20090685 Ver 2_Environmental Assessment_20100322

US Army Carps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ROCK ARCH RAPIDS FISH PASSAGE
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC
LOCK AND DAM NO.1

BLADEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
March 2010
may..
y
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ROCK ARCH RAPIDS FISH PASSAGE
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC
LOCK AND DAM NO. 1
BLADEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
March 2010
Table of Contents
ITEM
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ...........................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................4
2.0 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ........................................................................................5
3.0 ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................5
3.1 Feasible Alternatives ...............................................................................................5
3.1.1 Proposed Alternative - Rock arch rapids ...................................................5
3.1.2 Nature-like fish bypass .............................................................................10
3.1.3 Diversion rock arch rapids ........................................................................10
3.2 Non-Feasible Alternatives ......................................................................................12
3.2.1 Rock arch rapids in lock chamber ............................................................12
3.2.2 Lower the dam with a fish passage structure ...........................................12
3.2.3 Lower the dam without a fish passage structure ......................................12
3.2.4 Remove the lock and dam .......................................................................13
3.3 No Action ..............................................................................................................13
3.4 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ..........................................................14
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................. 14
4.1 Geology and Sediments ........................................................................................ 14
4.2 Water Resources .................................................................................................. 15
4.3 Air Quality and Noise ............................................................................................ 16
4.4 Aquatic Resources ................................................................................................ 17
4.5 Terrestrial Resources ............................................................................................ 18
4.6 Wetlands and Floodplains ..................................................................................... 19
4.7 Endangered and Threatened Species ................................................................... 19
4.8 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 19
4.9 Socio-Economic Resources .................................................................................. 20
4.10 Safety .................................................................................................................... 20
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...........................................................................................21
5.1 Geology and Sediments ........................................................................................21
5.2 Water Resources ..................................................................................................21
5.3 Air Quality and Noise ............................................................................................22
i
Table of Contents (cont'd)
ITEM Page No
5.4 Aquatic Resources .............................. ..................................................................22
5.5 Terrestrial Resources .......................... ..................................................................23
5.6 Wetlands and Flood Plains ................. ..................................................................23
5.7 Endangered and Threatened Species . ..................................................................23
5.8 Cultural Resources .............................. ..................................................................24
5.9 Socio-Economic Resources ................ ..................................................................24
5.10 Safety .................................................. ..................................................................25
5.11 Comparison of Alternatives .............. .........................................................25
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................................26
7.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................26
8.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ...........................................................................28
8.1 Initial Coordination ................................................................................................28
8.2 North Carolina Coastal Management Program .....................................................29
8.3 Coordination of this Document ..............................................................................29
8.4 Recipients of this Assessment .................................................................. 29
9.0 POINT OF CONTACT ........................................................................................................33
10.0 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .............................................................33
11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................33
FIGURES
FIGURE 1. Location Map for Lock and Dam No. 1 .......................................................................... 2
FIGURE 2. Existing Lock and Dam No.1 .......................................................................................... 3
FIGURE 3. Rock Arch Rapids at Lock and Dam No.1 ..................................................................... 6
FIGURE 4. Rock Arch Rapids Generic Design Plan View ................................................................ 7
FIGURE 5. Rock Arch Rapids Generic Design Cross Section ......................................................... 8
FIGURE 6. Diversion Rock Arch Rapids at Lock and Dam No. 1 ...................................................1 1
TABLES
TABLE 1. Environmental Impact Comparison of Alternatives .........................................................25
TABLE 2. The Relationship of the Proposed Action to Federal Laws and Policies .........................26
APPENDICES
jFollows Text)
APPENDIX A: Biological Assessment
APPENDIX B: Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
APPENDIX C: Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation
11
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ROCK RAPIDS FISH PASSAGE
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC
LOCK AND DAM NO.1
CAPE FEAR RIVER, BLADEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
March 2010
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Assessment (EA) identifies and evaluates the environmental impacts associated
with the proposed construction of a rock rapids fish passage structure at Lock and Dam No. 1 with the
intent to improve fish passage to spawning grounds above Lock and Dam No.1 on the Cape Fear
River.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), requires consideration of the
environmental impacts for major federal actions. The purpose of this EA is to ensure the environmental
consequences of the proposed action are considered and that environmental and project information
are available to the public.
This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts
1500-1508), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Department of the Army procedures for implementing
NEPA (33 CFR parts 230 and 325), and Engineering Regulation (ER) 200-2-2.
1.1 Background
Lock and Dam No.1 is located on the Cape Fear River in Bladen County, NC, about 39 miles upstream
of Wilmington (figure 1). The construction of the lock and dam was completed in 1915. Two other
locks and dams are located further upstream. At river mile 71 is Lock and Dam No. 2 completed in
1917, and at river mile 95 Lock and Dam No. 3 (William 0. Huske) completed in 1935. The three locks
and dams were built as part of the Cape Fear River above Wilmington, NC Federal project. The
purpose of these locks and dams was to provide for commercial navigation between Wilmington and
Fayetteville, NC.
Lock and Dam No. 1 is a rock filled timber crib structure covered with concrete. The dam crest is 275
feet long, and the base on the dam is about 50 feet wide. The upstream face of the dam is essentially
vertical, but the downstream face of the dam has a slope of about 25 percent from the crest of the dam
to downstream pool surface. The lock chamber is 200 feet long by 40 feet wide (figure 2).
The dam crest is elevation +11.0 feet [NGVD 29 (Mean Sea Level, MSL)]. The water level below the dam
is 0.0 feet MSL at low water (figure 2). There is about a 2-foot lunar tide at the facility. Under low flow
conditions, there is generally about 11 feet of head difference between the upstream and downstream
water levels.
A component of Lock and Dam No. 1 is several wooden weirs constructed across the mouth of creeks in
the floodplain on the east side of the river upstream of the dam. The crests of these weirs are at elevation
+15 to +16 feet MSL. These weirs are intended to maintain the upstream river pool for locking purposes.
Sanford , r
rig
HARNM
y cum No
HOKE #Fayettevill#
ROSE5CN

o i] 1 U 20 30
SN F Rd MA FS
l
i
i KInston
V _•f
rxlf'.I IN '.
------------?
-:Noss
NEW
HANCVER
CAPE FEAR RfVER
LOCKS AND DAMS
BLADEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
LOCATION MAP
Figure 1. Location map for Lock and Dam No. 1
SAMPSON l
S ?
C nton
}? l
Urilliam ?. Husk0 l }
Lock and Dam 1
a +I
Whiteville
OOUJMBVS
r;
J
?` ,-
2
N k
4 ••
I
6
F ?
,' Ir
4
?Y
I
Upper Pool
Elev. +11 ft. -i
'rYi Lower Aoo!
Elev. 40 ft msl
X
LM,
l?
00

-" 10 O 10- 300
1 I% FEET
-CAL-
5
NO ?.
Figure 2. Existing Lock and Dam No.1
Several of these weirs have been repaired over the years, but some of them are currently non-
functional due to deterioration or the creeks having washed around the ends of the weirs.
Since construction of Lock and Dam No.1 in 1915 and subsequent construction of the other locks
and dams, passage of fish upstream, especially anadromous fish, has been restricted.
Anadromous fish are those species that spend most of their life in saltwater, but return to
freshwater to spawn. Examples in North Carolina include striped bass, American shad, river
herring, and sturgeon. Lock and Dam No. 1 is the first obstruction to fish passage on the Cape
Fear River.
Attempts to improve passage of these fish by locking began in 1961. Several changes in these
procedures have been made over the years with the latest changes being made in 1998. In
addition, a steeppass fishway was installed in 1997. Since these changes, monitoring performed
using sonic tags indicate that of those fish that approach Lock and Dam No. 1 with an apparent
attempt to pass, about 50 to 65 percent of the American shad (Alosa sapidissima) and 50 to 77
percent of the striped bass (Morose saxatilis) pass upstream (Moser 2000; CZR 2002, 2003, 2004,
Smith and Hightower 2009). According to Smith and Hightower 2009, of those fish attempting to
pass Lock and Dam No. 1, 35 percent of the shad and 25 percent of the striped bass were able to
pass upstream of Lock and Dam No 3. However, the success of passing other anadromous
species is unknown.
1.2 Purpose and Need
Lock and Dam No. 1, as part of the Cape Fear River above Wilmington, NC project, is
congressionally authorized for the purpose of navigation. Construction, operation, and maintenance
of a rock arch rapids along the toe of the dam will not impact navigation and is therefore consistent
with congressional authorized purposes. Over the years, construction of water supply facilities to
support growing populations along the coast were built utilizing the water pool levels that remain
consistent upriver due to the lock and dam. Maintaining water supply intakes is essential to'/4 million
individuals that now rely on the water supply facilities. Not maintaining the pool would result in the
need for alternate sources of water for this population, along with the associated costs and potential
environmental impacts of developing those sources.
In the August 2000 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Preconstruction Modifications of
Authorized Improvements for Wilmington Harbor (USACE 2000), a commitment was made by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Wilmington Harbor project sponsor, the State of North
Carolina, to construct a fish passage structure at Lock and Dam No. 1 on the Cape Fear River.
This commitment was also included as Term and Condition No. 8 of the August 3, 2000 Biological
Opinion (BO) on Wilmington Harbor from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2000). This
was required to mitigate the potential impacts on the endangered shortnose sturgeon due to blasting
in the Wilmington Harbor navigation channel to remove rock. The type of fish passage structure was
not specified, but would be the result of further investigation and coordination that led to the proposal
of a rock arch rapids at Lock and Dam No.1. Locking for fish passage had been previously
maximized and is not an acceptable alternative.
Construction of the rock arch rapids would provide the need of greater access to historic spawning
grounds utilized by the federally listed shortnose sturgeon and other anadromous fish without
compromising congressionally authorized purposes or affecting water users.
4
2.0 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Over the past decade the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has published several
environmental and planning reports related to Wilmington Harbor that contain references to fish
passage at Lock and Dam No. 1. These reports were circulated for public and environmental agency
review. These documents are cited in the Bibliography, Section 11.0, and four reports are listed
below and are incorporated by reference.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. February 2000. Environmental Assessment,
Preconstruction Modifications of Authorized Improvements, Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina. This
document describes project history, physical and biological attributes of the harbor, dredging and
disposal methods and alternatives, and anticipated environmental impacts of harbor deepening and
maintenance.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. August 2000. Finding of No Significant
Impact, Preconstruction Modifications of Authorized Improvements, Wilmington Harbor, North
Carolina. This report responds to comments on the February 2000 EA, and indicates the
environmental commitments for the project including the agreement to construct a fish passage
structure at Lock and Dam No. 1.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. July 2002. Environmental Assessment, Fish
Bypass at Lock and Dam No. 1, Cape Fear River, Bladen County, North Carolina. This EA
addressed fish passage options at Lock and Dam No. 1. The nature-like bypass was proposed but
later rejected because of low probability of passing the endangered shortnose sturgeon.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. May 2003. Finding of No Significant Impact,
Fish Bypass at Lock and Dam No. 1, Cape Fear River, Bladen County, North Carolina. This report
responded to comments on the July 2002 EA, and indicated the environmental commitments for the
project. As indicated above, the nature-like bypass was proposed but later rejected because of low
probability of passing the endangered shortnose sturgeon.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Feasible Alternatives:
The following alternatives do not affect potential commercial or recreational navigation because
they do not involve lowering the navigation pool behind the dam or blocking the lock. Therefore,
deauthorization of Lock and Dam No. 1 would not be required in order to implement alternatives
3.1.1 through 3.1.3. Also these alternatives would protect the water supply intakes upstream of the
dam. Table 1 (section 5.11) is a general comparison of the preferred alternative and the no-action
alternative which are described below.
3.1.1 Proposed Alternative - Rock arch rapids across the downstream face of the dam
Rock arch rapids are designed so that they appear as a natural rapids to the migrating fish. Large
rocks are placed on the surface of the rapids in vanes so that they slow the water velocity and
provide "flow shadows" which allow the fish to rest (figures 3-5). Gaps in the rock vanes allow the
5
NE fDSO=Z2"?
CLASS 6 RIPRAP?
PRO-
o
o ?
/ l I IN I I I I
7f1 ..... ? ........... .............................................. - ...,.... ?. ?.. ... ?...... - ......
?......,.?...
10 _ - ... .,.:... .,...... ,. ...
__ _
-0+20 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 ' 3+00 3+50 4+00
DAM PROFILE VERPO DATUM. NGVE 29
Figure 3. Rock arch rapids at Lock and Dam No.1
6
N,

x
r

cd
Q

r?
V 1
M
V 1
•I? TIr?,
k?
r
?.L1
• r?
tiLJ

z
4
a
A
b
44?
Figure 4. Rock Arch Rapids Generic Design Plan View (this figure is meant to show general
construction and design to aid in project understanding and does not reflect exact specifications or
a proposed finished product)
7
e-?
O
C3

Q
rd
a
U
0
M
M
Cn
M

r
4)

A
G
u
G
9
Figure 5. Rock Arch Rapids Generic Design Cross Section (this figure is meant to show general
construction and design to aid in project understanding and does not reflect exact specifications or
a proposed finished product)
8
fish to pass in low flow conditions. However, most of the time during the spring migration period,
the rocks are submerged and rapids just appear to be an area of rough water.
This fish passage method has been used on over 30 dams in the upper Midwest and was
developed by Luther Aadland of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The Corps has
also constructed rock rapids on the Red River of the North in North Dakota (USACE 2002a). Rock
rapids have been shown to pass all types of fish including sturgeon, and these structures span the
river so that the fish don't need to find a channel entrance; they would just follow the rapids over
the dam.
The project will utilize granite fill stone (class B) covered by a layer of larger wearing stone that will
be placed near the top of the dam and continue downstream at a 1:20 (5 percent) slope. The slope
of the rock arch rapids is generally at 5 percent or flatter (figure 3) to keep velocities low and rock
placement is designed so that they would appear as a natural rapids to the migrating fish.
Boulders, generally 3-4 feet in diameter are placed on the surface of the rapids in parallel veins
about 20 feet apart, which results in veins about every foot drop in elevation. These stones are
sized such that they will not be moved by water velocity or debris such as downed trees. The
center of the rapids is about 1-2 feet lower than the sides so that during low flow the water is
concentrated in the middle in order that the fish can still pass. This is also referred to as a low flow
notch. Another advantage of the lower center is that the flow is concentrated toward the middle of
the stream which helps preclude erosion of the adjacent shorelines.
Approximately 100,000 cubic yards of rock will be used in construction covering about 3.0 acres of
river bottom. This estimate includes stabilization of a scour hole, about 40 feet deep, that has
developed below Lock and Dam No.1 as a result of water plunging over the dam. Stabilizing this
scour hole is necessary first to ensure stability of the dam structure. Of the 100,000 cubic yards of
rock indicated above, about 25,000 cubic yards is required to stabilize the scour hole covering
about 1.0 acre of river bottom. The additional 75,000 cubic yards is required to complete the rock
rapids along with placing a small volume of this rock along the upstream face of the dam to offset
the weight of the rock rapids on the dam. This action would require about 2.0 acres of additional
river bottom covered. Placement of this rock would require removal of the steeppass fishway
indicated in section 1.1. However, the steeppass fishway would no longer be needed since the
rapids would greatly improve fish passage.
A problem when considering a rock rapids structure is that locks were not present when rock rapids
were constructed at other dams. If rocks were placed adjacent to the river side lock wall, the lock
wall may experience instability. Therefore a protective barrier which may be a new sheet pile or
similar structure will be constructed near the lock wall to contain the rocks without exerting any
force against the lock. The new barrier will be parallel to and within about 10 feet of the lock which
will leave a narrow strip of open water between the two structures. However any fish that may enter
this area can easily exit downstream. This space cannot be filled because the fill material may
exert excessive pressure on the lock wall. The barrier configuration will not compromise fish
passage since the rock rapids will be construction along greater than 95 percent of the 275 feet
length of the dam.
Normally, no in-water construction would take place during the annual anadromous fish moratorium
window (February 1 - June 15); however, this window is requested to be reduced to March 15 -
June 1 during construction. This will allow the facilities to be constructed sooner and thus provide
upstream passage to anadromous fishes sooner. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
9
concurred with this narrower window via electronic mail (Rohde 2009). Shortnose sturgeon are not
expected to be near the project location outside this window, and the bulk of other anadromous
species are not expected to be present outside this proposed window either. Also as indicated in
Collier 2009, no Atlantic sturgeon were captured near Lock and Dam No. 1 in any month over a ten
year sampling period. Therefore, the proposed construction period is from June 2-March 14. The
scour hole will probably be finished during one construction window (beginning in 2010) and the
rock arch rapids finish during the following construction window (beginning in 2011).
Rock will be transported by truck and/or barge to the site and probably placed in the water from a
barge. Rock may be temporarily stockpiled on an upland location near the site.
3.1.2 Nature-like fish bypass
This bypass channel would approximate a natural stream in hydrology by providing a channel that
would meander about 3,800 feet in the floodplain on the east side of the river from the downstream
base of the dam and exit about 2,000 feet upstream. This length of the channel is needed so that
the water velocity is slow enough for fish to pass. The channel would average 5 feet deep and
pass about 10 percent of the river flow in order to attract fish. This alternative generally follows the
concept of Parasiewicz et al. 1998. The morphology of this alternative is different from a natural
stream in that bank cuts up to 20 feet deep need to be made in the lower end of the project to
overcome the head difference between up and downstream of the dam and to have adequate
water depth in the channel for fish passage.
This alternative was selected as the proposed fish passage method in the Environmental
Assessment /Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) for fish passage at Lock and Dam No. 1
(USACE 2002b, 2003). This EA/FONSI was prepared in response to the August 2000 NMFS BO
(NMFS 2000). This project was not constructed due to funding constraints and real estate
acquisition issues. However, based on discussions during the General Reevaluation Report (GRR)
process for the Wilmington Harbor deepening project, the project delivery team (PDT) determined
that the nature-like bypass would have a low probability of success. This is because bottom
dwelling fish like the shortnose sturgeon would have difficulty locating the entrance to the bypass
channel. Therefore this alternative was rejected.
3.1.3 Diversion rock arch rapids
As with the nature-like bypass, this diversion channel would divert about 10 percent of the river
flow to provide fish attraction flow, and the fish entrance would be as close to the dam as possible
so that the fish are more likely to find the entrance. Rocks would be placed in the diversion
channel to create a series of rapids that fish finding the channel should be able to pass. The slope
of the channel would be 5 percent or less to keep water velocities low. This fish passage would be
designed similar to the proposed fish diversion channel at new Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam near
Augusta, Georgia (USACE 2002c). However as with the nature-like bypass, there was a similar
concern that typically bottom dwelling fish like sturgeon would have difficulty locating the channel
entrance. See figure 6.
10

SHEET ?
PILE
WALL
I,
a°
Upper Pool °
Elev. +11 ft msl \
1 WALL
1 1R ? o/
I ?z I ? ?4oy, ?9?
1
I Lower Pool
Elev. +0 ft. msl b
I
1 1 ?? :.? SC.ALf=: I - - SO•
S(-ALL JN FLL 1
o m
W
^ - 4'[)50 2' DIA. STONE
?w 7:
z 20 - -;:.Qd.pH.....? ... ...::. -
?io I I` I 11 I: I I"": I I l ` I I'` I I I I I I l I 'f L I I ?? 1 1 ?•-.•J='
:n
O+00 I+00 2-CO 3+00 q+CO 5+00
tba? I S' 15'
-3:1 TYP 4'D50 Z DA
PJZ+9f 44\ STONE
\ TYPICAL SECTION
p3?+pp
O?? \
z• colvc CAr ;
GUILDERS ---- -
PC4+13.89 \
40'
P14+19.94
+ \ 10'
\?
STA. 0+75 SHEET PILE WALL
WILMINUTCJN HARBOR
GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT
LOCK AND DAM No. I
DIVERSION CHANNEL
Figure 6. Diversion rock arch rapids at Lock and Dam No .1

I
11
3.2 Non-Feasible alternatives
As indicated above, the locks and dams were congressionally authorized for navigation using the
locks to move upstream. The following alternatives affect potential commercial and recreational
navigation because they either involve lowering the navigation pool behind the dam and/or block
the lock. Therefore, deauthorization of Lock and Dam No.1 would be required in order to
implement alternatives 3.2.1 through 3.2.4. Also, 3.2.2 through 3.2.4 would adversely impact water
supply intakes upstream of the dam.
3.2.1 Rock arch rapids in lock chamber
This alternative is very similar to diversion rock rapids, but instead of placing the rapids in an
excavated diversion channel, the rapids are placed in the lock chamber. The design features are
generally the same including sizing the rocks, slope, and attraction flow. However there are two
disadvantages of this alternative compared to the diversion channel. First the fish entrance (lock
opening) is 200 feet downstream of the dam verses adjacent to the dam for the diversion channel.
Thus fish would have more difficulty finding the rapids and with a rock rapid in the lock chamber,
Second, commercial and recreational traffic would be precluded. For these reasons, this
alternative was dropped from further consideration.
3.2.2 Lower the Dam with a Fish Passage Structure
Lock and Dam No. 1 cannot be lowered much without affecting the existing water supply intakes
during low flow conditions. Lock and Dam No. 1 can only be lowered about 1 foot before affecting
the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority intake. This would result in a loss of dependable storage
during drought conditions. Replacement of this storage with an offline reservoir or other form of
storage would be expensive and would likely have adverse environmental impacts (e.g. land
clearing or flooding of existing habitat). In addition to reducing dependable storage, the lower
elevation would reduce the pumping capability of the facilities.
The indicated lowering would not result in appreciable savings for fish passage methods. The
quantity of rock for a rock rapids constructed at this elevation versus the existing crest elevation
would be about the same. The length of a diversion channel or nature-like bypass would be
shorter because of lowering of the head difference between upstream and downstream of the dam;
however, this cost savings would be offset by having to excavate these channels deeper to reach
the elevation of the lowered upstream pool. For the reasons given above, this alternative was
eliminated from further consideration.
3.2.3 Lower the Dam without a Fish Passage Structure
This alternative involves lowering the dam to the point that anadromous fish could pass over the
dam during normal spring river discharges, but during drought conditions a low pool would be
backed up behind the lowered dam. This alternative would result in lowering Lock and Dam No.
by about 9 feet. Locking commercial vessels would not be feasible with this alternative which
would preclude the authorized project purpose of navigation. Therefore implementing this
alternative would first require project deauthorization.
12
Also precluding locking would adversely impact military operations. The U.S. Marine Corps and
now the U. S. Navy have been using Lock and Dam No. 2 for training for several years and plan to
continue the training operations for the foreseeable future. They indicate the Cape Fear River
along with the locks and dams provide an ideal riverine training area for Iraq and other mission
areas around the world. When the Iraq mission is complete, that will not diminish the need for
riverine training. To date the Navy/Marine Corps have deployed about 100 troops at Lock and
Dam No. 2 for about 2 weeks several times per year and that use is expected to increase. The
Navy and the Corps of Engineers have developed a long-term agreement for continued use of the
site by the Navy. Continued locking operations at Lock and Dam No. 1 are essential to the Navy
for access to Lock and Dam No. 2.
However the major disadvantages of this alternative are to the existing water users upstream of
Lock and Dam No. 1. The water users would have a minimal pool elevation, but lose basically all of
their existing storage. In addition, the water users would need to bear a considerable capital
expense to modify their facilities. Lowering, including capital costs to water supply facilities, is
more expensive than rock rapids and has no major advantages over rock rapids. The intakes
would be located closer to the river bottom which could increase sediment problems in the intake
structure, plus the water supply facilities may need to be taken offline for a period of time while the
modifications are being implemented.
For these reasons, the alternative of lowering the dam was eliminated from further consideration.
3.2.4 Remove the Lock and Dam
Removing the lock and dam would be the best alternative for fish passage since the river would
return to its natural condition, until Lock and Dam No. 2 is reached, with no obstructions to passage
during any flow conditions. However, due to the lower water levels at Lock and Dam No. 2, locking
fish or vessels through that facility would not be feasible. This alternative would have the impacts
of the previous alternative (lower the dam -9 feet) including the requirement for deauthorization.
However, it would have the greatest adverse impact on the water users. There would be no
guaranteed minimal pool because no dam related structure would be left in the river, and this
alternative would have greater infrastructure costs than constructing rock rapids at Lock and Dam
No. 1. Infrastructure costs would include a storage reservoir (s), new intake facilities, pumps and
lowering of the wet wells. For these reasons, the alternative of removing the dam was eliminated
from further consideration.
3.3 No Action (no change in the existing operation).
The no action alternative would include the continued use of locking as the fish passage method
utilized at all three locks and dams. Locking is being conducted each spring from about mid-March
through late-May which includes the peak of the anadromous fish migration period. The locking
starts at Lock and Dam No. 1 first then, moving upstream, a week later at Lock and Dam No. 2,
followed by a week later at Lock and Dam No. 3. The locking stops in the same sequence with a
week lag between each facility.
Fish passage using locking has been previously maximized via former studies (Hall et al. 1998,
Moser et al. 2000), and by removing shoals by the Corps each winter that form in front of the lock
chamber. Removing the shoals facilitates anadromous fish in finding the lock chamber.
13
Monitoring performed using sonic tags indicate that of those fish that approach Lock and Dam No.
1 with an apparent attempt to pass, about 50 to 65 percent of the American shad (Alosa
sapidissima) and 50 to 77 percent of the striped bass (Morose saxatilis) pass upstream (Moser
2000; CZR 2002, 2003, 2004, Smith and Hightower 2009). According to Smith and Hightower
2009, of those fish attempting to pass Lock and Dam No. 1, 35 percent of the shad and 25 percent
of the striped bass were able to pass upstream of Lock and Dam No 3.
This alternative would protect the water supply pool upstream, but this is not a viable option as
reasonable and prudent measure number 8 of the NMFS August 2000 Biological Opinion requires
that a fish passage structure be constructed at Lock and Dam No 1. The passage of the
endangered shortnose sturgeon is not improved by locking, and the shortnose sturgeon is the main
concern addressed in the 2000 NMFS BO (NMFS 2000). Therefore, locking by itself is not a viable
option, and the no action alternative would fail to accomplish the required increase in fish passage
upstream of Lock and Dam No. 1.
3.4 Alternatives Not Considered In Detail
There are many other fish passage alternatives that are not evaluated in detail for this project.
They are either too expensive and require high maintenance costs (e.g. fish lifts), or would be
quickly clogged by the abundant woody debris in the river (e.g. slot or denil pass).
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
4.1 Geology and Sediments
The Soil Survey of Bladen County, North Carolina (USDA 1990) indicates that the floodplain of the
east side of the river contains Congaree Soils. On site investigations by Corps of Engineers staff
confirmed this classification. This soil type occurs frequently within the floodplain of the Cape
Fear River. During the winter when evapotranspiration is not a factor, the water table is generally
within 2.5 to 4 feet of the surface. According to the USDA-SCS, Hydric Soils of North Carolina
(USDA 1995), Congaree is not classified as a hydric soil.
On the west side of the river in the floodplain, are also Congaree soils. The steep slope of the
bluff is classified as Dystrochrepts (steep), and the soils on the bluff are classified as Wagram
(fine sand). None of these soils are classified as hydric.
A Tier I (EPA/USACE 1998) assessment using readily available existing information to assess the
potential sediment contaminant concerns was conducted and reported in USDO1 (2006). A site
reconnaissance on August 21, 2006 was conducted to determine general composition and identify
depositional areas where pollutants may accumulate. People with knowledge of the dams, the
river, and local pollution sources were interviewed. The Tier I data (EPA/USACE 1998) indicate no
known significant organic or inorganic pollutant problems in a one-mile assessment area
surrounding the impounded reaches of the locks and dams.
A Tier II and III (EPA/USACE 1998) assessment of sediments from within the impounded reaches
of three locks and dams on the Cape Fear River was conducted and reported in USDO1 and USGS
(2007). Twelve sediment samples from within impounded reaches of the three Cape Fear River
Locks and Dams were sampled. Whole sediment toxicity tests with midges and amphipods
14
showed no adverse effects of the sediments on test organism survival and growth. Sediment
elutriate toxicity tests with sensitive aquatic organisms (cladocerans) resulted in statistically
significant reductions in survival in samples from four sites. Manganese had among the strongest
correlation and the most plausible biological association with the reduced survival observed.
Based on the results of sediment chemistry and toxicity tests, contamination in surface sediments
behind the Cape Fear River Locks and Dams is unlikely to be a concern in-place. However, if
mobilization of sediments occurred (e.g. dam removal), there may be a water column concern.
4.2 Water Resources
Hydrology. The lock and dam is about 39 miles upstream of Wilmington on the Cape Fear River.
The river basin drainage area at the lock and dam is 5,255 square miles. The average river
discharge at the site is about 5,313 cubic feet per sec
(cfs)(http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2008/pdfs/02105769.2008.pdf). Since B. Everett Jordan Dam, 135
miles upstream of Lock and Dam No. 1, began to regulate flow in September of 1981, the lowest
daily mean and highest daily mean flows were 179 cfs August 10, 2002, and 47,600 September 11,
1996, respectively. Low flows generally occur from mid-summer to mid fall with highest flows in the
winter to early spring. At the river stage of about 16 feet MSL, river waters enter the floodplain and
begin a sheet flow action across the floodplain. The river discharge where this begins is around
15,000 cfs.
At low flows there is generally an 11-foot head difference between upstream and downstream of the
dam. Even during normal spring flows around 4,000 cfs, with the upstream pool at 13-14 feet and
the downstream pool at 2-3 feet, there is about an 11-foot head difference. However as river flow
increases, the head difference decreases. At and above the stage of about 18 feet MSL (?25,000
cfs), the difference in the head is less than 2 feet and there is 7 feet or more of water over the dam.
At this point, adult anadromous fish can probably swim over the dam.
During low flow conditions, a 2-foot lunar tide is evident at the foot of the dam. Fresh water
conditions are generally present for about 25 miles downstream of the dam. As part of the
Wilmington Harbor Widening and Deepening Project a monitoring program was initiated in 1999 to
determine if the project impacted the tidal range and salinity in the Cape Fear Estuary (Hackney,
2007). Monitoring stations were established at 12 locations on the Cape Fear, Northeast Cape
Fear and Black Rivers to measure tide and salinity. Even during the drought of 2002, the furthest
upstream salt penetration station on the Cape Fear River was at Dollison Landing (P8), about 25
miles downstream of L&D No. 1.
Geise et al 1985 concluded that the furthest upstream limit of the saltwater front occurred in 1953
during Hurricane Hazel. The storm surge pushed the saltwater front upstream to approximately 19
miles below L&D No. 1 before the saltwater front was flushed back downstream with the heavy
storm rainfall.
The creeks in the floodplain on the east side of the project site have mostly silted in because of the
placement of the weirs (section 1.1). The creeks are generally less than 20 feet wide and only a few
feet deep. The only time they have any flow is following localized heavy rainfall or when the river
level is rising. When the river level is rising, the creeks are conduits transferring water further back
into the floodplain.
15
Water Quality. The Cape Fear River is classified "WS-IV" on either side of the dam. "WS-IV"
waters are for a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes for those
users where a more protective classification is not feasible due to watershed development. In
addition the waters upstream of the dam are classified as "CA" and downstream of the dam "Sw".
"CA" means the area adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir where risk associated with
pollution is greater than from the remaining portion of the watershed. "Sw" waters generally have
very slow velocities and other characteristics which are different from adjacent streams draining
steeper topography (NCDENR 2009). No known water quality problems have occurred at Lock and
Dam No. 1 except for an occasional algal bloom during low flow periods in warmer months.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the impacts associated with the discharge of fill
material into waters of the United States are discussed in the Section 404(b)(1) (P.L. 95-217)
evaluation in appendix C.
Water Supply. The water supply intakes for the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and the Lower
Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority are just upstream of Lock and Dam No.1 on the west side
and the middle of the river, respectively. These entities supply water to a total population of about
250,000 people in southeastern NC. The water supply intake is upstream of the dam because the
dam provides a dependable pool level, and the dam precludes any potential saltwater
contamination of the water supply. The combined existing and projected water supply use is as
follows:
Average Daily Demand MGD (Million Gallons per Day) by Year
Years Years
2002 2030 Water Facilities
16.6 30.7 Cape Fear Public Utility Authority
43.2 96.1 Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority
This information was obtained from the water users and the NC Division of Water Resources
website (http://www.ncwater.org).
Groundwater. The floodplain in the project area has a water table within 2.5 to 4 feet of the soil
surface. This near surface alluvial aquifer is confined to the floodplain. The groundwater movement
in this aquifer is toward the river and this aquifer is not used for potable water.
4.3 Air Quality and Noise
The Fayetteville Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources has air quality jurisdiction for the project area. The ambient air quality for Bladen
County has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
and this county is designated an attainment area.
Bladen County in the vicinity of the locks and dams is a rural environment dominated by farming
with a few residential structures. There is some boat traffic on the river especially during the spring
anadromous fish run. Otherwise there are no regular noise disturbances.
16
4.4 Aquatic Resources
Fisheries. The Cape Fear River at the project site is fresh water, but because the river is still
tidally influenced in the area below Lock and Dam No. 1, there is the potential for a diverse
assemblage of fishes to occur. Fishery resources in this part of the Cape Fear River can be
classified into three categories: permanent resident species, anadromous species, and estuarine
dependent species.
Resident fishes include members of the herring, minnow, sucker, catfish, sunfish, and perch
families. Both gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and threadfin shad (D. petenense) commonly
occur in the river. The minnows include common carp (Cyprinus carpio), whitefin shiner (Cyprinella
nivea), and spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius). Several species of suckers are present but they
are uncommon. Catfishes dominate the biomass of fishes. Two large introduced species, blue
catfish (lctalurus furcatus) and flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) predominate. At least eight
species of sunfish occur in this portion of the Cape Fear River. Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
redear sunfish (L. microlophus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) are the most
common. A recreational fishery exists here for sunfishes and catfishes.
At least six species of anadromous/catadromous fishes occur in this part of the Cape Fear River.
American shad (Alosa sapidissima) is the dominant member of this group. Spawning runs occur
each spring in the Cape Fear River and a significant recreational and commercial fishery has
developed below the dam. Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) and hickory shad (Alosa mediocris)
also make spawning runs but they occur in much fewer numbers than American shad. A resident
population of the striped bass (Moron saxatilis) is present and migrates as far upstream as
Buckhorn Dam. Its population is low and it had to compete with introduced hybrid bass, which
have escaped from Jordan Lake, but hybrid bass are no longer introduced. Both the Atlantic
sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) and the endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostrum) occur in the Cape Fear River and make spawning runs up tributaries of the Cape
Fear (Black and Northeast Cape Fear rivers) and possibly the mainstem Cape Fear River also.
Elvers of the catadromous American eel (Anguilla rostrata) ascend the river each year to spend
their early lives in the freshwater tributaries.
Monitoring performed using sonic tags indicate that of those fish that approach Lock and Dam No.
1 with an apparent attempt to pass, about 50 to 65 percent of the American shad (Alosa
sapidissima) and 50 to 77 percent of the striped bass (Moron saxatilis) pass upstream (Moser
2000; CZR 2002, 2003, 2004, Smith and Hightower 2009). According to Smith and Hightower
2009, of those fish attempting to pass Lock and Dam No. 1, 35 percent of the shad and 25 percent
of the striped bass were able to pass upstream of Lock and Dam No 3.
Historic records indicate that anadromous fish spawned up to the fall line on the Cape Fear River
which is upstream of the Jordan Lake Dam near Moncure, North Carolina. A study performed by
Dial Cordy and Associates under contract to the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers in the
spring of 2006 indicated that spawning of American shad and striped bass (only anadromous
species where significant eggs and larvae were collected) occurred primarily upstream of Lock and
Dams 2 & 3 (DC 2006). However, Smith and Hightower 2009 indicate that most of the American
Shad spawning occurs downstream of Lock and Dam No. 1.
17
A number of estuarine-dependent fishes are known to occur near Lock and Dam No. 1. Dominant
in this group are striped mullet (Mugii cephaius), freshwater goby (Gobione//us shufe/dti), and
hogchoker (Trinectes macuiatus). Others noted from the area are Atlantic menhaden (Brevooitia
tyrannus), ladyfish (Eiops saurus), Atlantic needlefish (Strongy/ura marina), and southern flounder
(Paraiichthys iethostigma). Others likely occur there since they have been found further
downstream. These species include spot (Leisotomusxanthurus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias
unduiatus), and an invertebrate, the blue crab (Caiiinecetes sapidus).
Benthos. The only benthic resources in the floodplain on the east side of the river are in the silted
creeks. Frequently the creeks are dry, but when water is present in these creeks the flow is generally
minimal except during localized heavy rainfall or when the river rises and movement of water is from
the river into the floodplain. Both of these conditions are intermittent. Therefore, the benthos is
exposed to high temperatures during the summer and freezing temperatures during the winter.
Because of these conditions, the creeks would be inhabited by opportunistic species such as diptera,
oligocheates, and amphipods. There are no benthic resources in the floodplain on the west bank of
the river because it is either paved or mowed grassed areas.
Minimal benthic resources are anticipated in the scour hole below the dam due to the high velocities
and associated scour effect on the river substrate.
Primary Nursery Areas (PNA). PNA are designated by the NC Marine Fisheries Commission and
are defined by the State of North Carolina as tidal saltwaters which provide essential habitat for the
early development of commercially important fish and shellfish (15 NC Administrative Code 3B 1405).
Primary nursery area extends upstream on the Cape Fear River to Lock and Dam No. 1 even though
saltwater is not present there.
4.5 Terrestrial Resources
Adjacent to the east side of the river is a wooded floodplain of the Cape Fear River. There is an
intermittent natural levee along the river that is 2 to 4 feet higher in elevation than the interior
floodplain. The over story of the floodplain is mostly a closed canopy dominated by red maple (Acer
rubrum), black gum (Nyssa syivatica), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) American elm (Uimus
americana), and various ash (Ftaxinusspp.), oaks (Quercusspp.) and hickory (Carya spp.) species.
Many down trees are present probably due to past hurricanes. The under story is fairly open
containing scattered privet (Ligustrum sinense), green briar (Smiiaxspp.) and saplings of over story
species. During field investigations crayfish chimneys were present throughout the floodplain, and
white tail deer (Odocoiieus virginianus), turkey (Meieagris gaiiopavo) and eastern gray squirrels
(Sciurus caroiinensis) were observed. Near the dam, an existing logging road comes to within 450
feet of the river. The site is currently used for hunting in the fall primarily for white tail deer and in the
spring for turkey. The Corps of Engineers owns about 6 acres of land on the east side of the river
near the dam.
The west side of the river contains the facilities associated with the lock and dam. Within the
floodplain of the river is a boat ramp and associated paved parking lot along with a concrete
esplanade next to the lock and dam and grassed areas. The bluff above the floodplain contains a
picnic shelter, restroom facilities, parking, and lockmaster facilities. Most of the non-paved areas are
grassed with several large oaks (Quercus spp.). The Corps of Engineers owns about 11 acres of
land on the west side of the river near the dam.
18
4.6 Wetlands and Floodplains
According to the USDA 1995, Congaree is not classified as a hydric soil. The United States Army
Corps of Engineers 7987 Wet/and Delineation Manua/indicates wetlands possess three essential
characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Therefore since the
project site floodplain contains non-hydric soils, the floodplain is not a wetland. The only exception
is the bottom of the silted creeks on the east side of the river which are wetlands. No wetlands are
located at the project site along the west side of the river.
4.7 Endangered and Threatened Species
An updated list of endangered and threatened (E&T) species for the project areas was obtained
from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
(http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdf/species%29lisVNorth%20Carolina.html) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) (http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countvfr.htmD web pages in January 2010.
The actual occurrence of a species in the area depends upon the availability of suitable habitat, the
season of the year relative to a species' temperature tolerance, migratory habits, and other factors.
For Lock and Dam No. 1, the only species likely to occur in the project area is the endangered
shortnose sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostrum) and Florida Manatee (Trichechusmanatus). The Florida
Manatee is not listed as an endangered or threatened species in Bladen County; however, it has
been included in the biological assessment (appendix A) as transportation of construction materials
may occur through down river areas in which manatees have been known to occur. See appendix A
for more details.
4.8 Cultural Resources
Lock and Dam No. 1 is an integral part of the historic upper Cape Fear River navigation
improvements. Together with Lock and Dam No. 2 and William 0. Huske Lock and Dam
(sometimes referred to as Lock and Dam No. 3), it has been documented and evaluated as eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These investigations were conducted
pursuant to Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. These sections require
federal agencies to inventory and evaluate historic properties under their control and to nominate to
the National Register of Historic Places those properties that are found to be historically significant.
A prehistoric Native American site in the immediate vicinity of Lock and Dam No. 1 has been
investigated and determined not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.
Construction of Lock and Dam No.1 began in 1913 at Kings Bluff, 39 miles above Wilmington. The
project was part of a 1902 congressional authorization that included three locks and dams to be
constructed as improvements to navigation between Wilmington and Fayetteville. At the time of
the authorization, transportation by steamboat was common between Elizabethtown, Wilmington,
and Southport, with vessels such as the steamers A. P. Hurt (ex. Lyon), D. Murchison, Navassa,
City of Fayetteville, FrankSessoms, and Cape Fear making regular passenger, cargo, and mail
excursions. These steamers also traveled to Fayetteville, nearly 42 miles above Elizabethtown,
but without the desired navigation improvements, the trip proved hazardous due to shallow water
and the prospects of foul weather. Construction of the locks was delayed due to economic
disputes and disagreements over the economic benefit to be realized by construction. While
federal officials expressed skepticism over the value of the project and delayed its implementation,
steamship companies continued to build and refit vessels during the 1920s specifically for the
anticipated improvements in the Fayetteville trade. Local navigation companies and area
19
governments finally won approval for construction of the third lock and dam near Elizabethtown,
but by the time the lock was completed in 1935, much of the commercial traffic formerly carried by
steamboat was being carried by railroad.
The locks and dams on the Cape Fear River are unique partly because of the river itself. In North
Carolina, only the Cape Fear could offer transportation from the Piedmont to a seaport without
intervening shallow sounds. It was also the only river that could accommodate "slack water"
navigation in eastern North Carolina. It is no wonder that the drive to open the channel between
Fayetteville and Wilmington was so unyielding. Given the historical importance of these locks and
dams in providing navigation to the inland sections of the state, the three properties are considered
eligible to the NRHP under Criterion A; they possess significance on a state and local level for their
role in river transportation in North Carolina.
The locks and dams and their environs are also significant for their engineering and architectural
design and therefore, are also eligible to the NRHP under Criterion C. These structures,
particularly Lock and Dam Nos. 1 and 2, were essentially built on a bed of sand that posed some
complicated engineering dilemmas unique to the sites. The lock floors at Nos. 1 and 2 were laid
underwater using a tremie-an uncommon practice typically employed on pier and bridge
construction. This technique garnered national attention in two contemporary journals-
Engineering News Record (Vol. 76, September 21, 1916) and Pfofessiona/Memoirs (Vol. 8, 1916
and Vol. 9, 1917). While the timber crib dam at Dam No. 1 was a common design, the fact that it
remained in fair condition for three decades before receiving a concrete apron for stabilization is
notable. The dam was then repeatedly altered and improved in order to sustain its life span.
It has been recommended that the three locks and dams and their associated historic buildings be
considered eligible to the NRHP as a multiple property submission of three historic districts that
comprise the Cape Fear Navigation System.
4.9 Socio-Economic Resources
Recreational boaters enjoy fishing in the Cape Fear River in the vicinity of the locks and dams.
Since 1965, the Corps of Engineers has maintained and upgraded many of the recreational
facilities at the locks and dams to provide safe and sanitary accommodations for boaters,
fishermen, picnickers, and sightseers. These facilities include picnic areas, restrooms, parking
areas, fishing areas, boat launching ramps, and open grassed areas. Annual visitation for the
three locks and dams has averaged nearly 200,000 visitors. Six acres of land is dedicated to
recreation activities at Lock and Dam No.1 on the west side of the river. Recreational and
commercial fishermen extensively use the waters around the lock and dam, especially the
downstream waters during the spring spawning run of anadromous fish.
4.10 Safety
Under the Corps' Dam Safety Action Classification (DSAC) system, Lock and Dam No.1 in 2008
received a Classification II. That classification means urgent (unsafe or potentially unsafe).
However, there is no imminent danger of failure. Further investigations were conducted in 2009 at
Lock and Dam No. 1.
20
Low head dams similar to Lock and Dam No.1 can produce a roller at the base of the dam during
certain flow conditions. These rollers have also been called "drowning machines" because they
can trap boats or boaters that accidentally pass over the dam or boats or boaters that approach too
near the dam from downstream. Despite warning buoys and signs up and downstream of the dam,
this roller effect at Lock and Dam No. 1 has caused numerous injuries and several drownings since
construction of the dam.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section compares the impacts of the proposed alternative (the rock arch rapids) and the no
action alternative (existing locking operations). All other alternatives were eliminated from further
consideration as indicated in section 3.
5.1 Geology and Sediments
Since upland disturbance is not a component of this project, except for possible stockpiling of
rocks, no impacts are anticipated to geology with either the no action or the proposed alternative.
Minor sedimentation disturbance that is temporary and short-lived would be expected with the
proposed alternative, but there would be no change under the no action alternative.
5.2 Water Resources
Hydrology. Rock rapids are based on the very simple concept of making the dams mimic natural
rapids that fish are well adapted to pass. Placing rocks downstream of the dam in a series of steps
would appear to most individuals as natural rapids. There will be no change in downstream
hydrology as the rock rapids do not alter the discharges at the base of the dam.
The no action alternative would not result in any changes to the current downstream hydrology.
Water QualitX. Placement of material in the stream would result in minor temporary turbidity
downstream of Lock and Dam No. 1 but overall impacts to water quality would be minimal and of
short duration. Rock used would be essentially free of sediments and debris as well as
contaminant free. This further reduces the short term impacts to water quality caused by turbidity.
The rapids may increase dissolved oxygen (DO) downstream due to increased aeration over the
rapids.
The no action alternative will result in continued minor turbidity downstream of the dam due to
erosion and no potential increases in dissolved oxygen (DO).
Water Supply. Water supply will not be impacted with either the no action or alternative plan since
the pool upstream of the dam will not be altered. The proposed alternative will ensure stability of
the dam using the rock rapids as support which will ensure maintenance of the upstream pool.
Groundwater. Neither the proposed alternative nor the no action alternative would impact the
groundwater in the surrounding area.
21
5.3 Air Quality and Noise
An air quality conformity determination would not be required with either alternative because Bladen
County has been determined by the State of North Carolina to be attainment areas, and the ambient
air quality of this county is in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The direct and
indirect emissions from the proposed alternative will fall below prescribed de minimus levels, noise
will only be elevated during the construction period, and the project area is located in a remote area
with few residences nearby. The no action alternative will not contribute to emissions nor will noise
increase in the surrounding area.
5.4 Aquatic Resources
Fisheries. The proposed alternative will provide a great benefit to the migration of anadromous
fish and other species passing upstream of the dam. Most species that migrate downstream
currently pass over the dam and that should continue to be the route of downstream fish
movement. The rock rapids will not lead to the spread of introduced species such as blue and
flathead catfish since they currently exist on both sides of the dam.
An extensive monitoring plan is proposed to determine the success of passage of anadromous fish
past Lock and Dam No.1. This monitoring will be performed post-construction of the rock rapids.
The post construction monitoring plans will be similar to the studies conducted by North Carolina
State University and CZR Inc. (Smith 2009 and CZR 2002, 2003, & 2004), as outlined in section
4.4 of this EA. A decision will be made determining what percent of the tagged fish for each
species need to pass through the rock rapids before it is declared a success. Development of the
success criteria will be a multi-agency effort.
Primary Nursery Areas are designated by the NC Marine Fisheries Commission and are defined by
the State of North Carolina as tidal saltwaters which provide essential habitat for the early
development of commercially important fish and shellfish (15 NC Administrative Code 3B .1405).
Primary nursery area extends upstream on the Cape Fear River to Lock and Dam No. 1 even though
saltwater is not present there. The only work that would occur in this area under the proposed
alternative is placement of rock in the river to create rock rapids for anadromous fish passage. There
may be short-term elevated turbidity and noise during construction. However as indicated in section
3.1.1, most anadromous fish should not be present during the proposed construction period of
June 2-March 14.
An Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (EFH) has been prepared (appendix B) and outlines impacts
on the Primary Nursery Area potentially present in the vicinity of Lock and Dam No. 1. Essential Fish
Habitat is not applicable upstream of Lock and Dam No. 1 as that area is not tidal and is
freshwater. The proposed alternative is not expected to cause any significant adverse impacts to
essential fish habitat or EFH species.
The no action alternative will result in a status quo situation for anadromous fisheries that rely on
access to upstream spawning areas to reproduce. While locking allows some fish passage, it does
not have the significant increase in passage that a structure such as the rock arch rapids would
exhibit. In addition, implementing the no action alternative would fail to meet specific commitments
to fisheries as outlined in section 1.2 and fishery resources may decline.
22
Benthos. The benthic populations that are established should experience little disturbance from
either the no action or the proposed alternative. Large populations of benthic organisms are not
expected within the scour hole due to high levels of turbulence and erosion.
5.5 Terrestrial Resources
For the no action alternative, no forest or other terrestrial resources will be impacted. Therefore,
no impacts to terrestrial resources are expected for this alternative. However for the proposed
action, rock may be temporarily stockpiled on Corps of Engineers property on the east or west side
of the river. No land clearing should be required on the west side, but if stockpiling occurs of the
east side some forest clearing may be required. If this occurs, the area will be replanted with
native vegetation following project completion. Also, sedimentation and erosion control permits will
be obtained prior to any clearing.
5.6 Wetlands and Flood Plains
Wetlands. The proposed rock rapids fish passage structure would not be constructed in wetlands.
Therefore, there would be no impacts to wetlands during the construction or maintenance of the
proposed rock rapids fish passage alternative or the no action alternative.
Floodplains. In accordance with EO11988, Floodplain Management, all practicable measures to
minimize harm to the floodplain have been incorporated into the plans. The rock rapids will be
located in the floodplain, and they must be located in the floodplain to accomplish its purpose, are
designed to experience flooding events, and no buildings would be associated with this project. The
proposed alternative would not induce development within the floodplain.
The no action alternative would not have any impacts to the floodplain.
5.7 Endangered and Threatened Species
The only listed species in the immediate project area is the endangered shortnose sturgeon. Fish
passage is being required under the Endangered Species Act to increase the passage of the
shortnose sturgeon. NMFS issued an August 2000 Biological Opinion (BO) under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act for the Wilmington Harbor 96 Act Project, NC. Term and Condition
number 8 of the BO requires fish passage construction at Lock and Dam #1 on the Cape Fear
River. This requirement relates to the endangered shortnose sturgeon and is discussed in detail in
appendix A of the EA. No additional actions are proposed for evaluation in this EA. The
Wilmington District believes that the proposed rock rapids is fulfilling the requirements of Term and
Condition number 8 and compliance with section 7 of the ESA. Therefore the COE is not
requesting reinitiation of consultation for this project.
If the proposed alternative was implemented, transport of materials through areas in which
manatees have been known to occur is not likely to adversely affect the species. All manatee
protocol regarding vessel traffic will be followed. A Biological Assessment on impacts to
endangered species can be found in appendix A of this EA.
23
The no action alternative would fail to provide increased fish passage to shortnose sturgeon and
would not meet the commitment to provide fish passage that was made by the Corps and would
not comply with the August 2000 NMFS BO (NMFS 2000).
5.8 Cultural Resources
The Cape Fear River Locks and Dams have been documented and evaluated per National
Register of Historic Places criteria and requirements of the Historic American Engineering Record.
The following summary is based upon studies conducted by New South Associates for the
Wilmington District. These include: Phase /Archaeologica/Survey Cape Fear Locks and Dams
and Proposed New Fish Channel (2002), Documentation and Assessment: Cape Fear River Locks
and Dams, Bladen County, NC (2003), Phase ll Archaeological Testing of Site 37BL 747, Bladen County,
North Carolina (2008), and Documentation: Lockmaster Houses at Lock and Dam Nos. 7 and 3,
Cape Fear River, Bladen County, North Carolina (2008). Five and seven-tenths acres of L&D-1
are considered eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Contributing elements include the lock and dam, the Lockmaster Residence, and one original
storage shed. Construction of the proposed alternative will not have an adverse effect on the
historic site so long as construction activities are confined to open areas and do not impact existing
structures. Construction plans, including details of staging and storage areas, will be reviewed to
assure that historic structures are avoided. The no action alternative is not expected to have any
adverse impacts to cultural resources.
The data recovery activities referred to in this summary have been reviewed by the State Historic
Preservation Officer and meet the intent and guidance of Sections 106 and 110 of the National
Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 800, Protection of Historic Properties.
5.9 Socio-Economic Resources
If the proposed rock rapids alternative was constructed at Lock and Dam No. 1, more anadromous
fish will go further upstream and have greater spawning success. This would eventually result in
greater fisheries resources and greater commercial and recreational fishing opportunities. Fishing
for anadromous species at the base of the dam should not experience any dramatic reductions as the
fish will still have to traverse the rock rapids and with increased spawning success more fish will be
traversing the rapids.
Esthetic conditions would not be significantly altered since rock rapids would appear to most
individuals as natural rapids. Construction of rock rapids would not adversely impact recreation
resources near the Lock and Dam. Visitation at the project may increase in future years if the
proposed alternative is implemented since increased anadromous fish passage and spawning
success upstream will result in larger anadromous fish migrations resulting in increased fishing
activity.
The no action alternative would result in a status quo or declining situation for fisheries near Lock and
Dam No.1 as spawning success rates would remain lower than that of the proposed alternative. This
will keep fisheries resources as well as fishing activities much lower than the proposed alternative.
Visitation and esthetic conditions at Lock and Dam No.1 would not change under the no action
alternative.
24
5.10 Safety
Filling the scour hole and constructing the the rock arch rapids will stabilize the dam from potential
impacts of erosion. Also when the rock rapids is constructed at the lock and dam, the roller effect
at the base of the dam would be eliminated. There may be recreational use of rapids by kayakers
and canoeists, but they are usually very safety conscious using helmets and life jackets.
5.11 Comparison of alternatives
The table below provides a brief summary and comparison of impacts to the physical and natural
environment for the alternatives considered.
Table 1: Environmental Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Alternatives
Resource
Proposed - Rock Arch Rapids No Action
Geology and Sedimentation impacts that would be short No Impacts
Sediments term and temporary
Water Minor impacts during construction to water No Impacts
Resources quality resulting from slightly elevated
temporary turbidity. No other impacts are
anticipated.
Air Quality Minor impacts to noise during construction No impacts
and Noise that will return to natural soundscape upon
completion.
Aquatic Significantly increase anadromous fish Status quo for anadromous
Resources passage upstream of Lock and Dam No.1 fisheries.
resulting in increases spawning success and
populations.
Terrestrial Impacts could occur if stockpiling of rock is No impacts.
Resources needed on the east side of the river.
Wetlands and No impacts to either floodplains or wetlands. No impacts to either floodplains
Floodplains or wetlands.
Endangered Increases in fish passage to historic Continued limited access to
and spawning grounds which will benefit the upstream spawning grounds and
Threatened shortnose sturgeon. No negative impacts to further potential decline of the
Species manatees or shortnose sturgeon during shortnose sturgeon.
construction are anticipated.
Cultural No impacts expected. No impacts expected.
Resources
Socio- Potential increases in fisheries resources Status quo or decline in fishery
economic and recreational fishing activities. resources.
Resources
25
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The proposed alternative will have no cumulative adverse impacts. The proposed alternative
should enhance fish passage, especially for anadromous species, upstream of the dam, which
should result in increased spawning success. In addition, the information on rock rapids fish
passage from this project may be helpful related to fish passage at other low head dams.
Implementation of the no action alternative will result in a status quo situation for most anadromous
fisheries and will not increase the chances of the threatened and endangered shortnose sturgeon
moving upstream to spawn. Therefore, based on this information and the discussion above, the no
action alternative is not the preferred plan.
7.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
Table 2 lists the compliance status of all Federal Laws and Policies that were considered for the
proposed and no action alternative. Items identified as being in "Full Compliance" assumes their
compliance status upon completion of the NEPA process.
Table 2. The relationship of the proposed action to Federal Laws and Policies.
Title of Public Law US CODE Compliance
Status
Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 43 USC 2101 Full Compliance
American Indian Religious Freedom Act 42 USC 1996 Not Applicable
Agriculture and Food Act (Farmland Protection Policy Act) of 1981 7 USC 4201 et seq. Not Applicable
American Folklife Preservation Act of 1976, As Amended 20 USC 2101 Not Applicable
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965, As Amended 16 USC 757 a et seq. Full Compliance
Antiquities Act of 1906, As Amended 16 USC 431 Full Compliance
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, As Amended 16 USC 469 Full Compliance
Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, As Amended 16 USC 470 Full Compliance
Bald Eagle Act of 1972 16 USC 668 Not Applicable
Buy American Act 41 USC 102 Full Compliance
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352) 6 USC 601 Full Compliance
Clean Air Act of 1972, As Amended 42 USC 7401 et seq. Full Compliance
Clean Water Act of 1972, As Amended 33 USC 1251 et seq. Full Compliance
Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 16 USC 3501-3510 Not Applicable
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, As Amended 16 USC 1451 et seq. Full Compliance
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 42 USC 9601 Not Applicable
Conservation of Forest Lands Act of 1960 16 USC 580 mn Not Applicable
Contract Work Hours 40 USC 327 Full Compliance
Convict Labor 18 USC 4082 Full Compliance
Copeland Anti-Kickback 40 USC 276c Full Compliance
Davis Bacon Act 40 USC 276 Full Compliance
Deepwater Port Act of 1974, As Amended 33 USC 1501 Full Compliance
Emergency Flood Control Funds Act of 1955, As Amended 33 USC 701m Not Applicable
26
Title of Public Law US CODE Compliance
Status
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 16 USC 3901-3932 Full Compliance
Endangered Species Act of 1973 16 USC 1531 Full Compliance
Estuary Program Act of 1968 16 USC 1221 et seq. Full Compliance
Equal Opportunity 42 USC 2000d Full Compliance
Farmland Protection Policy Act 7 USC 4201 et seq. Not Applicable
Federal Environmental Pesticide Act of 1972 7 USC 136 et seq. Full Compliance
Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, As Amended 16 USC 4601 Full Compliance
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, As Amended 16 USC 661 Full Compliance
Flood Control Act of 1944, As Amended, Section 4 16 USC 460b Not Applicable
Food Security Act of 1985 (Swampbuster) 16 USC 3811 et seq. Not Applicable
Hazardous Substance Response Revenue Act of 1980, As
Amended 26 USC 4611 Not Applicable
Historic and Archeological Data Preservation 16 USC 469 Full Compliance
Historic Sites Act of 1935 16 USC 461 Full Compliance
Jones Act 46 USC 292 Full Compliance
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 46 USC 4601 Not Applicable
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 16 USC 1801 Full Compliance
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, As Amended 16 USC 1361 Full Compliance
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 33 USC 1401 Full Compliance
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1928, As Amended 16 USC 715 Full Compliance
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, As Amended 16 USC 703 Full Compliance
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, As Amended 42 USC 4321 et seq. Full Compliance
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, As Amended 16 USC 470 Full Compliance
National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 16 USC 469a Full Compliance
Native American Religious Freedom Act of 1978 42 USC 1996 Not Applicable
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 25 USC 3001 Not Applicable
Native American Religious Freedom Act of 1978 16 USC 469a Not Applicable
National Trails System Act 16 USC 1241 Not Applicable
Noise Control Act of 1972, As Amended 42 USC 4901 et seq. Full Compliance
Rehabilitation Act (1973) 29 USC 794 Full Compliance
Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, As Amended 16 USC 469 Not Applicable
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 42 USC 6901-6987 Not Applicable
River and Harbor Act of 1888, Sect 11 33 USC 608 Not Applicable
River and Harbor Act of 1899, Sections 9, 10, 13 33 USC 401-413 Full Compliance
River and Harbor and Flood Control Act of 1962, Section 207 16 USC 460 Not Applicable
River and Harbor and Flood Control Act of 1970, Sections 122, 209
and 216 33 USC 426 et seq. Not Applicable
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, As Amended 42 USC 300f Not Applicable
Shipping Act 46 USC 883 Full Compliance
Submerged Lands Act of 1953 43 USC 1301 et seq. Full Compliance
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 42 USC 9601 Not Applicable
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 30 USC 1201-1328 Not Applicable
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 15 USC 2601 Not Applicable
Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, As Amended 43 USC 4601 et seq. Full Compliance
27
Title of Public Law US CODE Compliance
Status
Utilization of Small Business 15 USC 631, 644 Full Compliance
Vietnam Veterans 38 USC 2012 Not Applicable
Executive Orders
Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality 11514/11991 Full Compliance
Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 11593 Full Compliance
Floodplain Management 11988 Full Compliance
Protection of Wetlands 11990 Full Compliance
Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards 12088 Full Compliance
Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions 12114 Not Applicable
Offshore Oil Spill Pollution 12123 Not Applicable
Procurement Requirements and Policies for Federal Agencies for
Ozone-Depleting Substances 12843 Full Compliance
Federal Compliance with Right-To-Know Laws and Pollution
Prevention 12856 Full Compliance
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice and Minority and
Low-Income Populations 12898 Full Compliance
Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement 12889 Full Compliance
Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation at Federal Facilities 12902 Full Compliance
Federal Acquisition and Community Right-To-Know 12969 Full Compliance
Protection Of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks 13045 Full Compliance
Coral Reef Protection 13089 Not Applicable
Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling
and Federal Acquisition 13101 Full Compliance
Invasive Species 13112 Full Compliance
Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental
Management 13148 Full Compliance
Marine Protected Areas 13158 Full Compliance
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 13175 Not Applicable
Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 13186 Full Compliance
Executive Order Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation 13352 Full Compliance
8.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
8.1 Initial Coordination
An extensive email mailing list has been developed for the coordination of this project. This list
includes federal, state, and local agencies and other interested groups and individuals.
Approximately every one - two months for several years, this group has been emailed updates on the
activities for fish passage as it related to the Wilmington Harbor General Re-evaluation Report
process. Meetings were held periodically including several on site meetings. In addition to this
coordination, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers design team for this project includes representatives
from several agencies including the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, NC Division of Marine
Fisheries, US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service.
28
8.2 North Carolina Coastal Management Program
The proposed project is in Bladen County, which is not a part of the designated coastal zone of the
State of North Carolina. However, since the project has a potential to affect the coastal zone, the
components of the proposed action and the no action alternatives have been evaluated and
determined to be consistent with the NC Coastal Management program. Concurrence with this
determination is being requested from the NC Division of Coastal Management via separate
correspondence.
8.3 Coordination of this Document
This Environmental Assessment is being provided to a standard list of Federal, State, and local
agencies; elected officials; environmental groups; and interested individuals for review and comment.
After a 30-day review period, all input received will be considered related to the proposed action. We
invite your comments and suggestions regarding the proposed action.
8.4 Recipients of this Assessment
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Center for Disease Control, Center for Environmental Health
Federal Emergency Management Administration
Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point (MOTSU), Commander
National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division,
Beaufort Marine Fisheries Center
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeastern Regional Office
National Park Service, Natural Resources
National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office, Archaeology
U.S. Coast Guard, Fifth District, Norfolk
U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Office, Wilmington
U.S. Coast Guard Station, Ft. Macon
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Area Director
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Burgaw
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Goldsboro
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
State Conservationist - Raleigh
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Compliance
U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance
U.S. Department of Transportation, Deputy Director for Environment and Policy Review
U.S. Department of Transportation, Division Engineer, Raleigh, NC
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NEPA Compliance Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Regional Administrator
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Raleigh, NC Field Office
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, South Atlantic Fisheries Coordination Office
29
State Agencies
N.C. Aquarium, Fort Fisher
N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Division of Archives and History, Underwater Archaeology Unit
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
N.C. Office of Water Resources
N.C. Department of Transportation
N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission
N.C. National Estuarine Research Reserve
N.C. Sea Grant Program, Fort Fisher
N.C. State Historic Preservation Officer
N.C. State Ports Authority
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Local Agencies
Bald Head Island, Town Manager
Bald Head Conservancy
Bladen County Board of Commissioners
Bladen County Manager
Brunswick Beaches Consortium
Brunswick County Emergency Management Coordinator
Brunswick County Manager
Brunswick County Planning Director
Brunswick County Soil & Water Conservation District
Cape Fear Council of Governments
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority
Carolina Beach, Town Manager
CAMA Officer, Brunswick County
CAMA Officer, New Hanover County
CAMA Officer, Town of Carolina Beach
CAMA Officer, Town of Kure Beach
CAMA Officer, Town of Southport
CAMA Officer, Town of Wrightsville Beach
CAMA Officer, Yaupon Beach
Cumberland County Engineer
Elizabethtown, Town Manager
Fayetteville Public Works
Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority
New Hanover County Health Department
New Hanover County Engineer
New Hanover County Health Department
New Hanover County Planning Department
New Hanover County Soil and Water Conservation District
New Hanover County Zoning Department
North Carolina Council of Governments, Region 0
Southport, Town Manager
30
Town of Caswell Beach
Town of Holden Beach
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Town of Riegelwood
Town of Sunset Beach
Town of Wrightsville Beach
Wilmington Chamber of Commerce
Wilmington, Director of Public Works
Wrightsville Beach Building Inspector
Wrightsville Beach Finance Manager
Postmasters
Elected Officials
Baldhead Island, Councilman Sanders
Brunswick County, Board of Commissioners
Honorable Julia Boseman, N.C. Senate
Honorable Bob Etheridge, United States House of Representative
Honorable Richard Burr, United States Senate
Honorable Kay Hagan, United States Senate
Honorable Dewey L. Hill, N.C. House of Representatives
Honorable Daniel F. McComas, N.C. House of Representatives
Honorable Mike McIntyre, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Tony Rand, N.C. House of Representatives
Honorable Sandra Spaulding-Hughes, N.C. House of Representatives
Honorable R. C. Soles, Jr., N.C. Senate
Honorable Carolyn Justice, N.C. House of Representatives
Honorable William D. Brisson, N.C. House of Representatives
Honorable Marvin W. Lucas, N.C. House of Representatives
New Hanover County, Board of Commissioners
Mayor, City of Wilmington
Mayor, Town of Caswell Beach
Mayor, Town of Carolina Beach
Mayor, Town of Holden Beach
Mayor, Town of Kure Beach
Mayor, Town of Long Beach
Mayor, Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Mayor, Town of Riegelwood
Mayor, Town of Sandyfield
Mayor, Town of Shallotte
Mayor, Town of Wrightsville Beach
Mayor, Town of Yaupon Beach
Conservation Groups
American Rivers
Conservation Council of North Carolina
National Audubon Society
National Wildlife Federation
North Carolina Coastal Federation
31
North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
Cape Fear River Watch, Group of Sierra Club
Libraries, Museums, & News Media
Bladen Journal
Brunswick Beacon
Duke University Library
East Carolina University Library
Librarian, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
New Hanover County Library
North Carolina Maritime Museum
Shallotte Broadcasting Company
Star News
State Library of North Carolina
State Port Pilot
UNC-Wilmington Library
UNC-Chapel Hill Library
Interested Businesses, Groups, and Individuals
Potash Corporation
Bellsouth Telecommunications (Mr. Timothy Winstead)
NC Commercial Fishermen's Association
Cape Fear Community College (Mr. Jason Rogers)
Cape Fear River Research Institute
McAllister Towing
Corbett Package Company
Corbett Timber Company
Dr. Vince Bellis
Dr. Orrin Pilkey
Exxon Company USA
Hanover Towing Company
Land Management Group, Inc.
Lavino Shipping Company
Lumber River Council of Governments
Mr. Ed Corbett
Mr. Tom Tew
Ms. Lana Carter
Mr. Rick Civelli
Mr. Ed Flynn
Mr. John Hooten
Mr. John A. Potter
Mr. Bill Robertson
Mr. John Russ
Mr. Roger Sheats
Mr. J. W. Willis
Ms. Brenda R. Nichols
North Carolina Fisheries Association
32
Olsen & Associates (Mr. Eric Olsen)
Paktank Corporation, Wilmington
Pirelli & Jacobsen (Mr. John Hoskins)
Shell Island Corporation
Stevens Towing Company
T D Eure Construction Company
Triangle J Council of Governments
Unocal Chemicals
Wilmington-Cape Fear Pilots Association
Wilmington Industrial Development, Inc.
Wrightsville Marina
9.0 POINT OF CONTACT
Written comments regarding this Environmental Assessment should be sent to Mr. Frank Yelverton,
CESAW-TS-PE, U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403-1343. Questions may be directed to telephone [phone] or email
frank. yelverton @usace. army. mi 1.
10.0 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The proposed action is not expected to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. If
this judgment is confirmed through coordination of this EA, an Environmental Impact Statement will
not be required, and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be signed prior to the initiation
of the proposed action. The signed FONSI will be made available to the public.
11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aadland, Luther. 2009. Email dated March 17, 2009 indicating minimal maintenance requirements
for rock arch rapids.
Collier, II, W.R., F.C. Rohde, T.E. Lankford. 2009. Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenseroxyrinchus, in the
lower Cape fear River: Trials and Tribulations. Tidewater Chapter of the American Fisheries
Society Annual Meeting. (poster)
CZR. 2002. Preconstruction monitoring of American Shad, Atlantic Sturgeon and Striped Bass
Passage at Lock and Dam No. 1 on the Cape Fear River, NC. Year 1. Prepared for the
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers. http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wilmington-
harbor/FI NALbru nswick2002. pdf
CZR. 2003. Preconstruction monitoring of American Shad, Atlantic Sturgeon and Striped Bass
Passage at Lock and Dam No. 1 on the Cape Fear River, NC. Year 2. Prepared for the
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers. hftp://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wilmington-
harbor/Final-Report 2003.pdf
33
CZR. 2004. Preconstruction monitoring of American Shad, Atlantic Sturgeon and Striped Bass
Passage at Lock and Dam No. 1 on the Cape Fear River, NC. Year 3. Prepared for the
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers. http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wilmington-
harbor/Report%202004%20no-apps.pdf
Dial Cordy and Associates. 2006. Cape Fear River Anadromous Fish Larvae and Egg Survey.
Prepared for the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers.
hftp://www.saw.usace.army.miI/wilmington-
harbor/GRR/GRR _ files/Cape%20Fear%20River%20Anadramous%20Fish%20Larvae%20and%20
Eqq%20Survey%20Final.pdf
EPA/USACE. 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S.
-Testing Manual", commonly referred to as the Inland Testing Manual.
Giese, G.L., Wilder, H.B., and Parker, G.G., Jr., 1985, Hydrology of major estuaries and sounds of
North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2221, 108 p.
Hackney, C.T., 2007, Monitoring Effects of a Potential Increased Tidal Range in the Cape Fear
Ecosystem Due to Deepening Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina Year 6: June 1, 2005 - May 31,
2006
Hall, J. R., Moser, M. L., A. M. Darazsdi. 1998. Improving passage efficiency Adult American shad
at low-elevation dams with navigation locks. Completion report to the NC Sea Grant Fisheries
Resource Grant Program.
Moser, M. L., A. M. Darazsdi, and J. R. Hall. 2000. Improving passage efficiency of adult American
shad at low-elevation dams with navigation locks. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
20:376-385.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
2009. Classification and Standards Unit Home Page. http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/csu/
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources
2009. http://ncwater.org
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Region. 2000. Biological Opinion, Preconstruction
Modifications of Authorized Improvements (including Blasting and Dredging in Wilmington Harbor,
North Carolina.
Parasiewicz, P, J. Eberstaller, S. Weiss, and S. Schmutz. 1998. Conceptual Guidelines for
Nature-like Bypass Channels. In Fish Migration and Bypass, edited by M. Jungwirth, S. Schmutz
and S. Weiss. Fishing New Books.
Rohde, Fritz. 2009. Email dated September 29, 2009 regarding construction window for rock arch
rapids at Lock and Dam No. 1.
Smith, J. and J. E. Hightower. 2009. Spawning Activity and Migratory Characteristics of American
Shad and Striped Bass in the Cape Fear River, NC, NC State University, Raleigh, NC.
34
US Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District. 2002c. New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam
Project Savannah River Georgia and South Carolina Fish Passage Facility Engineering Report,
prepared by Framatone ANP DE&S, Inc. http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wilmington-
harbor/GRR/GRR_files/New%20Savan nah%20L&D%2OFish%2OPassage_Dec%2002. pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. 2002a. Environmental Assessment, South Dam
Rock Slope Fishway, Red River of the North, Fargo, North Dakota.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 2000a. Environmental Assessment,
Preconstruction Modifications of Authorized Improvements, Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina,
February 2000.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 2000b. Finding of No Significant Impact,
Preconstruction Modifications of Authorized Improvements, Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina,
August 2000.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 2002. Environmental Assessment, Fish Bypass
at Lock and Dam No. 1, Cape Fear River, Bladen County, North Carolina.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 2003. Finding of No Significant Impact, Fish
Bypass at Lock and Dam No. 1, Cape Fear River, Bladen County, North Carolina.
US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1990. Soil Survey of Bladen County, North
Carolina.
US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1995. Hydric Soils of North Carolina.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003. Field Indicators of
Hydric Soils in the United States, Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 5.01.
US Department of Interior. 2006. Tier 1 Preliminary Evaluation of Pollutant Sources to the
Impounded Reaches of Cape Fear River Locks and Dams 1, 2 and 3, Bladen and Cumberland
Counties, NC. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Raleigh, NC.
US Department of Interior and US Geological Survey. 2007. Sediment Quality within the Impounded
Reaches of Cape Fear River Locks and Dams. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services,
Raleigh, NC.
35
APPENDIX A
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
ENDANGERED and THREATENED SPECIES
ROCK ARCH RAPIDS FISH PASSAGE
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINTON, NC
LOCK AND DAM No.1
BLADEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
March 2010
1.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is as described in detail in the environmental assessment that precedes the
appendices. While the EA covers impacts generally related to construction of rock rapids, the BA
specially addresses impacts related to construction on threatened and endangered species.
2.0 SPECIES CONSIDERED UNDER THIS ASSESSMENT
Updated lists of endangered and threatened (E&T) species for the project area were obtained from
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
(http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdf/species%201isVNorth%20Carolina.pdf) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) (http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countvfr.htmD web pages in January 2010.
These were combined to develop the composite list shown in the following table.
MAMMALS
Blue whale
Finback whale
Humpback whale
North Atlantic Right whale
Sei whale
Sperm whale
Florida Manatee
(Balaenoptera musculus) Endangered
(Balaenoptera physalus) Endangered
(Megaptera novaeangliae) Endangered
(Eubaleana glacialis) Endangered
(Balaenoptera borealis) Endangered
(Physetermacrocephalus) Endangered
(Trichechusmanatus) Endangered.
BIRDS
Red-cockaded woodpecker
American alligator
Green sea turtle
Hawksbill sea turtle
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
(Picoides borealis) Endangered
REPTILES
(Alligator mississippiensis) Threatened/SAC
(Chelonia mydas) Threatened2
(Eretmochelys imbricata) Endangered
(Lepidochelys kempi? Endangered
A-1
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) Threatened
FISHES
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostrum) Endangered
PLANTS
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) Endangered
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) Endangered
Pond berry (Linden melissifolia) Endangered
'The American alligator is listed as threatened only because of its similarity of appearance to
crocodilians which are endangered or threatened and which are tracked for illegal commercial trade
in hides or other products. The status of the American alligator is not actually threatened.
2Green turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding populations in Florida and on the Pacific
Coast of Mexico that are listed as endangered.
3.0 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS TO LISTED SPECIES
3.1 General Impacts
No habitat for listed species requiring assessment is present at the project site except for shortnose
sturgeon and the project should benefit this species.
3.2 Species Accounts
3.2.1 American Alligator
This species is only listed because of similarly of appearance to crocodilians, and assessment is
not required.
3.2.2 Blue Whale, Finback Whale, Humpback Whale, Right Whale, Sei Whale, and Sperm
Whale, Hawksbill, Leatherback, Green, Loggerhead, and Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles
a. Status. Endangered or threatened
b. Occurrence in Immediate Project Vicinity. All these species are marine animals
and do not occur in the project area.
C. Effect Determination. The Corps has determined that the proposed project will
have no effect on these species.
A-2
3.2.3 Florida Manatee
a. Status. Endangered.
b. Occurrence in Immediate Project Vicinity. The coast of North Carolina is within
the summer range of the manatee. Historically, the species is known from as far north as New
Jersey. The entire presently designated critical habitat for the species is located in Florida. The
manatee is not known from Bladen County (http://149.168.1.196/nhp/county.html), but could be
encountered in the lower river if rock or other equipment is transported by water to Lock and Dam
No. 1.
Manatees are rare visitors to the Cape Fear River Region. From 1952 to 1994, there were only 7
known observations in Cape Fear System (Schwartz, 1995). One of these manatees was dead
(1986) but no data were gathered on the cause of death (Schwartz, 1996). Three additional live
manatees were sighted in Wilmington Harbor between 1994 and 1996. One was sighted near
Southport in the fall of 1995, and two (probably a calf and its mother) were sighted near Wilmington
in the spring of 1996. Except for the spring of 1996, each sighting in the Cape Fear Region has
been of a single manatee.
Since 1996 there has been a steady increase of manatee sightings in the area and usually occur
between the months of June and November. The nearest known sighting since 1996 was of a
single manatee in the summer of 1999 in a marina near the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway about
20 miles downstream of Wilmington. Numbers of manatees using the region are not known but are
presumed to be very low. More research is needed to determine the status of the species in North
Carolina and identify areas (containing food and freshwater supplies) which are critical for
supporting summer populations.
The University of North Carolina - Wilmington Mammal Marine Stranding Network have
documented four strandings since the Schwartz 1996 document. In 1998 a stranding occurred near
Snead's Ferry and another near Scranton. Two strandings have occurred on Masonboro Island in
2004 and 2008.
C. Current Threats to Continued Use of the Area. Current threats to this species
in the Cape Fear River can not be clearly assessed due to our lack of knowledge regarding its
population, seasonality, distribution, and the habitat components in the river that may be critical for
its continued occupation of the area. Cold winter water temperatures will probably keep the
species from overwintering in the project area.
d. Project Impacts.
(1) Habitat. Since manatees are not known to occur in Bladen County, no
habitat will be impacted.
(2) Food Supply. Foods which are used by the manatee in North Carolina
are unknown, but since the manatee does not occur in Bladen County the food supply will not be
impacted
A-3
(3) Relationship to Critical Periods in Life Cycle. The manatee is
considered to be an occasional summer resident of the North Carolina coast.
(4) Effect Determination. Construction should have not effect on the
manatee since it does not occur in Bladen County. If rock or equipment is barged from the lower
river to Lock and Dam No. 1 there is a potential for impact. Therefore the following conditions
prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Raleigh Field Office have been adapted for
inclusion in the construction contract.
The project manager and/or contractor will inform all personnel associated with the project that
manatees may be present in the project area, and the need to avoid any harm to these
endangered mammals. The project manager will ensure that all construction personnel know
the general appearance of the species and their habit of moving about completely or partially
submerged in shallow water. All construction personnel will be informed that they are
responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence of manatees.
2. The project manager and/or the contractor will advise all construction personnel that there are
civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees which are protected
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
3. If a manatee is seen within 100 yards of the active construction or vessel movement, all
appropriate precautions will be implemented to ensure protection of the manatee.
4. Any collision with and/or injury to a manatee will be reported immediately. The report must be
made to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (ph. 919.856.4520 ext. 16), the National Marine
Fisheries Service (ph. 252.728.8762), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(ph. 252.448.1546).
A sign will be posted in all vessels associated with the project where it is clearly visible to the
vessel operator. The sign should state: CAUTION: The endangered manatee may occur in
these waters during the warmer months, primarily from June through October. Idle speed is
required if operating this vessel in shallow water during these months. A collision with and/or
injury to the manatee must be reported immediately to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (919-
856-4520 ext. 16), the National Marine Fisheries Service (252.728.8762), and the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (252.448.1546).
6. The contractor will maintain a log detailing sightings, collisions, and/or injuries to manatees
during project activities. Upon completion of the action, the project manager will prepare a
report which summarizes all information on manatees encountered and submit the report to the
US Fish and Wildlife Service's Raleigh Field Office.
7. All vessels associated with the construction project will operate at "no wake/idle" speeds at all
times while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four foot clearance from
the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible.
8. If siltation barriers must be placed in shallow water, these barriers will be: (a) made of material
in which manatees cannot become entangled; (b) secured in a manner that they cannot break
A-4
free and entangle manatees; and, (c) regularly monitored to ensure that manatees have not
become entangled. Barriers will be placed in a manner to allow manatees entry to or exit from
essential habitat.
Because of the indicated conditions, and rare occurrence of manatees in the river, the proposed
action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the manatee.
3.2.4 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
a. Status. Endangered
b. Occurrence in Immediate Project Vicinity. Red-cockaded woodpeckers have
been observed in Bladen County recently according to the NC Natural Heritage website
http://149.168.1.196/nhp/county.html. Red-cockaded woodpeckers live in pine forests, but this
habitat does not occur in the project area.
C. Effect Determination. Since suitable habitat does not exist at the project site, the
Corps has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
3.2.5 Rough-leaf Loosestrife
a. Status. Endangered
b. Occurrence in Immediate Project Vicinity. Rough-leaved loosestrife occurs
most often along the ecotone between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins, but has been
found in ecotones between pocosins and longleaf pine savanna, longleaf pine flatwoods, Sandhills
seeps, and pond and lake margins. Rough-leaved loosestrife is a shade-intolerant ecotonal
species, which requires a regular fire regime in its habitat to control competing shrubby vegetation.
This habitat does not occur in the project area; therefore, this species is not expected to be present
onsite.
C. Effect Determination. Since suitable habitat does not exist at the project site, the
Corps has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
3.2.6 American Chaffseed
a. Status. Endangered
b. Occurrence in Immediate Project Vicinity. This plant inhabits savannas and
moist to dry pinelands with frequent fire. This habitat does not occur in the project floodplain;
therefore, this species is not expected to be present onsite. This plant has been observed in
Bladen County, but not recently according to the NC Natural Heritage website.
C. Effect Determination: Since suitable habitat does not exist at the project site, the
Corps has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
A-5
3.2.7 Pond berry
a. Status. Endangered
b. Occurrence in Immediate Project Vicinity. This plant is found in carolina bays,
upland depressions, and other wet areas. No carolina bays, or upland depressions exist in the
project site and the site is generally not wet except during the occasional river flood stage. Also,
this plant is not known from alluvial habitats in North Carolina (LeBlond 2002). Pond berry has
been observed in Bladen County, but not recently according to the NC Natural Heritage website.
C. Effect Determination: Since suitable habitat does not exist at the project site, the
Corps has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
3.2.8 Shortnose Sturgeon
a. Status. Endangered
b. Occurrence in Immediate Project Vicinity. This species ranges along the
Atlantic seaboard from the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada, to the Saint Johns River,
Florida. The distribution of the shortnose sturgeon in the Cape Fear River basin is not completely
documented.
It is apparent from historical accounts that this species was once fairly abundant throughout the
State's coastal waters, including the project area. However, in the recent past, this species was
thought to be probably extirpated from North Carolina (Schwartz et al., 1977). During the winter of
1986/87, the capture of about 12 to 15 shortnose sturgeon from the Brunswick River was reported
by a shad fisherman. One specimen was turned over to the NCDMF for verification and was
subsequently placed in the fish collection of the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Science.
All other specimens were returned to the Brunswick River. In response to the information that
shortnose sturgeon were in the Cape Fear River basin, the NCDMF immediately passed a special
regulation prohibiting the taking of sturgeon less than 3 feet in length from all parts of the
Brunswick, Cape Fear, Black, and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. In 1991, the prohibition on
sturgeon take was extended statewide and covers all sturgeons of any size.
Studies of the shortnose sturgeon population in the Cape Fear River system have been conducted
by Moser and Ross (1993). This work consisted of a fishery-independent gillnet survey and sonic
tracking study, conducted from May 1990 to September 1992, to establish the distribution and
movement patterns of shortnose sturgeon and other anadromous fishes in the Cape Fear River
estuary. Intensive gillnet sampling (893 net-days) took place within the study area, but only seven
shortnose sturgeon were captured, three of the seven were recaptured. No juvenile shortnose
sturgeon have been caught in the Cape Fear River basin, which may mean that this species may
not be spawning successfully here (Moser and Ross, 1995).
Historically, the shortnose sturgeon probably spawned in the mainstem of the Cape Fear River well
upstream of the project area, possibly as far up as Smiley Falls near Lillington. Moser and Ross
(1993) postulated that current upstream migrations may be blocked by Lock and Dam No. 1
because the fish arrive too early in the season to benefit from the locking procedures designed to
A-6
aid anadromous fish passage. Indeed, blocked migration was noted during their study; however,
during the frequent spring flooding events migrating adults may be able to pass over the low-head
dam and continue upstream.
Moser and Ross (1993) observed that shortnose sturgeon appeared to be most active at night and
early morning. When migrating, this species stayed in mid-channel in the upper to middle portion
of the water column. During the daytime, the shortnose sturgeon preferred deep holes.
All of the general life history information that follows is extracted from Dadswell, et al. (1984),
except where noted. The species is known to use three distinct portions of river systems: (1) non-
tidal freshwater areas for spawning and occasional overwintering; (2) tidal areas in the vicinity of
the fresh/saltwater mixing zone, year-round as juveniles and during the summer months as adults;
and (3) high salinity estuarine areas (15 parts per thousand (ppt) salinity or greater) as adults
during the winter. Variation from this general scheme does exist due to the wide range of habitats
available in the major river systems along the Atlantic seaboard. One population, in Holyoke Pool,
Connecticut, is totally landlocked.
Post-spawning adults and juvenile young-of-the-year move downstream to tidal areas and
concentrate at, or just upstream of, the salt front during the summer months (June through August).
This summer concentration zone in Winyah Bay estuary (South Carolina) corresponds to the area
with a salinity of 0.5 to 1.0 ppt. Here the juveniles spend the next 2 to 8 years of life, moving up
and down stream with the movements of the salt wedge until they reach a size of approximately 45
centimeters.
Upstream spawning migrations by adults are known to begin when water temperatures are
approximately 8 to 9 degrees Celsius. In the Cape Fear River system, Moser and Ross (1993)
detected the onset of spawning migrations in January. Spawning subsequently takes place at
temperatures of 9 to 12 degrees Celsius. Spawning temperatures usually occur in February and
March in the project area but can occur as early as January or persist into May. The species
spawns above the influence of tides in waters that are totally fresh. Here the demersal eggs
adhere to the river bottom. Tidal influence extends to the base of Lock and Dam No. 1 on the
Cape Fear River (about 40 miles upstream of Wilmington) and to river mile 50 on the Northeast
Cape Fear River (about 50 miles upstream of Wilmington). In the Cape Fear River basin, suitable
spawning habitat probably also occurs in the Black River, a tributary to the Cape Fear River about
16 miles upstream of Wilmington. The availability of spawning habitat on the main stem of the
Cape Fear River may be reduced due to the blockages imposed by the locks and dams on the
river.
C. Current Threats to Continued Use of the Area. Pollution, blockage of traditional
spawning grounds, and over fishing are generally considered to be the principal causes of the
decline of this species. The prohibition on taking any sturgeon in North Carolina should help to
protect the species from commercial and recreational fishing pressure.
d. Project Impacts. Normally, no in-water construction would take place during the
annual anadromous fish moratorium window (February 1 - June 15); however, this window is
requested to be reduced to March 15 - June 1 during construction. This will allow the facilities to
be constructed sooner and thus provide upstream passage to anadromous fishes sooner. The
A-7
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concurred with this narrower window via electronic mail
(Rohde 2009). Shortnose sturgeon are not expected to be near the project location outside this
window, and the bulk of other anadromous species are not expected to be present outside this
proposed window either. Also as indicated in Collier 2009, no Atlantic sturgeon were captured
near Lock and Dam No. 1 in any month over a ten year sampling period. Therefore, the proposed
construction period is from June 2-March 14. The scour hole will probably be finished during one
construction window (beginning in 2010) and the rock arch rapids finish during the following
construction window (beginning in 2011).
The project will benefit the endangered shortnose sturgeon by enhancing its chances of passing
the lock and dam and successfully spawning upstream.
e. Effect Determination. The Wilmington District believes that the proposed rock
rapids is fulfilling the requirements of Term and Condition number 8 of the August 2000 BO and is
in compliance with section 7 of the ESA. Therefore the COE is not requesting reinitiation of
consultation for this project.
4.0 SUMMARY EFFECT DETERMINATION
The Wilmington District has determined that the proposed project may effect but is not likely to
adversely affect the Florida manatee. For the shortnose sturgeon, the Wilmington District believes
that the proposed rock rapids is fulfilling the requirements of Term and Condition number 8 of the
August 2000 BO and is in compliance with section 7 of the ESA. Therefore the COE is not
requesting reinitiation of consultation for the shortnose sturgeon. The project will have no effect on
other listed species under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National
Marine Fisheries Service.
5.0 LITERATURE CITED
Dadswell, M. J., B. D. Taubert, T. S. Squiers, D. Marchette, and J. Buckley. 1984. Synopsis of
biological data on shortnose sturgeon, Acipenserbrevirostrum LeSeur 1818. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Technical Report NMFS 14, Washington, DC.
LeBlond, R. 2002. NC Natural Heritage Program. Personal Communication.
Moser, M. L. and S. W. Ross. 1993. Distribution and Movements of Shortnose Sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum) and Other Anadromous Fishes of the Lower Cape Fear River, North
Carolina. Final Report to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, May 1993. 112
pp.
Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995. Habitat Use and Movements of Shortnose and Atlantic
Sturgeons in the Lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 124:225-234, 1995.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Region. 2000. Biological Opinion, Preconstruction
Modifications of Authorized Improvements (including Blasting and Dredging in Wilmington Harbor,
North Carolina.
A-8
Rohde, Fritz. 2009. Email dated September 29, 2009 regarding construction window for rock arch
rapids at Lock and Dam No. 1.
Schwartz, F.J. 1977. Modern sea turtles, in Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of
North Carolina. Editors J.E. Cooper et. al. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History,
Raleigh, North Carolina. pp 303-308.
Schwartz, F.J. 1995. Florida Manatees, Trichechus manatus (Sirenia: Trichechidae), in North
Carolina 1919-1994. Brimleyana No. 22:53-60. June 1995.
Schwartz, F.J. 1996. Personal Communication. January 19,1996.
A-9
Appendix B
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Rock Arch Rapids Fish Passage
Cape Fear River Above Wilmington, NC
Lock and Dam No.1
Bladen County, NC
March 2010
Proposed Project
The proposed project is as described in detail in the environmental assessment that precedes the
appendices. While the EA covers impacts generally related to construction of rock rapids, the BA
specially addresses impacts related to construction on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) species.
Essential Fisheries Habitat, Managed Species, and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
The 1996 Congressional amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSFCMA) (PL 94-265) set forth new requirements for the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery management councils (FMC), and other federal agencies
to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. These amendments
established procedures for the identification of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and a requirement for
interagency coordination to further the conservation of federally managed fisheries.
Table 1 lists, by life stages, 24 fish species which may occur in Wilmington Harbor and which are
managed under MSFCMA. There are no physical barriers in the Cape Fear River blocking assess
to Lock and Dam No. 1, but because there is no salt water within about 20 miles of Lock and Dam
No. 1, these salt water species are not anticipated to be present near the dam. Forage species
such as spot and menhaden may penetrate further upstream than the species listed in Table 1, but
freshwater conditions should deter most of these forage species from occupying the area in
immediate proximity to Lock and Dam No. 1.
Impacts on the single habitat category (primary nursery area) potentially present in the vicinity of Lock
and Dam No. 1 are discussed below. Essential Fish Habitat is not applicable upstream of Lock and
Dam No. 1 as that area is not tidal and is freshwater.
Impacts on State-designated Areas Important for Managed Species: Primary Nursery Areas
are designated by the NC Marine Fisheries Commission and are defined by the State of North
Carolina as tidal saltwaters which provide essential habitat for the early development of commercially
important fish and shellfish (15 NC Administrative Code 3B .1405). Many fish species undergo initial
post-larval development in these areas. Primary nursery area extends upstream on the Cape Fear
River to Lock and Dam No. 1 because of tidal influence, but saltwater is not present near the dam.
The only work that would occur in this area is placement of rock in the river to create a rock rapids for
s-1
anadromous fish passage and to further stabilize the dam. There may be short-term elevated
turbidity and noise during construction. However as indicated in section 3.1.1 of the EA, most
anadromous fish should not be present during the proposed construction period of June 2-March
14.
Impact Summary for Essential Fish Habitat: The proposed action is not expected to cause any
significant adverse impacts to essential fish habitat or EFH species.
Table 1. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Species Present in the Cape Fear River up to Highway 421,
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Source: NMFS, Beaufort, North Carolina, October 1999.
EFH Fish Species Life Stage Present EFH Fish Species Life Stage Present
Bluefish E L J A Scalloped J A
Hammerhead Shark
Summer Flounder L J A Bignose Shark J A
Gag Grouper J Blacktip Shark J A
Gray Snapper J Dusky Shark J A
Cobia E L J A Night Shark J A
King Mackerel J A Sandbar Shark J A
Spanish Mackerel J A Silky Shark J A
Black Sea Bass L J A Tiger Shark J A
Spiny Dogfish J A Atlantic Sharpnose J A
Shark
Brown Shrimp E L J A Longfin Mako Shark J A
Pink Shrimp E L J A Whitetip Shark J A
White Shrimp E L J A Thrasher Shark J A
LIFE STAGES E = Eggs; L = Larval; J = Juvenile; A = Adult
s-2
Appendix C
SECTION 404(8)(1) Evaluation (PUBLIC LAW 95-217)
Rock Arch Rapids Fish Passage
Cape Fear River Above Wilmington, NC
Lock and Dam No.1
Bladen County, North Carolina
March 2010
Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
40 CFR 230
1. Review of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d)) Preliminary 1/ Final 2/
A review of the NEPA Document
indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging practicable
alternative and if in a special aquatic
site, the activity associated with the
discharge must have direct access or
proximity to, or be located in the aquatic
ecosystem to fulfill its basic purpose
(if no, see section 2 and NEPA document); YES ? NO? YES® NO?
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water quality
standards or effluent standards prohibited
under Section 307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize
the existence of federally listed endangered
or threatened species or their habitat; and
3) violate requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if no, see section
2b and check responses from resource and
water quality certifying agencies); YES? NO?* YES ® NO?
The activity will not cause or contribute
to significant degradation of waters of the
U.S. including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms dependent
on the aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and recreational,
aesthetic, and economic values (if no,
see section 2); YES? NO? YES® NO?
d Appropriate and practicable steps have
been taken to minimize potential adverse
impacts of the discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5) YES? NO?* YES® NO?
Proceed to Section 2
*, notes 11, 2/ See page C-6.
C-1
2.Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F)
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates/turbidity impacts
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns and water
circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity gradients.
b. Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered species and
their habitat.
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web.
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals, birds, reptiles,
and amphibians).
c. Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges.
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mud flats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs.
(6) Riffle and pool complexes.
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial fisheries impacts
(3) Effects on water-related recreation.
(4) Aesthetic impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and historical
monuments, national seashores, wilderness areas,
research sites, and similar preserves.
N/A Not Significant Significant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Remarks: Where a check is placed under the significant category, preparer add explanation below.
Proceed to Section 3, *See page C-6
C-2
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Check only
those appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics ................... .............
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated
sources of contaminants .................. .............
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in
the vicinity of the project .................. .............
(4) Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from
land runoff or percolation .................. .............
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA)
hazardous substances ................... .............
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other sources ............... .............
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by
man-induced discharge activities .............. .............
(8) Other sources (specify) ................... ............. ?
List appropriate references.
EA Rock Arch Rapids Fish Passage at Cape Fear River above Wilmington, NC, Lock and Dam No. 1, Bladen County,
North Carolina, 2010
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or those levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site
The material meets the testing exclusion criteria. YES ® NO?*
Proceed to Section 4
*, note 3/, See page C-6
C-3
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(0).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site ............. .........
(2) Current velocity, direction, and
variability at disposal site ............... .........
(3) Degree of turbulence .................. .........
(4) Water column stratification .............. .........
(5) Discharge vessel speed and direction ......... ........
(6) Rate of discharge ................... ......... ?
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type
of material, settling velocities) ...................... ?
(8) Number of discharges per unit of time ................. ?
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
EA Rock Arch Rapids Fish Passage at Cape Fear River above Wilmington, NC, Lock and Dam No. 1, Bladen County, North
Carolina, 2010
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in 4a above
indicates that the disposal site and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable. YES ® NO ?*
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge. List actions taken. YES ® NO ?*
For aquatic resources see Section 4.4 and 5.4 of the EA.
For Essential Fish Habitat see Appendix B of the EA.
For wetlands see sections 4.6 and 5.6 of the EA.
For threatened and endangered species see sections 4.7 and 5.7 and Appendix A of the EA.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
*, note 3/, See page C-6.
C-4
6. Factual Determinations (230.11).
A review of appropriate information as identified in
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES ® NO ?*
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES ® NO ?*
c. Suspended particulates/turbidity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES ® NO ?*
d Contaminant availability
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4). YES ® NO ?*
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5). YES ® NO ?*
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5). YES ® NO ?*
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic
ecosystem. YES ® NO ?*
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem. YES ® NO ?*
7. Findings.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines ...........................
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the
inclusion of the following conditions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
c. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reasons(s):
(1)There is a less damaging practicable ...................... ?
(2)The proposed discharge will result in significant
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem ................... ?
(3)The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem ................... ?
* see page C-6
C-5
8. Signatures.
/ -OU nk J. Maser, III
Chief, Technical Services Division
Date:
Christine M. Brayman
Deputy District Engineer for
Programs and Project Management
Date:
*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit application may not be in compliance with the Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines.
1/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this stage indicate that the proposed projects may not be
evaluated using this "short form procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions of the technical information of
items 2 a-d, before completing the final review of compliance.
2/ Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates that the proposed project does not comply with the
guidelines. If the economics of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated in the decision-making
process, the "short form evaluation process is inappropriate."
3/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing, the "short-form" evaluation process is inappropriate
C-6