.T., J. M. Quintal, and C.P. Fairfield 

(eds). 2002. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments — 2002. NOAA Tech 

Memo NMFS NE 169. 328 p. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars

/ao2002.pdf. 

Watts, B. D. and B. R. Truitt. 2000. 

Abundance of shorebirds along the 

Virginia Barrier Islands during spring 

migration. Raven 71:33–39. 

Welty, J.C. 1982. The life of birds. Sauders 

College Publishing, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. 754pp. 

Weston, D.P. 1988. Macrobenthos-sediment 

relationships on the continental shelf 

off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. 

Cont. Shelf Res. 8(3): 267 – 286. 

W.F. Baird and Associates, Ltd. 2004. 

Development of the MMS Dredge 

Plume Model. Prepared for Leasing 

Division, Sand and Gravel Unit, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation, and Enforcement, 114 pp. 

White, C. M., N. J. Clum, T. J. Cade, and W. 

G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus). In The Birds of 

North America No. 660 (A. Poole and 

F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Accessed on August 18, 2009 from 

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Pe

regrine_Falcon/lifehistory 

Whitman, A. A. and P. M. Payne 1990. Age of 

harbour seals, Phoca vitulina 

concolor, wintering in southern New 

England. Can. Field-Nat. 104(4): 579-

582. 

Wigley, R.L. and R.B. Theroux, 1981. Atlantic 

Continental Shelf and Slope of the 

United States–Macrobenthic 

Invertebrate Fauna of the Middle 

Atlantic Bight Region–Faunal 

Composition and Quantitative 

Distribution. U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 529-N. 198 pp. 
References 

420 

Wikel, G.L. 2008. Variability in Geologic 

Framework and Shoreline Change: 

Assateague and Wallops Islands, 

Eastern Shore of Virginia. M.S. Thesis. 

The College of William and Mary in 

Virginia. 210 pp. 

Wilber, P. and M. Stern. 1992. A re-examination 

of infaunal studies that accompany 

beach renourishment studies. pp. 242-

257 in New Directions in Beach 

Management. Proceedings of the 5th 

Annual National Conference on Beach 

Preservation Technology. The Florida 

Shore and Beach Preservation 

Association, Tallahassee, FL. 

Wilber, D.H., D.G. Clarke, G.L. Ray, and M. 

Burlas. 2003. Response of surf zone 

fish to beach nourishment operations on 

the northern coast of New Jersey, 

U.S.A. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

250: 231 – 246. 

Wilke, A.L., D.F. Brinker, B.D. Watts, A.H. 

Traut, R. Boettcher, J.M. McCann, B.R. 

Truitt and P. Denmon. 2007. American 

Oystercatchers in Maryland and 

Virginia: status and distribution. 

Waterbirds 30 (Special publication 

1):152‐162. 

Wilke, A.L., R. Boettcher and C. Smith. 2009. 

2008 Piping Plover, Wilson’s Plover 

and American Oystercatcher Breeding 

Status in Virginia. Final Report 

submitted to the Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation Division 

of Natural Heritage, Nassawadox, VA. 

23 Pp. 

Winn, H.E., C.A. Price, and P.W. Sorensen. 

1986. The distributional biology of the 

right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in the 

western North Atlantic. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission 

(Special Issue 10):129-138. 

Witherington, B. E. 1992. Behavioral response 

of nesting turtles to artificial lighting. 

Herpetologica 48: 31-39. 

Witherington, B.E., and R. Erik Martin, 1996. 

Understanding, Assessing and 

Resolving Light Pollution Problems on 

Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches. Florida 

Marine Research Institute Technical 

Report. St. Petersburg. Fla.: Florida 

Marine Research Institute. 

Wood, D. W. and K. A. Bjorndal. 2000. 

Relation of temperature, moisture, 

salinity, and slope to nest site selection 

in loggerhead sea turtles. Copeia 1: 

119-128. 

Wynne, K and Schwartz, M. 1999. Guide to 

Marine Mammals & Turtles of the 

U.S. Atlantic & Gulf of Mexico. Rhode 

Island Seagrant. 

Zajac, R.N., R.B. Whitlatch, and S.F. Thrush. 

1998. Recolonization and succession 

in soft-sediment infaunal communities: 

the spatial scale of controlling factors. 

Hydrobiologia 375/376: 227 – 240. 

Zarillo, G., J. Reidenauer, K. Zarillo, T. 

Shinskey, E. Reyier, M. Barkaszi, J. 

Shenker, M. Verdugo, and N. Hodges. 

2008. Biological 

Characterization/Numerical Wave 

Model Analysis within Borrow Sites 

Offshore West Florida Coast. U.S. 

Department of Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation, and Enforcement, MMS 

2008-005. Volume 1: Main Text 224 

pp & Volume II: Appendices 300 pp. 

Zervas, C. 2001. Sea Level Variations of the 

United States 1854-1999: NOAA 

Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 36, 

201 p. 
References 

 421 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publicat

ions/techrpt36doc.pdf. 

Zervas, C. 2004. North Carolina 

Bathymetry/Topography Sea Level Rise 

Project; Determination of Sea Level 

Trends: NOAA Technical Report NOS 

CO-OPS 41, 31 p. 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publicat

ions/techrpt41.pdf. 

Zhang, Keqi, Bruce C. Douglas, Stephen P. 

Leatherman. 2000. Twentieth-Century 

Storm Activity along the U.S. East 

Coast. American Meteorological Society 

Journal of Climate: 1748, Vol. 13. May 

15. 

Personal Communication 

Ballou, Thomas (VDEQ). 2010. Email to Sally 

Atkins (URS Corporation) regarding 

State Implemenation Plan question and 

air quality emissions data for Accomack 

County, VA. August 23, 2010, 3:21 p.m. 

Herkhof, Dirk. 2009. Email to Joshua A. 

Bundick. December 15, 2009, 4:13 p.m. 

Mitchell, Joel. 2009. Email regarding 

coordinates for Piping Plover nesting 

sites on Wallops Island. 

Pittman, Thomas. 2010. Email to Josh Bundick 

regarding costs associated with various 

WFF activities. May 26, 10:25 a.m. 

Reed, Billie. 2009. E-mail with Joshua 

Bundick regarding development of 

economic numbers for the MidAtlantic Regional Spaceport 

Expansion project. Email dated 

Monday, July 13, 2009 2:45 p.m. 

Numbers developed by Old Dominion 

University and Chincoteague Chamber 

of Commerce for the TacSat 3 

launches. 

Stamper, Douglas. 2009. USACE Norfolk 

Area Office Project Manager for 

Navigation Maintenance Dredging of 

the Waterway on the Coast of Virginia 

(also known as the Virginia Inside 

Passage). Email correspondence with 

George Mears of USACE on October 

19, 2009. 

Travelstead, Jack. 2010. Chief, Fisheries 

Management Division, Virginia 

Marine Resources Commission. Email 

from Mr. Travelstead to Joshua 

Bundick. July 19. 

Wikel, Geoff (BOEMRE). 2009. Included in 

comments on Preliminary DEIS dated 

December 15, 2009. 

Williams, Greggory. 2009. Email dated 

November 4, 2009 to SRIPP USACE 

Team members describing anticipated 

dredge cut depth from a hopper 

dredge. 
References 

422 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Index 

 423 

CHAPTER NINE: INDEX 

A

Accomack County, iv, v, vii, 2, 9, 110, 125, 133, 

140, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 205, 208, 

209, 210, 211, 305, 306, 312, 343, 347, 

348, 361, 392, 397, 409, 416, 417, 418, 

421 

Accretion, ES-VI, 54, 75, 84, 111, 113, 117, 

219, 224, 228, 230, 233, 235, 237, 239, 

264, 267, 321, 343, 371, 377, 414 

Affected Environment, ii, 2, 93, 314, 365, 386 

Air Quality, ES-VII, ES-XI, ii, iii, 85, 89, 133, 

135, 136, 249, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257, 

259, 260, 334, 347, 348, 350, 379, 381, 

386, 418, 421 

Alternatives 

Comparison of, i, ii, 19, 79 

No Action, iii, ES-IV, 33, 79, 215, 217, 218, 

219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 228, 231, 232, 

233, 234, 237, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 

247, 248, 249, 253, 257, 260, 261, 262, 

263, 264, 266, 267, 272, 273, 278, 279, 

281, 284, 290, 302, 303, 305, 306, 307, 

308, 311, 312, 315 

Proposed Action, iii, ES-II, ES-V, i, ii, vii, 

18, 19, 38, 58, 59, 60, 67, 79, 80, 81, 83, 

91, 221, 232, 248, 249, 347, 365 

Assateague, ES-VI, v, 52, 53, 73, 84, 97, 98, 

101, 103, 109, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 

121, 122, 125, 126, 132, 133, 151, 152, 

156, 158, 159, 181, 187, 188, 195, 196, 

197, 209, 213, 214, 224, 225, 227, 234, 

236, 241, 314, 328, 331, 335, 338, 351, 

352, 353, 354, 357, 358, 360, 389, 393, 

409, 416, 420 

Assawoman 

Inlet, vii, 5, 93, 122, 209, 217, 220, 319, 321, 

374, 375 

Island, ES-III, ES-V, ES-VI, 9, 29, 60, 69, 83, 

84, 93, 111, 113, 119, 122, 125, 126, 

132, 133, 151, 152, 187, 195, 222, 223, 

228, 230, 234, 337, 338, 354, 357, 358, 

360, 373, 375 

Atmosphere, 22, 95, 131, 137, 333 

At-Risk Infrastructure, i, 21, 35, 36, 217, 263, 

278, 279, 302, 384 

B

Bathymetry, ES-V, ES-IX, ii, iii, v, 83, 87, 93, 

97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107, 115, 117, 

118, 215, 216, 217, 225, 232, 270, 334, 

335, 366, 379, 386, 421 

Beach Fill, ES-II, ES-III, ES-IV, ES-V, ES-VI, 

ES-VII, ES-VIII, ES-X, i, v, viii, 10, 18, 

19, 21, 26, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 45, 

46, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 67, 68, 69, 73, 79, 

80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 115, 159, 216, 

217, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 228, 

230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235,236, 237, 

239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 

247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 

256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 

264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 

273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 

282, 283, 284, 289, 290, 291, 294, 296, 

299, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 

308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 322, 334, 

335, 337, 348, 358, 366, 372, 373, 375, 

376, 381, 413 

Benthos, ES-X, ii, iii, 88, 160, 161, 163, 164, 

270, 273, 274, 276, 277, 278, 281, 283, 

284, 293, 304, 334, 347, 350, 351, 352, 

363, 384 

Biological Assessment, iv, ix, 147, 184, 293, 

300, 409, 414 

Birds 

Migratory, ES-VIII, 86, 152, 155, 267, 268, 

354, 356, 360 

Seabirds, ES-VIII, 86, 267, 268, 270, 271, 

355, 413 

Shorebirds, ES-VIII, 86, 152, 155, 156, 157, 

161, 187, 267, 268, 269, 270, 276, 297, 

342, 355, 356, 367, 413, 419 

Blackfish Bank Shoal, 46, 52, 53, 196, 207, 210, 

213, 242, 304, 336 

Borrow Sites, ES-III, ES-VII, ES-VIII, 1, 20, 26, 

45, 46, 52, 53, 54, 58, 67, 68, 70, 79, 80, 

85, 86, 115, 131, 142, 162, 171, 196, 206, 
Index 

424 

213, 216, 225, 227, 228, 231, 232, 236, 

245, 246, 247, 251, 253, 254, 257, 258, 

261, 264, 265, 267, 268, 270, 276, 280, 

282, 285, 291, 293, 294, 297, 303, 304, 

309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 315, 334, 352, 

365, 366, 371, 384 

Breakwater, ES-II, ES-III, ES-IV, ES-V, ES-VI, 

ES-VIII, ES-IX, i, iv, v, viii, 19, 30, 31, 

37, 41, 69, 70, 71, 79, 80, 83, 84, 86, 87, 

207, 208, 217, 230, 232, 233, 234, 239, 

240, 242, 243, 244, 247, 248, 258, 259, 

262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 271, 272, 

273, 277, 278, 279, 281, 283, 290, 299, 

300, 302, 303, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311, 

312, 314, 365, 366, 386 

C

Carbon Dioxide, ix, 95, 136, 137, 138, 250, 252, 

253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 

261, 333, 350, 415 

Carbon Monoxide, ix, 22, 133, 134, 135, 250, 

252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 

260, 261, 347, 348, 349, 420, 421 

Chincoteague 

Inlet, v, 5, 9, 44, 45, 54, 93, 111, 113, 114, 

115, 116, 117, 122, 125, 144, 159, 210, 

213, 214, 224, 228, 305, 321, 373, 374, 

375, 376, 415 

National Wildlife Refuge, ix, 93, 151, 158, 

182, 188, 190, 195, 209, 390, 418 

Clean Air Act, ix, 133, 136, 137 

Clean Water Act, ix, 1, 17, 59, 125, 245, 342, 

364 

Climate Change, ES-V, ES-VII, 14, 83, 85, 95, 

96, 137, 219, 242, 254, 316, 333, 334, 

338, 341, 343, 344, 346, 349, 350, 352, 

353, 354, 357, 360, 361, 398, 404, 405 

Coastal Plain, 110, 115, 402 

Coastal Zone Management, ii, iii, ix, 132, 248, 

249, 418 

Commercial Fishing, 9, 196, 197, 304, 305, 316, 

333, 351, 352, 353, 355 

Consultations with Agencies and Individuals, 

ES-XI, iv, 76, 89, 181, 205, 206, 231, 

281, 284, 286, 300, 308, 309, 310, 311, 

354, 360, 364, 370, 378, 409, 410 

Continental Shelf, ES-XI, v, xi, 1, 89, 93, 94, 97, 

115, 117, 131, 160, 161, 172, 175, 176, 

177, 178, 179, 192, 241, 274, 275, 278, 

280, 283, 328, 334, 335, 337, 341, 350, 

351, 352, 353, 354, 358, 361, 397, 399, 

403, 404, 405, 413, 415, 416, 419 

Contingency Plan 

Integrated, x, 141, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 

247, 262, 281, 282, 366 

Council on Environmental Quality, ES-I, ix, 1, 18, 

33, 316, 365, 389 

Critical Habitat, 188, 291, 370 

Cultural Resources, ES-XI, ii, iii, iv, ix, 6, 73, 

88, 98, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 307, 

308, 309, 310, 311, 371, 380, 386, 409 

Cumulative Impacts, ES-XI, 89, 254, 316, 333, 

334, 337, 338, 341, 342, 347, 348, 350, 

351, 352, 353, 354, 357, 358, 360, 361, 

380, 386 

Currents, 14, 29, 73, 114, 116, 117, 121, 131, 

159, 161, 164, 170, 207, 224, 233, 234, 

239, 242, 246, 280, 285, 334, 342 

D

Delmarva Peninsula, 2, 93, 111, 147, 152, 182, 

183, 187, 199, 209, 210, 304 

Dissolved Oxygen, 125, 245, 246 

Dredging, ES-V, ES-VI, ES-VII, ES-VIII, ESIX, ES-X, ES-XI, ii, v, vii, viii, 1, 18, 20, 

44, 45, 46, 51, 53, 54, 58, 70, 73, 74, 75, 

76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 

89, 91, 113, 114, 121, 125, 141, 190, 210, 

216, 217, 224, 225, 227, 228, 231, 232, 

233, 234, 236, 237, 239, 241, 242, 245, 

246, 247, 249, 251, 252, 255, 256, 257, 

259, 260, 263, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 

275, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 284, 

285, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 

295, 297, 299, 300, 301, 304, 306, 308, 

309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 

317, 328, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 337, 

338, 341, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 

353, 354, 355, 357, 358, 360, 363, 365, 

366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 378, 
Index 

 425 

381, 386, 400, 401, 403, 404, 406, 407, 

409, 411, 419, 421 

Dunes, Sand, v, 14, 26, 36, 63, 110, 132, 147, 

187, 217, 249, 355, 359, 371 

E

Emissions, ES-VII, vii, viii, 85, 133, 135, 136, 

137, 138, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 

255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 307, 

347, 348, 349, 350, 402, 421 

Employment and Income, 197 

Endangered Species, ES-X, x, 88, 174, 175, 181, 

289, 290, 300, 358, 372, 409, 410, 413, 

418 

Environment 

Biological, ii, iii, 93, 147, 215, 264, 347, 350, 

379 

Physical, ii, iii, 93, 215, 334, 365 

Socioeconomic, iii, 361 

Environmental Justice, ii, iii, vii, ix, 208, 209, 

307, 386, 408 

Erosion, Shoreline, ES-I, ES-V, ES-VII, i, vi, 9, 

18, 29, 45, 83, 85, 148, 217, 218, 232, 

263, 264, 283, 290, 338, 366 

Essential Fish Habitat, ES-IX, ii, iii, iv, ix, 76, 

172, 281, 351, 371 

F

Facilities, ES-I, ES-IV, i, iii, v, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 

17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 33, 35, 36, 37, 81, 133, 

136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143, 147, 195, 

199, 200, 205, 206, 208, 210, 217, 247, 

261, 262, 263, 302, 303, 307, 316, 317, 

318, 320, 321, 322, 327, 328, 331, 332, 

350, 369, 391, 393, 407 

Fill, Beach, ES-II, ES-III, ES-IV, ES-V, ES-VI, 

ES-VII, ES-VIII, ES-X, i, v, viii, 10, 18, 

19, 21, 26, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 45, 

46, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 67, 68, 69, 73, 79, 

80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 115, 159, 216, 

217, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 228, 

230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235,236, 237, 

239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 

247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 

256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 

264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 

273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 

282, 283, 284, 289, 290, 291, 294, 296, 

299, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 

308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 322, 334, 

335, 337, 348, 358, 366, 372, 373, 375, 

376, 381, 413 

Fishing 

Commercial, 9, 196, 197, 304, 305, 316, 333, 

351, 352, 353, 355 

Recreational, ES-X, 52, 53, 88, 196, 207, 

214, 248, 304, 314, 361, 363, 384 

Floodplains, 26, 125, 131, 247 

G

Geology, ES-V, ii, iii, 83, 109, 217, 223, 231, 

232, 379, 380, 381, 399, 400, 403, 404, 

406, 407, 412, 413 

Geotextile Tubes, ES-I, ES-IV, v, 10, 13, 15, 17, 

26, 33, 60, 205, 207, 208, 215, 217, 219, 

321, 337 

Global Warming, x, 95, 136 

Greenhouse Gases, vii, viii, x, 95, 136, 137, 138, 

349, 401 

Groin, ES-II, ES-III, ES-IV, ES-V, ES-VI, ESVIII, ES-IX, i, iv, v, vi, viii, 15, 19, 29, 

30, 37, 41, 69, 70, 71, 79, 80, 83, 84, 86, 

87, 120, 121, 207, 208, 216, 228, 229, 

232, 233, 234, 237, 240, 242, 243, 244, 

246, 248, 255, 257, 260, 262, 263, 264, 

265, 267, 271, 272, 273, 277,279, 281, 

283, 289, 299, 302, 303, 305, 306, 307, 

308, 310, 312, 314, 318, 365, 366, 384, 

386 

H

Hazardous 

Materials, ES-VII, ii, iii, 9, 22, 85, 141, 199, 

245, 262, 263, 366, 386 

Waste, ii, iii, 141, 142, 262, 263 

Health and Safety, ii, iii, 199, 306, 307 

Hopper Dredge, vi, 70, 73, 74, 141, 245, 251, 

270, 275, 278, 280, 282, 283, 285, 288, 

292, 313, 354, 368, 409, 421 

Hurricanes, 13, 94, 95, 125, 331, 332, 333, 338, 

406, 413, 416, 417 
Index 

426 

Hydrodynamics, 159, 161, 216, 334, 401 

I

Implementation Schedule, ii, vii, 79, 80, 220 

Infrastructure 

Existing, 218, 262, 327 

Initial Nourishment, ES-III, v, 29, 65, 68, 69, 

331 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 14, 

95, 96, 97, 405, 411 

Invertebrates, ES-XI, ii, iii, 89, 156, 170, 278, 

279, 282, 284, 304, 351, 357, 416, 419 

L

Land Use, ES-V, ii, iii, vii, 6, 83, 95, 139, 140, 

195, 302 

Launch Range Activities, 348, 349 

Longshore Sediment Transport, ES-II, ES-VI, 

14, 30, 34, 53, 69, 84, 111, 113, 117, 121, 

222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 232, 234, 

236, 237, 240, 315, 337, 366 

M

Mammals 

Marine, ES-VII, ES-X, ES-XI, ii, iii, vii, viii, 

85, 88, 89, 141, 174, 175, 180, 192, 194, 

261, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 

291, 292, 293, 299, 334, 353, 354, 358, 

361, 372, 379, 399, 405, 411, 414, 415, 

420 

Terrestrial, 182 

Meteorology, ii, 94, 381 

Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB), x, 93, 97, 117, 159, 

160, 162, 170, 171, 179, 193, 278, 353, 

415 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), iii, 

ES-I, ES-IV, x, 2, 5, 6, 9, 14, 17, 33, 93, 

198, 327, 390, 407, 409, 421 

Minerals Management Service (MMS), x, 1, 74, 

170, 206, 225, 227, 231, 246, 282, 285, 

354, 371, 397, 399, 400, 401, 405, 407, 

415, 419, 420 

Mitigation Measures, ES-XI, ii, vii, 2, 20, 89, 

91, 215, 229, 243, 246, 247, 262, 263, 

283, 297, 298, 312, 314, 315, 346, 352, 

365, 367, 370, 372, 384 

Modeling 

GENESIS, 67, 117, 217, 220, 221, 386 

STeady-state spectral WAVE model 

(STWAVE), 225 

Monitoring, ES-II, iii, 10, 18, 20, 44, 59, 68, 76, 

80, 136, 137, 140, 171, 188, 190, 199, 

207, 208, 269, 273, 274, 279, 283, 297, 

300, 334, 347, 360, 361, 365, 367, 372, 

373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 384, 386, 398, 

401, 409, 411, 419 

Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC), 

ES-VII, ii, v, vii, x, 45, 85, 142, 143, 144, 

145, 147, 263, 264, 366 

N

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), vii, x, 133, 134, 250, 251, 253, 

255, 258, 347, 350, 402 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), iii, 

ES-I, ES-II, x, 1, 2, 18, 59, 73, 215, 254, 

314, 315, 316, 332, 333, 349, 373, 378, 

379, 383, 385, 386, 389, 405 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), ESXI, iv, vii, x, 76, 89, 91, 147, 173, 174, 

176, 177, 181, 183, 184, 188, 190, 191, 

192, 193, 197, 213, 231, 281, 284, 285, 

286, 288, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 

300, 301, 304, 354, 358, 360, 364, 368, 

369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 378, 389, 399, 

403, 405, 406, 409, 410, 413, 416, 419 

National Park Service (NPS), xi, 113, 151, 331, 

374, 376, 389, 409, 416 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), xi, 134 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), xi, 95, 135, 347 

Nitrous Oxides (N2O), xi, 95, 136, 137, 138, 

250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 

259, 260, 261 

Nodal Zone, 119, 223, 234, 337, 366 

Noise 

Construction, 261, 356 
Index 

 427 

Underwater, 138, 141, 261, 279, 286, 288, 

289, 292, 301, 334, 353, 399 

North Wallops Island, ES-V, v, vii, viii, 6, 37, 

54, 55, 57, 58, 79, 83, 91, 151, 153, 228, 

246, 253, 257, 260, 309, 310, 311, 318, 

366, 372, 386 

O

Oceanography, ii, iii, 116, 232, 379, 380, 381, 

397, 398, 399, 411, 414 

Offshore Environment, 190, 215, 333 

Overwash, ES-V, 13, 83, 111, 151, 187, 218, 

219, 243, 244, 264, 337, 342, 343, 344, 

352, 353, 357, 401, 416 

Ozone (O3), xi, 95, 133, 134 

P

Permits, Licenses, and Approvals, iii, 364 

Plankton, ii, iii, 159, 272, 273, 280, 304 

Pump-Out Buoy, 73, 76, 82, 285, 294, 308, 309, 

313, 314, 338 

R

Range Safety, 2, 25, 264 

Renourishment, ES-II, ES-III, ES-IV, ES-V, ESVI, ES-VIII, v, viii, 2, 10, 18, 20, 29, 34, 

37, 38, 39, 41, 45, 54, 58, 59, 65, 67, 68, 

69, 70, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 91, 

110, 216, 219, 222, 224, 225, 228, 229, 

230, 231, 232, 234, 235, 237, 239, 249, 

252, 253, 254, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 

261, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 271, 273, 

276, 277, 278, 284, 291, 293, 294, 295, 

296, 297, 298, 300, 304, 305, 312, 313, 

315, 316, 331, 332, 334, 335, 336, 337, 

347, 350, 356, 357, 358, 362, 367, 370, 

371, 372, 373, 377, 378, 381, 386, 403, 

414, 415, 420 

Reptiles, 190 

S

Sand 

Dunes, i, 21, 26, 35, 36, 132, 144, 147 

Grain Size, vii, 44, 45, 46, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 

67, 68, 110, 115, 160, 162, 172, 207, 

219, 232, 245, 246, 274, 276, 285, 295, 

366, 386, 397, 402 

Placement, ii, 73, 76, 91, 219, 234, 244, 251, 

272, 293, 366, 372 

Retention Structures, ES-III, i, 18, 19, 21, 29, 

34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 68 

Sources, 54, 58, 81, 228, 328, 332 

Scoping, iv, viii, 53, 333, 383, 384, 387, 389, 

406 

Screening 

Criteria, i, 33, 38 

Results, i, 34 

Secondary, ES-II, i, 19, 37, 38, 81 

Seafloor, 10, 46, 97, 131, 157, 171, 246, 279, 

332, 333, 335, 341, 351, 362 

Sea-Level Rise, ES-I, ES-III, ES-V, 1, 14, 17, 

60, 67, 83, 96, 97, 118, 218, 224, 228, 

230, 242, 316, 333, 338, 343, 344, 354, 

357, 360, 384, 401, 413 

Seawall, ES-I, ES-II, ES-III, ES-IV, ES-V, ESVI, ES-VII, ES-VIII, i, v, vi, vii, viii, 1, 

10, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 33, 34, 35, 

36, 37, 38, 41, 44, 59, 60, 61, 63, 67, 68, 

69, 70, 71, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 91, 93, 

110, 111, 115, 118, 119, 126, 129, 140, 

148, 160, 161, 162, 188,190, 215, 216, 

217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 228, 

229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 237, 239, 

241, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 

250, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 260, 261, 

262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 

271, 272, 273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 

281, 282, 283, 284, 289, 290, 291, 293, 

297, 299, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 

307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 

317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 332, 337, 338, 

348, 350, 352, 365, 366, 367, 370, 372, 

373, 374, 384, 408 

Sediment 

Budget, v, 13, 117, 120, 384 

Plume, 245, 294 

Removal, 58, 228, 261, 366 

Transport, ES-V, ES-XI, v, vi, vii, 19, 53, 58, 

83, 89, 93, 110, 111, 113, 117, 118, 119, 

120, 121, 122, 217, 218, 220, 223, 224, 

225, 227, 228, 229, 234, 235, 236, 237, 
Index 

428 

238, 239, 240, 241, 266, 267, 310, 337, 

366, 376 

Shoreline 

Change, ES-I, ES-VI, v, vii, 17, 20, 53, 84, 

109, 110, 112, 113, 220, 227, 233, 334, 

338, 374, 375, 376, 377, 402, 414, 420 

Erosion, ES-I, ES-V, ES-VII, i, vi, 9, 18, 29, 

45, 83, 85, 148, 217, 218, 232, 263, 264, 

283, 290, 338, 366 

Socioeconomic Environment, iii, 361 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), 199, 

309 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), ii, iii, xi, 

158, 159, 272, 419 

Surface Water, v, 117, 122, 123, 125, 131, 242, 

243, 244, 246, 270, 338, 341, 342, 343 

Surveys, iv, 44, 45, 46, 52, 54, 58, 75, 91, 98, 

111, 113, 115, 117, 140, 151, 159, 164, 

171, 176, 177, 181, 192, 193, 195, 196, 

205, 206, 207, 208, 213, 225, 264, 272, 

291, 297, 304, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 

336, 356, 366, 367, 371, 372, 373, 374, 

375, 376, 377,378, 380, 384, 397, 399, 

400, 402, 406, 409, 412, 414, 419 

T

Tenants, i, 2, 5, 20, 125, 210, 261 

Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species, ii, 

iii, viii, 175, 181, 290, 334, 357, 358, 361, 

367, 372 

Turbidity, ES-VII, ES-IX, ES-X, 85, 87, 88, 

158, 162, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 270, 

272, 273, 274, 277, 280, 281, 282, 283, 

284, 285, 293, 295, 301, 304, 305, 338, 

341, 342, 352, 363, 366, 397 

Turtles, ES-X, viii, 58, 88, 91, 152, 183, 184, 

188, 189, 190, 191, 270, 293, 294, 295, 

296, 297, 301, 315, 356, 358, 359, 360, 

361, 367, 368, 369, 372, 399, 404, 407, 

408, 411, 414, 415, 417, 420 

U

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), i, iii, 

ES-I, ES-VI, viii, xi, 1, 13, 17, 19, 20, 26, 

29, 30, 31, 34, 37, 44, 45, 46, 51, 52, 53, 

54, 57, 58, 59, 67, 70, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81, 

84, 91, 93, 95, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 

116, 117, 118, 119, 125, 126, 142, 143, 

144, 190, 213, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 

223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 

234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 

243, 245, 247, 263, 276, 284, 300, 313, 

317, 321, 331, 332, 334, 335, 336, 343, 

351, 352, 358, 359, 362, 363, 364, 369, 

370, 374, 376, 378, 381, 383, 389, 397, 

403, 404, 413, 416, 417, 421 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), xi, 2, 210, 213, 245, 

313, 316, 317, 363, 366, 374, 376, 390, 

417 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), ES-XI, 

iv, xi, 89, 91, 93, 125, 147, 151, 156, 181, 

182, 183, 184, 187, 188, 190, 195, 269, 

270, 293, 296, 297, 298, 300, 301, 321, 

343, 356, 360, 361, 364, 367, 368, 370, 

372, 390, 403, 417, 418 

V

Vegetation, X, ii, iii, v, 54, 58, 88, 91, 126, 133, 

147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 157, 158, 

159, 180, 181, 187, 191, 264, 265, 266, 

272, 291, 298, 299, 338, 344, 356, 360, 

371, 380, 416 

Vibracore Sampling, v, 49, 397 

Video Surveys, iv, v, 131, 164, 165, 246, 274, 

409 

Virginia Capes Operating Area (VACAPES 

OPAREA), xii, 328, 341, 353 

Virginia Inside Passage, 45, 122, 317, 421 

W

Wallops Flight Facility, i, iii, ES-I, ES-II, ESVII, X, ES-XI, i, v, vi, viii, xii, 1, 2, 5, 6, 

9, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 33, 35, 36, 

60, 69, 70, 79, 81, 85, 88, 89, 93, 94, 125, 

136, 138, 140, 141, 147, 155, 188, 195, 

197, 198, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 

209, 210, 213, 233, 242, 243, 244, 245, 

246, 247, 249, 250, 254, 261, 264, 268, 

269, 281, 282, 302, 305, 306, 307, 308, 

316, 317, 322, 327, 328, 331, 338, 339, 

341, 342, 343, 344, 347, 348, 349, 350, 
Index 

 429 

352, 354, 355, 356, 357, 359, 360, 361, 

362, 363, 366, 380, 383, 384, 385, 387, 

397, 401, 408, 409, 414, 416, 421 

Water 

Quality, 91, 122, 125, 242, 244, 245, 246, 

247, 272, 273, 278, 282, 285, 307, 334, 

338, 341, 351, 352, 353, 364, 366, 418 

Resources, ES-VII, ES-XI, ii, iii, 85, 89, 122, 

242, 244, 333, 338, 342, 380, 408, 416, 

417 

Waves, iii, ES-I, ES-III, ES-IV, ES-VI, 10, 13, 

14, 17, 20, 26, 29, 30, 36, 53, 60, 68, 75, 

84, 95, 96, 97, 109, 110, 111, 115, 116, 

117, 119, 131, 148, 160, 162, 207, 215, 

217, 219, 220, 221, 225, 227, 233, 236, 

246, 247, 262, 265, 266, 272, 279, 286, 

295, 298, 341, 342, 355, 376, 404, 406, 

417, 420 

Wetlands, vi, viii, 22, 25, 29, 125, 126, 151, 

215, 243, 247, 321, 322, 342, 343, 344, 

345, 346, 352, 355