Formal Comments to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Loggerhead Sea Turtles

Transcription

1 Formal Comments to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Loggerhead Sea Turtles ASBPA Science & Technology Committee September 16, 2013 Founded in 1926, the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA) advocates for healthy coastlines by promoting the integration of science, policies, and actions that maintain, protect, and enhance the coasts of America. ASBPA and its members strongly support management approaches to protect the threatened loggerhead sea turtle. Again, the human activity that ASBPA will address in this public comment is beach sand placement activities, as defined in the Special Management Considerations. ASBPA prefers the term beach restoration, as it has been one of the most important tools that has improved, maintained, and restored loggerhead habitat since the species threatened classification in In response to the USFWS request for specific comments numbered 1-12 listed in the Federal Register, ASBPA offers the following input on only those items applicable to our concerns: 1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as critical habitat under section 4 of the Act, including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent. Through an economic analysis of impacts to beach restoration projects as a result of the proposed designation, which is detailed in the following pages, ASBPA has found that the USF&WS should not designate critical habitat for the proposed areas for the following reasons: a) Increased threat from exacerbated beach erosion due to delayed restoration projects held up in court; b) Increased threat from aggressive sand placement activities required by shorter dredging windows; c) Increased costs to restore loggerhead nesting habitat. ASBPA estimates potential cost increases on the order of 28-67% for construction (many millions of dollars) and on the order of 50% for

2 permitting and monitoring (many hundreds of thousands of dollars) per project. Construction cost increases are a result of limited competition and increased risk to private contractors due to shorter windows (i.e., winter only); d) Less habitat restoration over time resulting in reduction of loggerhead nesting area; e) Increased economic impacts on government agencies (local, state, and federal) who are congressionally-mandated in some cases to restore eroding beaches and bear the burden of the increased costs in (c) above; f) Potential loss of ability to restore beaches during the summer where presently allowed; g) USF&WS is designating critical habitat without specifying beach restoration as an approved Special Management Consideration which will result in future lawsuits over these important habitat restoration projects. 3) Land use designations or current/planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat. Beach restoration activities are planned for many of the beaches in the proposed critical habitat areas. Many of these beaches fall within congressionally-authorized shore protection projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is congressionally mandated to restore these beaches periodically (every 4 to 10 years). Other beaches are restored by local communities many of whom lack the financial wherewithal of the federal government to absorb the extra costs. Possible impacts of the proposed critical habitat include the inability to construct these projects due to the impacts listed above. 5) Any foreseeable economic impacts that may result from designation, particularly impacts on small entities. ASBPA members are concerned about economic impacts to beach nourishment/restoration projects as a result of new critical habitat designations. Prudent beach restoration is one of the reasons the loggerhead sea turtle status is not endangered in this Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Beach restoration projects are an effective form of ecosystem restoration. Most projects are constructed and funded by local, state, and federal tax dollars. In the past, the federal government has covered the majority of these costs; however, in recent years state and local governments have been forced to shoulder a larger percentage of project costs. Many local and state governments are struggling to fund these projects that provide a tangible benefit to both humans and loggerhead sea turtles. It is imperative for the future of loggerhead habitat restoration that the cost of future beach restoration is

3 not driven even higher by excessive regulatory burdens and remains affordable to these governments. ASBPA is concerned that this designation will drive up restoration costs as outlined in the section on Economic Impacts of Proposed Designation on Habitat Restoration. 6) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments. ASBPA recognizes that most small beach towns have interpreted the proposed designation differently than USFWS considers it. For example, USFWS has noted that they are not interested in regulating the daily management of municipal beach rules regarding walking, driving, etc. However, many small towns are worried that they won t be able to collect trash along the beach anymore, for example. ASBPA would like to extend an invitation to USFWS staff to present to and interact with our members at our annual conferences, which occur in October and February each year. This may facilitate more friendly interaction that was offered during the USFWS public hearings. 7) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate. Please see the next section on Economic Impacts on Dredging, which explains that ASBPA has identified additional economic impacts that were not considered in the DEA. 8) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation. As was voiced during the public hearings, this question speaks to one of beach restoration proponents main concerns over the proposed designation. We are concerned about increased environmental lawsuits affecting the government s ability to manage its coasts. An adverse social reaction can be envisioned in which a critical habitat beach is in need of restoration prior to the upcoming nesting season, but the project is held up in lawsuits because of language in the hypothetically adopted designation. In this case, the consequence of the designation and its adverse reaction, could detrimentally affect nesting in that section of critical habitat for many years. A severely eroded beach is a significant threat to the species. In this case, as a result of human inaction, nesting success and hatchling emergence/survival success will decrease.

4 9) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed for the nesting beach habitat in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change. 10) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the loggerhead sea turtle and proposed terrestrial critical habitat. Climate change is causing sea levels to rise and the rate of sea level rise may accelerate over the next century due to increased levels of CO2 which will increase global warming. Higher sea levels cause beaches to erode and retreat threatening habitat that is currently suitable for nesting of loggerhead turtles. Beach restoration and periodic nourishment restores and maintains nesting habitat and remains the most effective form of special management considerations over the next 50 years for managing the impacts of climate change. Please see for the ASBPA White Paper on Managing Sea Level Change on Shores and Beaches. If the new critical habitat areas are designated and rules imposed in those areas inhibit the continuation of cost effective beach nourishment programs, the net impacts to the Loggerhead turtles and their nests would be negative given the current and future projections of climate change. ASBPA strongly advises USF&WS to include beach restoration as an approved special management consideration in the proposed rule. Finally, ASBPA would like to collaborate with USFWS staff to answer some pressing scientific questions regarding loggerhead nesting as it relates to sediment grain size on U.S. nourished beaches. For example, there is a need for a national study to determine appropriate reasonable compaction measurements to avoid unnecessary tilling presently being conducted annually on nourished beaches within our DPS.

5 Economic Impacts of Proposed Designation on Habitat Restoration ASBPA has determined several significant economic impacts on beach restoration projects that are likely if the proposed designation is approved. The impacts fall into two categories: 1) Increased regulation that will impact the permitting and monitoring phases of beach restoration projects, and 2) Increased costs of dredging that will impact the construction phase of beach restoration projects. Typical costs for the permitting and monitoring phases are on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars and costs for the construction phase are on the order of millions. To estimate impacts on the permitting and monitoring phases, we look to another species with a critical habitat designation, the piping plover. When comparing projects that were permitted and monitored prior to the designation with those permitted and monitored after implementation of the critical habitat designation, costs for permitting increased by 50%. Likewise, costs for monitoring are also projected to increase by 50%. In addition, due to environmental lawsuits, the permitting time has increased significantly. If a critical habitat designation for loggerhead sea turtles is implemented, the economic impact on the permitting and monitoring phase of beach restoration projects is projected to increase by 50%. For example, if a beach restoration project cost $400,000 to permit prior to the designation, it will now cost $600,000. Similar increases are expected for monitoring costs. To estimate impacts on the construction phase, dredging costs were analyzed to compare costs of yearround dredging to the costs of dredging within environmental windows (i.e., outside of loggerhead nesting season = winter). Beach restoration refers to the first time the project is constructed. Beach restoration costs may be up 67% higher as a result of the proposed designation (Table 1). PeriodicNourishment refers to the beach construction events that occur at a planned interval (4 to 10 years) after initial construction. Periodic Nourishment costs may increase by 28% as a result of the proposed designation (Table 1). The analysis was conducted using USACE generated efficiency tables.

6 Table 1. Economic Analysis of Beach Restoration Project Costs with and without the Proposed Critical Habitat Designation Project Type Without Designation With Designation Difference Permitting $ 400,000 $ 600,000 50% Beach Restoration $47,500,000 $79,200,000 67% Periodic Nourishment $15,400,000 $19,700,000 28% Monitoring $ 200,000 $ 300,000 50% If a critical habitat designation for loggerhead sea turtles is implemented, the economic impact on the construction phase of beach restoration projects is projected to increase by up to 40%. For example, if a beach restoration project cost $47,500,000 to construct prior to the designation, it will now cost $79,200,000 (Table 1). This amounts to a $30 million increase in cost per initial construction project. Another possible scenario, which was not factored into the above analysis, relates to the supply and demand of the U.S. dredge fleet and increased environmental impacts due to environmental windows. Consider a beach restoration project that could be constructed using a 24- or 30-inch dredge prior to the habitat designation. With shorter dredging windows, the project may only be able to be finished inside the window with two 30-inch dredges. This reduces the number of competitors, adds an additional mobilization of a dredge and its entire fleet, and increases risk for the contractor due to dangerous winter weather conditions and increased fleet. There will be twice the number of bulldozers, pipeline corridors, and other equipment. This intense construction effort would also increase the environmental impact. If the above example project were to be constructed with smaller equipment or if it was a high volume project that could not be finished within the environmental dredging window, an additional mobilization cost (several million dollars) would be incurred. In closing, ASBPA urges the USF&WS to keep in mind that critical habitat designations are not mandatory for threatened species, and will likely have negative economic impacts on future preservation efforts. When the effects of climate change are considered the proposed rules could result in a decrease in nesting habitat for the loggerhead turtle.