Environmental Assessment Finding of No Significant Impact, and Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation for Maintenance Dredging DRAFT

Saco River Saco & Biddeford, Maine

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

New England District March 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation

Saco River

Saco & Biddeford, Maine

FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECT MAINTENANCE DREDGING

March 2016

New England District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 696 Virginia Rd Concord, Massachusetts 01742-2751

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 PROJECT HISTORY, NEED, AND AUTHORITY ...... 1

3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 3

4.0 ALTERNATIVES ...... 6 4.1 No Action Alternative ...... 6 4.2 Maintaining Channel at Authorized Dimensions...... 6 4.3 Alternative Dredging Methods ...... 6 4.3.1 Hydraulic Cutterhead Dredge...... 7 4.3.2 Hopper Dredge ...... 7 4.3.3 Mechanical Dredge ...... 7 4.4 Alternative Placement Sites ...... 8 4.4.1 Beach Placement ...... 8 4.4.2 Nearshore Placement ...... 8 4.4.3 Upland Placement ...... 8 4.4.4 In-River Placement ...... 9 4.4.5 Open Water Placement ...... 9

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 11 5.1 General Description and Land Use Characteristics ...... 11 5.2 Physical and Chemical Environment ...... 11 5.2.1 Water Quality ...... 11 5.2.2 Sediment Analyses ...... 12 5.2.2.1 Dredge Areas ...... 12 5.2.2.2 In- River Placement Area ...... 12 5.2.2.3 Camp Ellis Beach ...... 13 5.2.2.4 Nearshore Adjacent to Camp Ellis Beach ...... 14 5.3 Biological Resources ...... 14 5.3.1 Shellfish – all areas ...... 14 5.3.2 Benthic Communities ...... 15 5.3.2.1 Dredge Areas ...... 15 5.3.2.2 Camp Ellis Beach and Adjacent Nearshore Area ...... 16 5.3.2.3 In-River Placement ...... 16 5.3.3 Fisheries Resources- all areas ...... 17 5.3.4 Eelgrass ...... 20 5.3.5 Wildlife Resources ...... 20 5.3.5.1 General Wildlife Species ...... 20 5.3.5.2 Birds ...... 20 5.4 Essential Fish Habitat ...... 22 5.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 22 5.5.1 Birds and Mammals ...... 22 5.5.1.1 Piping Plover ...... 22 i

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

5.5.1.2 Red Knot ...... 23 5.5.1.3 Roseate Tern ...... 24 5.5.1.4 Northern Long Eared Bat ...... 24 5.5.2 Fish ...... 25 5.5.2.1 Shortnose Sturgeon ...... 25 5.5.2.2 Atlantic Sturgeon ...... 26 5.5.2.3 Atlantic Salmon ...... 28 5.6 Land Use, Recreation, and Public Interest Areas ...... 28 5.7 Socioeconomics ...... 28 5.8 Historic and Archeological Resources ...... 30 5.8.1 Pre-Contact (Native American) Archaeology ...... 30 5.8.2 History and Historical Archaeology ...... 30 5.9 Air Quality ...... 32

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 32 6.0.1 No Action Alternative ...... 32 6.0.2 Preferred Alternatives ...... 33 6.1 Physical and Chemical Impacts ...... 33 6.1.1 Dredge Areas ...... 33 6.1.2 Placement Sites ...... 34 6.1.2.1 Beach Placement ...... 34 6.1.2.2 In-River Placement ...... 35 6.2 Biological Impacts ...... 35 6.2.1 No Action Alternative ...... 35 6.2.2 Dredge Areas ...... 35 6.2.3 Placement Areas ...... 38 6.2.3.1 Beach and Nearshore Placement ...... 38 6.2.3.2 In-River Placement ...... 40 6.3 Essential Fish Assessment ...... 41 6.3.1 No Action Alternative ...... 41 6.3.2 Proposed Alternative ...... 42 6.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 42 6.4.1 Birds and Mammals ...... 42 6.4.2 Fish ...... 43 6.5 Historic and Archeological Resources ...... 45 6.5.1 Pre-Contact (Native American) Archaeology ...... 45 6.5.1.1 Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach Areas ...... 45 6.5.1.2 History and Historical Archaeology ...... 45 6.6 Socioeconomic Environment...... 47 6.6.1 No Action Alternative ...... 47 6.6.2 Dredge and Placement Areas ...... 47

7.0 AIR QUALITY STATEMENT OF CONFORMITY ...... 47 7.1 General Conformity ...... 48

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND IMPACTS ON CHILDREN ...... 48

9.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 49 ii

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

10.0 ACTIONS TAKEN TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS ...... 50

11.0 COORDINATION ...... 50

12.0 REFERENCES ...... 51

13.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERAL STATUES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ...... 58

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 404 (b)(1) Evaluation

Appendix A – Coordination Letters Appendix B – Grain Size Appendix C – Suitability Determination Appendix D – Benthic Data Appendix E – EFH Assessment

iii

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to present information on the environmental features of the project area and to review construction information to determine the potential impacts of the proposed project. This Environmental Assessment describes project compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and all appropriate Federal and State environmental regulations, laws and executive orders. Methods used to evaluate the environmental resources of the area include review of previous sediment analysis, review of available information, and coordination with appropriate environmental agencies and knowledgeable persons. This report provides an assessment of environmental impacts and alternatives considered along with other data applicable to the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation requirements.

2.0 PROJECT HISTORY, NEED, AND AUTHORITY

The Saco River navigation project (see Figure 1) provides for a channel 8 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) deep (9 feet in ledge) that extends from the sea to the head of navigation below the Dam at Saco and Biddeford, a distance of about 6 miles. The channel width varies from 140 feet at the bar, 200 feet in the lower section between the jetties, 140 feet in the middle section, to 100 feet in the upper section. A stone jetty about 6,600 feet long extends from the north side of the river mouth and stone jetty about 4,800 feet long extends from the south side of the river mouth. In the lower river just inside the mouth there are three anchorages that provide about 13.5 acres of mooring space. The 3 acre anchorage area situated east of the City pier is protected by 11 icebreaker structures. A 10 acre maneuvering basin is also situated at the head of navigation. The anchorages and maneuvering basin are maintained to a depth of 6 feet MLLW. There are also a number of small stone training walls along the river that were constructed in the early 1800s to constrict the channel flow and reduce shoaling.

The dredging history for Saco River is tabulated below:

Year Quantity Type of Work Dredge Disposal Site 1928 56,000 new work 1935 88,000 cy maintenance 1938 80,000 cy maintenance 1938 13,000 cy upper channel 1939 66,000 cy maint. entrance hopper 1969 87,000 cy maintenance hydraulic Hills/Camp Ellis Beach 1969 73,000 cy new work hydraulic Hills/Camp Ellis Beach 1978 69,000 cy maintenance hydraulic Hills/Camp Ellis Beach 1983 8,000 cy new work hydraulic Camp Ellis Beach 1992 16,000 cy maint. upper hopper In-river 1992 26,464 cy maintenance hopper/hydraulic Camp Ellis Beach 1993 19,378 cy maint. entrance hydraulic Camp Ellis Beach

1

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

Figure 1. Saco River Federal Navigation Project, Saco and Biddeford, Maine.

2

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

The upper reaches of the Saco River FNP were last maintained in 1992 with 16,000 cubic yards (cy) of material dredged and disposed at a naturally deep in-river disposal site approximately 4,000 feet downstream of Half-tide Island. Work began in 1992 to dredge the lower section of the river, but it was not completed until the Fall of 1993. A total of approximately 46,000 cy was placed on Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Maine, during that dredging event.

The FNP currently supports a wide variety of commercial and recreational activities. A commercial fishing fleet of nearly 40 vessels utilize the fishing pier at Camp Ellis. The pier is also used by several charter and sport fishing boats. A commercial boat yard, situated further upstream on the Biddeford side of the river, manufactures and services commercial and pleasure craft. Approximately 120 tons of paper products are also exported from this boat yard yearly. The project supports the State’s largest recreational boating and fishing population. There are three marinas that provide berths or moorings for about 290 recreational boats, and three public boat ramps provide additional access to the river. The State ramp at Meeting House Eddy is the most heavily used ramp in the State with over 300 launches per day. Other related activities, such as marine programs at the University of New England are supported by the project.

Portions of the Saco River FNP have shoaled to depths of -0.5 feet to 4.0 feet MLLW, and these shoals create hazardous conditions for navigation. Restoration of the project to authorized dimensions will alleviate delays and potential damages that commercial and recreational vessels incur as they navigate in these areas. The existing Saco River FNP was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 1927, supplemented by enactments of 30 August 1935, and modified by the Acts of 14 November 1967, March 8, 1982.

3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed work involves dredging approximately 150,000 cubic yards (cy) of sand (100,000 cy in lower reaches and 50,000 cy in upper reaches) from an area of roughly 77 acres in the lower and upper reaches of the river (Figure 2) to restore the FNP to authorized dimensions (-8 eight feet below MLLW in channels, and -6 feet in anchorages) plus 1 foot of overdepth.

A pipeline cutterhead dredge or a mechanical dredge will be used to remove material from the lower reach of the Saco River. The material will be beneficially used for beach nourishment on Camp Ellis Beach, Saco (Figure 2) if the work is conducted with a pipeline dredge. If the work is completed with a mechanical dredge, then the material will be placed in the nearshore environment adjacent to Camp Ellis Beach. This site was previously used in 1995 when the Scarborough River FNP was maintained. The nearshore placement site is about 15 feet in depth and measures 700 feet by 1,200 feet in area. This work will take approximately 2.5 to 3.5 months to complete within the dredge window of November 15 and March 31 to avoid the spawning migration period for anadromous fish, and spawning of winter flounder and

3

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

shellfish that may be present in the project areas. The upper reach of the Saco River will be dredged with either a mechanical dredge or the government-owned special purpose hopper dredge and this material will be placed in either the previously used naturally deep in-river placement site (Figure 3), or the nearshore site off Camp Ellis (Figure 2). The work for this area will take approximately 2 months to complete within the dredge window of November 15 and March 31.

Figure 2. Lower Reach of Saco River FNP with Beach and Nearshore Placement Sites.

4

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

Figure 3. Upper Reach of Saco River FNP with In-River Placement Site

5

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

4.0 ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives considered for this project include a “no action” alternative, various alternative dredging methods, and various disposal alternatives. Disposal alternatives evaluated for this project include upland disposal, beach nourishment, nearshore placement, and open water disposal. The proposed actions are the least environmentally damaging practicable alternatives.

4.1 No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative is required for review by Federal regulations (NEPA 40 CFR Part 1502.14(d)) and the Council on Environmental Quality. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline against which the proposed action and alternatives can be evaluated. Evaluation of the No Action Alternative involves assessing the environmental effects that would result if the proposed action did not take place.

Under the No Action Alternative, the FNP at Saco River would not be dredged. The advantage of the No Action Alternative is that the Federal government would not perform dredging and temporary environmental impacts would be avoided. Conversely, the No Action Alternative would allow existing conditions in the channel to continue to deteriorate resulting in restricted access for vessel movements into, through and out of the Saco River, and allow for increased hazardous navigation conditions. Shoaling also increases the potential for groundings thus increasing the potential for oil spills or the release of other hazardous materials into the harbor. In view of the number of vessels currently utilizing the project area, this alternative is considered to be unacceptable. Additionally, shoaling in the anchorage areas is limiting the space available for vessel use.

4.2 Maintaining Channel at Authorized Dimensions

This alternative – maintenance dredging to remove only those areas of shoaling that have occurred since the last maintenance dredging operation and thereby restore the authorized depths and dimensions of the Federal project – is the selected alternative. This alternative provides the greatest public benefits, results in no significant, long-term adverse impacts to the environment, and satisfies the Corps of Engineers’ Congressionally-mandated authority for maintenance of the Saco River Federal project sufficient for project users.

4.3 Alternative Dredging Methods

Several types of dredges can be used to remove material from the navigation channels and anchorage area. The type of dredge proposed for a project is dependent upon the type of material to be dredged, the placement site selected and the logistics of the work. The three basic types of dredges are hydraulic cutterhead pipeline, hopper, and mechanical. Since different placement options are proposed for the upper and lower reaches of the project, different dredge options will also be proposed.

6

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

4.3.1 Hydraulic Cutterhead Dredge

Hydraulic dredges consist of a cutterhead on the end of an arm connected to a pump, which loosens the bottom sediments and entrains them in a sediment-water slurry that is pumped up from the bottom. The dredged material can then either be discharged away from the work area (sidecast), or pumped via pipeline to a dewatering area or disposal site. A hydraulic dredge is generally used for sandy material that will be disposed of in an upland area or directly onto a nearby beach or for pumping any type of unconsolidated material (e.g. silty material) to a confined (diked) disposal/dewatering area. If the material from the lower reach of the Saco River is to be placed on Camp Ellis Beach this is preferred dredge type for this area of the river.

4.3.2 Hopper Dredge

Hopper dredges are best suited and most productive for dredging sandy material over long straight reaches (e.g. entrance or bar channels). Hopper dredges work in a back and forth motion over the dredge area. A hopper dredge uses a suction pump (similar to a hydraulic pipeline dredge) and drag-arms that hang down from the side of the vessel to loosen and remove material from the bottom. The dredged material is drawn up through the drag-arms in a slurry of water and sediment and is deposited into hoppers or holds aboard the dredge vessel. As pumping continues, the sand settles to the bottom of the hopper and excess water flows overboard through troughs. When the hoppers are full, the drag-arms are raised and the dredge proceeds to the placement site and either releases the material through bottom-opening doors or pumps the material off the dredge from the hoppers into the placement site. The dredge then returns to the dredging area to begin another cycle. Hopper dredges are classified as small, medium and large based on their size and their capacity. Bin (or hopper) capacities range from a few hundred cubic yards to several thousand yards capacity. In New England, hopper dredges are most often used to remove sandy material from harbor entrance channels and then deposit the material nearshore off of beaches to nourish littoral bar systems. A small hopper dredge like the Government-owned special purpose dredges Currituck or Murden would be suitable for dredging the upper reach of the Saco River and placing the material at the in-river or nearshore placement sites.

4.3.3 Mechanical Dredge

Mechanical bucket dredging involves the use of a barge-mounted crane, backhoe or cable-arm with a bucket to dig the material from the harbor bottom. Typical dredging buckets come in various sizes from five cubic yards to fifty or more cubic yards. A mechanical dredge is well suited to work in tight quarters such as small harbors, and in and around berthing areas and slips. The material is placed in a scow for transport to the placement site by tug. For open-water or ocean placement, a split-hull scow is generally used for ease of disposal and to minimize the

7

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

discharge plume. Material is typically discharged using preset coordinates. A mechanical bucket dredge is suitable for dredging both the lower and upper reach areas of Saco River.

4.4 Alternative Placement Sites

An evaluation of the physical and chemical characteristics of the dredged material showed that the proposed placement sites (on Camp Ellis Beach, nearshore, and in- river) are acceptable. The sediments proposed to be dredged in Saco River are composed of medium sand. The material from the upper reach is also sand, but there are wood chips in the surface sediments.

4.4.1 Beach Placement

Grain size analyses (see Appendix C for Suitability Determination) indicate that the shoal material in the lower reaches of the Saco River FNP is suitable for placement on Camp Ellis Beach as beach nourishment (Figure 2). The beach placement area on Camp Ellis Beach is approximately 1,500 feet in length, and disposal will create a berm of approximately 40 feet wide that is 4 feet thick. Direct beach nourishment is accomplished using a hydraulic dredge which pumps the material through a pipeline to the beach.

Placement of material onto beaches is constrained by the length of pipe and practical pumping distances. The material from the upper reaches is three to six miles away from an available beach, and pumping from this distance is not practicable. In addition, the presence of wood chips in the surface sediments from the upper reaches make the material undesirable for beach placement. The sandy material from the lower reaches of the FNP is compatible for beach placement on Camp Ellis Beach. Therefore, nourishment is the preferred alternative for the material from the lower reaches.

4.4.2 Nearshore Placement

Nearshore placement of material is a viable, environmentally sound alternative that keeps sand in the littoral system and affords the possibility of indirect nourishment to adjacent beaches over time. In order for nearshore placement to be accomplished, the dredge would deposit the material off of Camp Ellis Beach in a 700 by 1,200 foot nearshore area, which is approximately 15 feet deep, where natural wave energy would gradually move the material towards the beach (Figure 2). This site was previously used in 1995 when the Scarborough River FNP was maintained. This type of placement is compatible with the use of either mechanical dredge plants with scows, or hopper dredges. Nearshore placement is a viable option for dredged material from both the lower and upper reach areas.

4.4.3 Upland Placement

8

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

During upland placement, hydraulically dredged material is pumped in a sediment/water slurry to diked areas for dewatering prior to transport to an upland site. Upland disposal options were explored for prior dredging events (1992) but no viable options with sufficient capacity were identified at that time. For the current project proposal, the City of Biddeford identified an upland site at a vacant lot adjacent to the city’s sewer waste treatment plant as an available site for upland placement. This site was ultimately eliminated from further review due to its limited size which could not accept the quantity of material to be dredged, as well as the lack of available space for dewatering of the material. Additionally, the available placement options listed above allows for the material to be used in a beneficial manner while keeping clean sandy material within the littoral system. For these reasons, upland placement was not determined to be a practicable alternative for this project.

4.4.4 In-River Placement

Material from the upstream portion of the project has previously been placed in deeper portions of the existing federal channel between Hills Point and Thunder Island (Figure 3). Due to the dynamic nature of this site it is expected that the deposited coarse grained, sandy material will be gradually transported downcurrent after placement and kept within the system as part of the natural littoral processes. Little, if any, negative environmental impacts to downstream areas are expected given the nature of the material and the fact that sediment transport is a naturally occurring process to which the system and associated habitats are adapted. Use of the in-river placement site provides a feasible and viable alternative for the material dredged from the upper reaches of the FNP and is the preferred alternative.

4.4.5 Open Water Placement

The nearest open water site is the Saco Bay Disposal Site (SBDS) located 2.5 miles east of the mouth of the river (Figure 4). The site was used to dispose of material dredged from Biddeford Pool in 1989. The use of SBDS was not considered as a practicable alternative for disposal as use of the site would significantly increase the costs due to the longer haul distance from the site (approximately 8.5 miles from the upper limit of the Federal channel) while providing no discernible environmental advantages. Furthermore, this option would remove clean sand from the littoral system of Saco River, as well as resulting in increased air emissions attributable to the longer haul distances.

9

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

Figure 4. Saco Bay Disposal Site, Saco, Maine.

10

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

5.1 General Description and Land Use Characteristics

The Saco River runs between the towns of Biddeford and Saco entering into Saco Bay approximately 12 miles southwest of Portland. The circulation patterns within the estuary are controlled by freshwater flows in the Saco River and by tidal currents. The tidal range is 8.7 feet for mean tide and 9.9 feet for spring tide. The mean tide level is 4.3 feet. The average current through the jetties in Saco River is between 1.25 and 1.5 knots; during spring runoff this figure increases to 2.5 knots. The Saco River channel cuts across bedrock to form a series of narrow, deep rock gorges separated by shallower sand-floored reaches. It is a highly stratified salt wedge estuary. The deep holes can retain salt water with fresher water above at the lower tides (Farrell, 1970).

The predominant land use along the Saco River is residential. Norwood Marina is located at the mouth of the river and the Saco Yacht Club at the head of the harbor. There is a commercial fishing fleet of 40+ vessels located at Camp Ellis. Industrial land use is primarily located in the upstream portion of the river near Factory Island.

Since construction of the Saco River jetties, sand has accreted on the south side of the southern jetty and erosion has occurred to the north (Camp Ellis Beach) of the jetties. The area directly north of Saco River has experienced significant erosion for a distance of approximately 2,500 to 3,250 feet north of the northern jetty. Not until the placement of shore protection features in the 1970s and 1980s did the erosion rate decline. Sediment transport in the project area of the river mouth in Saco Bay is from south to north. With the construction of the jetties, sand transported by the Saco River is carried out past the effective littoral system, limiting a significant source of sand for nourishment of Camp Ellis Beach (USACE, 2014).

5.2 Physical and Chemical Environment

5.2.1 Water Quality

The waters of Saco River are classified as type SC waters. These waters are suitable for recreation in and on the water, fishing, aquaculture, propagation of shellfish, industrial process and cooling water supply, hydroelectric power generation, navigation, and as habitat for fish and other estuarine and marine life. Shellfish harvesting is prohibited in the Federal channel and most of the surrounding waters, except in front of Hills Beach and Biddeford Pool areas (Maine DMR shellfish pollution area No.10, 2014). Salinity at the Factory Island Bridge ranged from 0.1 ppt at the surface to 7.8 ppt at a depth of 14.76 feet (4.5 m) during high tide (McLaughlin et al., 1987).

11

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

5.2.2 Sediment Analyses

5.2.2.1 Dredge Areas

Sediment samples from the Saco River FNP were collected in 1968, 1972, 1976, 1989, 1991, and 2014. The samples were found to be predominantly sand or sand and gravel with very small percentages of fines (see Table 1). The Corps has made the preliminary determination that further testing of the material is not necessary as it was determined with the present information that the sediments are not a carrier of contaminants. A Suitability Determination was sent to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. EPA on March 18, 2016. Both agencies have concurred with the Suitability Determination, thereby deeming the material suitable for placement as proposed.

Table 1 Summary of Grain Size Data and Total Solids for Saco River FNP, July 2014 Sample % Total % Coarse % Medium % Fine % Total % Total ID Gravel Sand Sand Sand Fines Solids A 0.1(U) 0.6 94.5 4.9 0.1(U) 91.2 B 2.3 7.6 71.3 18.7 0.1 92.8 C 0.1(U) 6.3 82.8 10.9 0.1(U) 93 D 3.4 6.5 42.4 45.6 2.1 76.7 E 0.1(U) 0.1 10.3 88.9 0.7 74.3 F 1.1 4.5 72.8 21.6 0.1(U) 89.7 G 1.2 5.8 66.7 26.2 0.1 90 H 0.8 4.3 71.2 23.7 0.1(U) 90.6 I 0.1(U) 2.2 69.6 27.8 0.4 88.2 J 0.1(U) 2.2 56.9 40.7 0.2 79 K 4.8 21.4 68.6 5.2 0.1(U) 88 L 1.3 4.9 67.2 26.5 0.1 81.7 M 2.1 10.8 69.7 17.4 0.1(U) 89.7 N 7.3 9.9 62.6 2`0.1 0.1 85.5 P 2 1.6 49.5 46.7 0.2 84.9 Q 0.1(U) 0.5 30.7 68.1 0.7 80 Q (Duplicate) 0.4 0.4 29.2 69 1 79.2 U = Non-detected analytes are reported as the RL and qualified with a “U

5.2.2.2 In- River Placement Area

Within the Federal channel there are several deep holes, 20-30 feet in depth. The in-river placement area between Hills Point and Thunder Island as identified in

12

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

Section 4.4 above is one of these deeper areas (see Figure 3). Grain size samples were taken on October 14, 2015 from four sites within this site. Like other sections of the river, the material consisted mostly of medium and fine sand, except for Sample D which was coarse and medium sand (see Table 2 and Appendix B).

Table 2 Summary of Grain Size from the In-River Placement Site, Collected October 14, 2015. Sample ID % Cobble % Gravel %Sand % Fines

Coarse Medium Fine

A 0.0 0.0 0.1 32.9 66.8 0.1 B 0.0 0.1 0.7 59.8 39.1 0.3 C 0.0 0.3 1.9 65.4 30.5 1.9 D 0.0 1.2 21.8 75.0 2.0 0.0

5.2.2.3 Camp Ellis Beach

The material on Camp Ellis beach is composed of medium to coarse sand (GEI, 2006); the material in the intertidal zone being slightly less coarse, ranges from fine to coarse sand. Samples were collected in October 2015 at mean high water, mid-tide and mean lower low water areas of the beach placement area (Transect T1) with additional transects (T2 and T3) located further north on the beach where the material is expected to be gradually transported over time. The material was found to be mostly medium to fine sand (see Table 3 and Appendix B).

Table 3. Summary of Grain Size from the Camp Ellis Beach Placement Site, Collected on October 14, 2015.

Sample ID % Cobble % Gravel %Sand % Fines

Coarse Medium Fine

T1-H 0.0 0.0 0.9 80.3 18.9 0.0 T1-M 0.0 10.3 11.5 65.0 13.2 0.0 T1-L 0.0 6.1 6.5 24.5 62.9 0.0 T2-H 0.0 0.7 6.4 60.6 32.2 0.1 T2-M 0.0 9.5 8.9 64.2 17.5 0.0 T2-L 0.0 12.0 17.0 46.1 24.8 0.1 T3-H 0.0 0.0 0.2 42.8 56.9 0.1 T3-M 0.0 12.9 4.8 64.1 18.2 0.1 T3-L 0.0 0.3 4.0 26.4 69.2 0.2

13

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

5.2.2.4 Nearshore Adjacent to Camp Ellis Beach

Sediment borings taken just off Camp Ellis beach in the subtidal area indicate that the bottom is composed of finer material; ranging from very fine to medium sand (GEI, 2006). On October 14, 2015, four samples were collected for grain size analysis from the proposed nearshore placement site, which is 700 feet by 1,200 feet in area and approximately 15 feet in depth. This material was found to be mostly fine sand (see Table 4 and Appendix B).

Table 4. Summary of Grain Size from the Nearshore Placement Site, Collected on October 14, 2015. Sample ID % Cobble % Gravel %Sand % Fines

Coarse Medium Fine

A 0.0 46.5 1.4 25.2 26.3 0.6 B 0.0 0.0 1.1 4.1 93.6 1.2 C 0.0 0.0 0.3 5.2 90.0 4.5 D 0.0 0.0 0.4 11.0 86.3 2.4

5.3 Biological Resources

5.3.1 Shellfish – all areas

Soft shelled clams, Mya arenaria, are known to exist throughout the tidal areas of the Saco River estuary. Blue mussels, Mytilus edulis, occur near the mouth of the river. Surf clam, Spisula solidissima, habitat is adjacent to Camp Ellis Beach (MEGIS). The Corps conducted a surf clam survey in the intertidal area parallel to Camp Ellis Beach in August 2005. Overall findings suggest a dispersed incidental surf clam population within the project area. There is some surf clam habitat located off Saco Beach to Old Orchard Beach, but little is known about surf clam habitat around Camp Ellis or the mouth of the river (Denis-Marc Nault, MEDMR, personal communication, June 4, 2015).

The Saco River is classified as Prohibited for shellfish harvesting and the area around Camp Ellis is classified as Restricted. A Restricted classification is used for areas that do not meet water quality standards for an Approved classification, but the sanitary survey indicates only a limited degree of pollution. Shellfish harvesting in a Restricted area requires a permit from the Maine Department of Marine Resources (MEDMR, 2008).

The waters in Saco Bay area are part of the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance’s (NAMA) Saco Bay Wild Scallop Enhancement Project, a collaborative research effort designed to assess the feasibility of returning wild scallops to the waters of Saco Bay (Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance, 2004). The commercial fishery for finfish and

14

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

shrimp is located offshore principally in the vicinity of Jeffreys Ledge.

Lobsters (Homarus americanus) are widely distributed over the continental shelf of the western North Atlantic Ocean and are most abundant from Maine to New Jersey in inshore waters out to a depth of 40 meters. Post-larval lobsters have been observed settling into rock or gravel often covered with algae, salt-marsh peat, eelgrass, seaweed substrates, and firm mud. The preferred habitat for settlement of post-larval lobster appears to be any area with three-dimensional structure where they can build and maintain burrows for shelter from predators. Adult lobsters have been found in waters from the intertidal zone to as deep as 700 meters. Coastal populations concentrate in areas where shelter is readily available. When inactive, lobsters find shelter in burrows under rocks or, less frequently, in mud tunnels. In winter, especially when the water temperature is below 5°C, lobsters have been found close to the mouth of their burrow with sediment and debris, and remain in their burrow for weeks.

Although a lobster survey was not conducted for this proposed project, other surveys have noted lobster in the area (Reynolds and Casterlin, 1985; Sherman, et.al., 2003). Lobsters would be expected to find some shelter in nearby rocky outcrops and possibly the jetties. According to Denis-Marc Nault of the Maine Department of Marine Resources, little to no commercial crab or lobster harvest occurs in the project area (personal communication, June 4, 2015).

5.3.2 Benthic Communities

5.3.2.1 Dredge Areas

Benthic invertebrates commonly found in the lower Saco River estuary include the following: baltic macoma clam Macoma balthica, polychaetes Nereis virens, N. diversicolor, Nephtys caeca, N. incisa, Lumbrineris tenuis, Yoldia limatula, Y. sapotilla, Nucula spp., Glycera dibranchiata, Marenzelleria viridis, and Cerastoderma pinnulatum, hermit crab Pagurus bernhardus, green crab Carcinus maenas, jonah crab Cancer borealis, rock crab Cancer irroratus, sand shrimp Crangon septemspinosa, New England dog whelk Nassarius trivittatus, common periwinkle Littorina littorea, and the amphipod Gammarus tigrinus.

In order to characterize the benthic community of the Saco River FNP, seven benthic samples were collected within the upper and lower reaches of the shoal areas of the FNP on October 10, 2014. The number of species per site were low, ranging from 2 to 4 species per sample site. Capitellid polychaetes were the most common, and found at 4 of the 7 sites. The amphipod Amphiporeia virginiana was the most abundant in number, but all 152 individuals were found at the same site (site 6). Polychaetes and amphipods were the most commonly found organisms. Some oligochaetes were found at site 1, a few nematodes at site 2, and some chironomids (aquatic insects, midges) were found at site 5. See benthic data and sample site maps in Appendix D.

15

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

5.3.2.2 Camp Ellis Beach and Adjacent Nearshore Area

For the Camp Ellis Section 111 study (USACE, 2014) benthic samples were collected in May 2002 and August 2004. Intertidal beach samples were collected with a beach core and subtidally with a van Veen grab.

In the 2002 samples, the highest diversity occurred in the subtidal samples. These samples contained between 10 and 54 species with a mean number of 29 species. Likewise, these stations exhibited a fairly high density on a per square meter basis with a mean density of over sixteen thousand individuals. By contrast, the intertidal samples were sparsely populated by a very few species. Beach sediments are typically sparse and colonized by few species given the physical charactersitics of these areas. Dominant species in the subtidal zone are the arthropod Photis macrocoxa, and the polychaetes Aricidea jeffreysii, Pygospio elegans, and Paraonis fulgens. In the intertidal zone, the dominant species are again the polychaetes Pygospio elegans and Paraonis fulgens, as well as the arthropod Pseudoleptocuma minor.

Thirty-nine benthic species were identified in the 2004 benthic collection in the intertidal and subtidal ranges of the project area. The dominant species in the beach core samples included the arthropod Haustorius canadensis and the polychaetes Pygospio elegans and Paraonis fulgens. Dominant species in the subtidal grab samples included the polychaetes Pygospio elegans and Paraonis fulgens. Subtidal samples were dominated by oligochaetes and nematodes. Benthic survey data can be found in the Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Maine Shore Damage Mitigation Project EA (USACE, 2014).

On October 14 and 15, 2015 additional benthic samples were collected within the nearshore placement site (Oct. 14) and along the Camp Ellis beach intertidal areas using a box core. As in previous sampling events, the subtidal samples contained more species and individuals in each sample than the intertidal beach environment. The subtidal samples collected from the nearshore environment contained a species per sample range of 9 to 13 with the number of individuals ranging from 164 to 408 (0.04m2). The beach intertidal samples contained 0 to 3 species and 0 to 27 individuals per sample (0.015 m2). In the subtidal area, polychaetes (Capitella sp. and Aricidea sp.) were the most numerous, but the bivalve Tellina agilis, and amphipods (Corophium sp. and Haustorius Canadensis) were also common. In the intertidal beach samples, any organism was rare at mid tide level, but at low water there were some polychaetes (Glycera dibranchiate and Scolelepis squamata) and the bivalve (Mytilius edulis). See Appendix D for the complete benthic survey information.

5.3.2.3 In-River Placement

Four Van Veen grabs were used to collect benthic samples from the in-river disposal site in 1991. Species observed included: Nephtys spp., Nereis spp., a brachiopod, oligochaetes, isopods and a caprellid amphipod.

16

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

Additional samples (4) were collected from the in-river disposal site on October 14, 2015 to further characterize the area. These samples contained annelids, amphipods, and the bivalve Tellina sp. The polychaete Neanthes succinea was the most abundant species encountered followed by the bivalve Tellina sp, and the polycheate Capitella sp. Sample sites A and B were sparsely populated in number of species and individuals. Overall the number of species per samples ranged from 2 to 5 and the number of individuals ranged from 2 to 45. See Appendix D for the complete benthic survey information.

5.3.3 Fisheries Resources- all areas

The Saco River and its three principal tributaries, the Swift River, the Ossipee River, and the Little Ossipee River, are important aquatic resources that support a variety of anadromous (lives in saltwater and enters fresh water to spawn), catadromous (lives in freshwater and enters saltwater to spawn), migratory and resident fish species, including the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), river herring (Alosa spp.), shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrom), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown trout (Salmo trutta), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens).

Table 5 lists typical fisheries expected to occur in the project area (Reynolds and Casterlin, 1985; Sherman et al., 2014; McLaughlin et al., 1987; Furey and Sulikowski, 2011). The more recent study by Furey and Sulikowski (2011) was the first fisheries study conducted in the Saco River in over 30 years. An historic change in the fish assemblage of the river was documented since the last study of Saco River by Reynolds and Casterlin in 1985, including the loss of two commercially important species (little skate Leucaraja erinacea, and pollock Pollachius virens). Four species of concern/endangered species (alewife, Atlantic sturgeon, blueback herring and rainbow smelt) were observed over multiple months in Furey and Sulikowski’s study (2011). Fisheries resources may be considered significant for a variety of reasons, including state management practices, heavy recreational use, commercial fishing, or protected species habitat. The commercial fishery for finfish and shrimp is located offshore principally in the vicinity of Jeffreys Ledge.

Finfish which may be found in the Saco Bay project area but not necessarily the project area include Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), and Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Pollock, although once abundant, experienced significant declines in 2003 (Sherman et al., 2014). Other common species found in the Saco River area include: American eel, winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), cunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus), American sand lance (Ammodytes americana), mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius), and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) (Furey and Sulikowski, 2011). Common species found during the spring and summer months include the bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), and menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus).

17

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

TABLE 5 Common Fisheries Found in the Saco River/Camp Ellis Project Area (Reynolds and Casterlin, 1985; Sherman et al., 2014; McLaughlin et al., 1987; Furey and Sulikowski, 2011) Common Name Genus species Spawning Characteristics Alewife a/ Alosa pseudoharengus April to June Marine to fresh water; common; resident

American eel b/ Anguilla rostrata January, December Fresh water to marine; common; resident American sand lance Ammodytes Americana December, January Marine; common; resident

American shad a/ Alosa sapidissima May, June Marine to fresh water; rare; summer migrant Atlantic cod Gadus morhua Fall, winter, and early spring Marine; common; resident Atlantic herring Clupea harengus Late summer to early fall Marine and estuarine; common harengus Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus Spring, summer Marine; common; summer migrant Atlantic salmon a/ Salmo salar October, November Marine to fresh water; rare; resident Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrynchus Mid to late spring Fresh water to marine; resident

Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia April to July Estuarine to marine; spring to fall migrant Atlantic tomcod Microgadus tomcod November to February Marine to fresh water; common; resident Blueback herring a/ Alosa aestivalis May to July Marine and fresh water; common; summer migrant Bluefish Pomatomus saltarix Spring, summer Marine; common; summer migrant Brook trout Salvelinus foninalis October, November Fresh water-cold water fisheries; common; resident Cunner Tautogolabrus Late spring to early summer Marine; common; resident adspersus Fourspine stickleback Apeltes quadracus May through July Fresh water to marine;

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Late spring Fresh water

Little skate Raja erinacea Year-around Marine; common; resident Lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus February to May Marine; common; resident Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus March to May, September, Marine; common; summer migrant October Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus April to September Estuarine and fresh water; common; resident

Ninespine stickleback Pungitius pungitius Spring Marine and fresh water; common; resident

Northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus Summer Estuarine and marine; resident Ocean pout Macrozoarces Late summer to early winter Marine; common; resident americanus Pollock Pollachius virens November to January Marine; common; resident (crashed in 2003) Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax Spring Marine to fresh water, summer migrant Red hake Urophycis chuss May to November Marine; common; summer migrant Sand lance Ammodytes americanus November to March Marine and estuarine; common Sea raven Hemitripterus Fall to early winter Marine; common; resident americanus Silver hake Merluccius bilinearis Summer to early fall Marine; common; summer migrant Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu June, July Fresh water-warm water fisheries; common; resident Striped bass a/ Morone saxatilis April, May, early June Marine to fresh water; common; summer migrant

Threespine Gasterosteus aculeatus March to August Marine and fresh water; common; resident stickleback White perch Morone Americana April to June Fresh water-warm water fisheries; common; resident Windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus Late winter, spring Marine; common; resident

Winter flounder Pseduopleuronectes February to June Marine; common; resident americanus Yellow Perch Perca flavescens April, May Fresh water-warm water fisheries; common; resident a/ anadromous (striped bass does not spawn in Maine); b/ catadromous

18

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

The Saco River is one of the busiest sport fishing rivers in the State. Striped bass enter the river early to mid-May and remain through November. Fishing activity peaks during August and extends through October; fish are caught throughout the estuary. Although striped bass enter the river, they are not known to spawn in the estuary. Atlantic mackerel enter the Saco River during July and August. This species provides the second most important recreational fishery (MEDMR, 2015). Mackerel are generally concentrated in the lower two miles of the estuary with the majority of the fishing activity taking place off the Saco River breakwaters.

The dams at Saco-Biddeford previously blocked spawning runs of anadromous fish. However, in 1993 at the Cataract project, a fish lift was opened on the East Channel Dam and a Denil fish ladder on the West Channel Dam. The two smaller upstream dams, Springs and Bradbury, have fish locks that were opened to allow fish passage in 1997. There is presently a spawning run of river herring (alewives Alosa pseudoharengus and blueback herring Alosa aestivalis) that enters the river during May to the end of June and spawns.

Alewives often use slow-moving streams for spawning in freshwater. Spawning usually occurs in shallow waters (less than two meters) over sand substrate. American shad are noted to spawn in the more slowly flowing section of the river and frequently in brackish waters. The American shad population spawns in June and July. Spawning usually occurs in river areas dominated by extensive flats; also over sandy or pebbly shallows; frequently near mouths of creeks; in clear to very turbid waters with currents less than 0.3 to more than 0.9 m/sec, in depths of 0.9 to 12.2 meters. Blueback herring do not ascend into fresh water as far as the alewife and seem to prefer spawning sites in fast-flowing water over a hard substrate (Scott and Scott, 1988). Blueback herring may also spawn in brackish waters (Clayton et al., 1978). They are also more selective than alewives in their choice of spawning sites (Scott and Scott, 1988). Eggs of blueback herring are semi-adhesive after spawning and may be adversely affected by siltation caused by upstream activities (Clayton et al., 1978

In 2014, only three Atlantic salmon were recorded at the skeleton dam fish lift, approximately ten miles north of the Cataract fish traps. However, these numbers are not an accurate reflection of the population given the constraints of documenting salmon fish passage, and there is no accurate count of the number of salmon that return to this river in any given year (Saco River Salmon Club & Hatchery, 2014). Atlantic salmon are stocked throughout the Saco River drainage as fry, parr and smolts. Female Atlantic salmon usually spawn in a gravel-bottom riffle above a pool. After spawning the female covers the eggs with gravel (Scott and Scott, 1988). The fish usually return to the river during the spring months after the end of the dredging window.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with other local and state agencies and organizations is working to restore Atlantic salmon, shad, and river herring to the Saco River system. As of 2013, the Saco river fish returns were as follows: river herring 42,402; American shad 6,168; and Atlantic Salmon 5 (Saco River Salmon Club, 2013). American shad, river herring, and Atlantic salmon are known to

19

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

reproduce in the Saco River. The present status of spawning by rainbow smelt in the Saco River is unknown (McLaughlin et al., 1987).

5.3.4 Eelgrass

Based on the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) eelgrass mapping effort in 2010, the closest areas of eelgrass in the project area are to the south of Saco River near Wood Island (over 1,200 feet from the Federal channel). A small area is also noted north of Camp Ellis Beach near Eagle Island (over 1 mile from the shoreline).

5.3.5 Wildlife Resources

5.3.5.1 General Wildlife Species

The shore habitat supports a variety of wildlife species typical in southern Maine. While-tailed deer, gray squirrels, raccoons, red fox, cottontails, skunks, and small mammals (mice, chipmunks, voles, etc) are frequently observed in the Saco River-Camp Ellis area. The Saco River watershed supports wildlife species such as moose, black bear, ruffled grouse, snowshoe hare, woodcock, fisher, porcupine, muskrat, beaver, coyote, bobcat, and otter. The islands off the coast of Camp Ellis support harbor and gray seals (USFWS, 1980).

5.3.5.2 Birds

Table 6 of this EA contains a list of bird species found in the project area as well as Birds of Conservation Concern as identified by the USFWS (2016). The Saco River estuary consists of a six mile channel with saltmarsh and tidal flat areas. The sandy shores and salt marshes in this area offer breeding, foraging, and resting habitats for a number of species of birds. There are approximately 304 acres of saltmarsh in the estuary, the majority of which is adjacent to Biddeford Pool. The saltmarshes along the river are "fringe marshes" of predominantly saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). Marsh areas along the estuary that provide fish and wildlife habitat are located adjacent to Junkins Point, Hills Point, Mannix Point, Chase Point, Moors Brook, and Chandlers Point.

Common shore and sea birds found in the Saco River estuary include terns, plovers, gulls, turnstones, and American oystercatchers, and double-crested cormorants. The area also supports several species of wading birds. Glossy ibis, snowy egrets, little blue herons, great blue herons, tri-colored herons, green herons, black-crowned night herons, blue-winged teals, mallards, black ducks, willets, snipes, savannah, and sharp-tailed sparrows reside in salt marsh estuaries nearby (Maine Audubon, 2015).

Coastal islands in the vicinity of Saco River have been identified as bird nesting areas. Wood Island is owned by the Maine Audubon Society and is an important area for snowy egrets, glossy ibis, and to a lesser extent, little blue heron.

20

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

Tidal flats exist in the nearshore waters off of Camp Ellis. Tidal flats are an excellent feeding ground for wintering birds. Birds sighted in the proposed project area include the following: surf scoter, white-winged scoter, horned grebe, common loon, herring gull, oldsquaw, and American coot.

TABLE 6. Birds Found in the Saco Harbor Region

Common Name Genus and species

American oystercatchers c* (breeding) Haematopus palliates American bittern c* (breeding) Haematopus palliatus Arctic tern a/ c* (breeding) Sterna paradisea Bald eagle c* (year-round) Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bay-breasted warbler c* (breeding) Dendroica castanea Black-billed cuckoo c* (breeding) Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black duck Anas rubripes Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax Blue-winged teal Anas discors Blue-winged warbler c* (breeding) Vermivora pinus Canada warbler c* (breeding) Wilsonia canadensis Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus Great blue heron Ardea herodias Great cormorant c* (wintering) Phalacrocorax carbo Green heron Butorides virescens Gulls Larus spp. Horned Grebe c* (wintering) Podiceps auritus Hudsonian Godwit c* (migrating) Limosa haemastica Least bittern c* (breeding) Ixobrychus exilis Least tern a/ c* (breeding) Sterna antillarum Little blue heron Egretta caerulea Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Nelson's sparrow c* (breeding) Ammodramus nelsoni Olive-sided flycatcher c* (breeding) Contopus cooperi Peregrine falcon c* (breeding) Falco peregrinus Pied-billed Grebe c* (breeding) Podilymbus podiceps Piping Plover a/ Charadrius melodus Prarie warbler c* (breeding) Dendroica discolor Purple sandpiper c* (wintering) Calidris maritima Roseate tern a/ Sterna dougallii Saltmarsh sparrow c* (breeding) Ammodramus cauducutus

21

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

Savannah Passerculus sandwichensis Short-eared owl c* (wintering) Asio flammeus Snipes Gallinago gallinago Snowy egret c* (breeding) Egretta thula Tri-colored heron Hydranassa tricolor ruficollos Turnstones Arenaria interpres Upland sandpiper c* (breeding) Bartramia longicauda Willow flycatcher c* (breeding) Empidonax traillii Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Wood thrush c* (breeding) Hylocichla mustelina a/ denotes threatened or endangered species c* denotes Bird of Conservation Concern and the time of year the birds are present in the project area (USFWS)

5.4 Essential Fish Habitat

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation is necessary for this project. EFH is broadly defined as “those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Saco River and the Saco River Federal navigation project fall into this category and thus have the potential to provide habitat for fish species in the area.

As stated in the NMFS EFH designations (http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/doc/ newefh.html), the dredge placement sites fall within the 10' X 10' square area bounded by the coordinates 43° 30.0'N, 70° 20.0'W, 43° 20.0' N, and 70° 20.0' W for Saco Bay, Maine.

Fourteen federally managed species have the potential to occur within the project area. These include: Atlantic salmon (Salmo Salar), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), pollock (Pollachius virens), red hake (Urophycis chuss), white hake (Urophycis tenuis), winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferruginea), windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aquosus), American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus), Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), Atlantic sea herring (Clupea harengus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), and Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus). See Appendix E for details on managed species with EFH in the project areas.

5.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

5.5.1 Birds and Mammals

5.5.1.1 Piping Plover

The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is a Federally-listed threatened species

22

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

(State-listed as endangered) that nests in open, sandy beaches close to the dunes. Piping plovers return to their breeding grounds in late March and early April and the nesting season may extend into late August, although individual pairs may fledge their young as early as July. Piping plovers regularly nest in Saco on property that is part of the Rachel A. Carson National Wildlife Refuge (RCNWR) at Kinney Shores, abutting Goosefare Brook. Nesting habitat consists of sandy beaches, sand flats at the ends of barrier islands, gently sloping foredunes, sandy patches created by blowouts in frontal dunes, and wash over areas in frontal dunes. Nests are situated above the high tide line, and consist of a shallow scraped depression in the sand (or in shell and pebble cobble). The nest site usually has sparse vegetation, or none, and occasionally is under stands of American beach grass.

Nesting habitat for piping plovers exists on beaches in the vicinity of the Saco River FNP. In 2015, one pair of piping plovers nested on Hills Beach, southeast of the mouth of the river. The nest was abandoned at some point in mid-June, likely due to fox predation. Some plover activity was observed in spring 2015 at Ferry Beach, though no plovers nested. A brood that arrived at Goosefare Brook from Ocean Park with one chick ultimately moved south onto Ferry Beach and the chick fledged on July 30th. Ferry Beach is approximately 0.75 miles north of the project area. In 2014, a nest with four eggs was observed at Ferry Beach, but it was abandoned by the adult birds, most likely due to heavy human use, dog presence, and predator presence. Goosfare Brook has also seen nesting within the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge. In 2015, four chicks were observed to fledge in mid-July at this site (Zitske et al., 2016).

Adults typically lay a clutch of four eggs; eggs are incubated for 27-28 days after egg laying is complete. Chicks are precocial and can run and forage shortly after hatching; they remain with the adults until they are able to fly (fledge) at 25 to 35 days. If disturbance causes the adults to abandon a nest, a pair will commonly renest once at another location. For this reason, although most chicks have fledged by the end of July, flightless chicks may be on the beach from until late August if initial nesting is disturbed.

Plovers feed on invertebrates such as marine worms, fly larvae, beetles, small crustaceans or mollusks. Feeding areas range from intertidal flats up to the high tide wrack line and shorelines of lagoons, salt marshes and coastal ponds. The importance of various feeding habitat will vary by location, and by the stage of the breeding cycle. Feeding habitats are often (but not always) contiguous to nesting habitats, and feeding can occur at all hours of the day and night, and at all tidal stages.

5.5.1.2 Red Knot

The rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is federally listed as Threatened and is on the State species of special concern list. Red knots migrate annually traveling up to 19,000 miles between their breeding grounds in the Canadian Arctic and several wintering regions in Southeast United States and South America. During both the northbound (spring) and southbound (fall) migrations, red knots use key staging and stopover areas to rest and feed in suitable habitats along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts

23

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

from Argentina to Massachusetts.

Red Knots use the Saco shoreline for feeding and resting during long distance migrations. During migration, the Camp Ellis jetties provide roosting habitat during high tide, while the beach provides foraging opportunities between the high tide wrack line and exposed tidal flats at low water. Individual birds are found in Maine during the spring northward migration. Southward migrating red knots appear on the Atlantic Coast of the U.S., with red knots feeding on Maine beaches for a few weeks at a time from summer through fall. Red knots have been reported in the Hills Beach Biddeford beach on July 28, 2013 (Lovitch, 2013) and August 25, 2015 (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2015). A red knot was also observed on Camp Ellis Jetty on November 4, 2012 (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2015).

5.5.1.3 Roseate Tern

The roseate tern (Sterna dougallii) is listed as federally endangered. More than half of the Roseate Terns in Maine nest on Eastern Egg Rock Island at the mouth of Muscongus Bay, but a few pairs nest on Stratton Island approximately 4.5 miles from the entrance to Saco River. The birds arrive at breeding islands in Maine in mid-May. After a 3 week courtship, 1-5 eggs (average 2) are laid in Mid-May to mid-June. The nest is a simple scrape in dense vegetation or under rocks or driftwood. The chicks hatch in about 23 days, they stay close to the nest site and are fed by the parents for 22-30 days before they fledge. Roseate terns feed on small fish, such as white hake, four bearded rockling, herring, pollock, and sand lance. The birds favor fishing over shallow sand shoals and tide rips. During August and early September, large flocks of roseates can be observed at migratory staging areas (inlets, barrier beaches, and islands) (MDIFW, 2003). Roseate terns have been recorded from the Hills Beach Biddeford Pools area on August 18, 2015 and August 13, 2014 (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2015). Also several birds were recorded foraging on Camp Ellis Jetty on June 25, 2013 (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2015).

5.5.1.4 Northern Long Eared Bat

Northern Long Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is designated as Threatened and may occur near the project area. The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is found across much of the eastern and north central United States and all Canadian provinces from the Atlantic coast west to the southern Northwest Territories and eastern British Columbia. The species’ range includes 37 states. White-nose syndrome, a fungal disease known to affect bats, is currently the predominant threat to this bat, especially throughout the Northeast where the species has declined by up to 99 percent from pre- white-nose syndrome levels at many hibernation sites.

During summer, NLEBs roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Males and non-reproductive females may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. NLEBs seems opportunistic in selecting roosts, using tree species based on suitability to retain bark or provide cavities or

24

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

crevices. These bats have also been found, roosting in structures like barns and sheds. Northern long-eared bats spend winter hibernating in caves and mines, called hibernacula. They typically use large caves or mines with large passages and entrances; constant temperatures; and high humidity with no air currents. Specific areas where they hibernate have very high humidity, so much so that droplets of water are often seen on their fur. Within hibernacula, surveyors find them in small crevices or cracks, often with only the nose and ears visible (USFWS, 2016).

Northern long-eared bats emerge at dusk to fly through the understory of forested hillsides and ridges feeding on moths, flies, leafhoppers, caddisflies, and beetles, which they catch while in flight using echolocation. This bat also feeds by gleaning motionless insects from vegetation and water surfaces.

Breeding begins in late summer or early fall when males begin swarming near hibernacula. After copulation, females store sperm during hibernation until spring, when they emerge from their hibernacula, ovulate, and the stored sperm fertilizes an egg. This strategy is called delayed fertilization. After fertilization, pregnant females migrate to summer areas where they roost in small colonies and give birth to a single pup. Maternity colonies, with young, generally have 30 to 60 bats, although larger maternity colonies have been observed. Most females within a maternity colony give birth around the same time, which may occur from late May or early June to late July, depending where the colony is located within the species’ range. Young bats start flying by 18 to 21 days after birth (USFWS, 2016)

5.5.2 Fish

5.5.2.1 Shortnose Sturgeon

The Federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrom), has been netted in the Saco River (Little et al., 2013) and are known to aggregate between the dam and Cow Island on the river (Max Tritt, NMFS, personal communication, July 2, 2015). Shortnose sturgeons have a range that extends from St. John River in New Brunswick, Canada to St. Johns River in Florida. Shortnose sturgeon are anadromous, spending a portion of their lives in salt water, but returning to freshwater to spawn. However, in some northern populations (e.g., in the Kennebec River), a portion of the population forages in the saline estuary while others forage in fresh water.

In the Saco River, when the water temperatures start to drop (October - November timeframe), shortnose sturgeon will move out of the Saco to overwintering areas, most likely in the Kennebec River. Shortnose sturgeon typically migrate to fresh water to spawn when the water temperatures approach 10°C, usually in late March to April in the Saco River (Max Tritt, NMFS, personal communication, July 2, 2015). The Saco River also may serve as a stopover site on larger migrations (Little et al., 2013). Individuals have been recorded as leaving the Kennebec River, entering the Saco River, and retuning back to the Kennebec River. Other individuals left the Merrimack River in Massachusetts, stopped in the Saco River, and then continued on to the

25

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

Kennebec River (Little et al., 2013).

The shortnose sturgeon exhibits delayed sexual maturity, high reproductive capacity, and long life expectancy. Males and females mature at the same length (about 18 inches), but age at maturity varies with latitude. Sturgeons in the northern part of their range grow slower and mature later than those in the southern part of the range. Males reach sexual maturity in the north at 10-11 years and females at 12-18 years. Females usually breed every three years, and males may breed every year.

Spawning occurs in the spring at or above the head of tide. The female broadcasts her eggs in fresh water over a rubble bottom, and the male fertilizes them. Females lay 40,000-200,000 eggs, which hatch in about 13 days. After hatching, the larvae drift downstream and inhabit the deeper sections of river channels. Young of the year remain in freshwater. Juveniles (3-10 years old) move to the freshwater/saltwater interface. Adults are found in freshwater or tidal areas of rivers in summer and winter. They concentrate in small sections of the river, usually in areas of decreased river flow. These "concentration areas" may be associated with conditions suitable for the sturgeon's primary prey, freshwater mussels and crayfish. Adult shortnose sturgeon primarily eats mollusks and large crustaceans. Juveniles feed primarily on insects and small crustaceans. Both adults and juveniles feed on the river bottom day and night. Feeding and overwintering activities may occur in both fresh and saline habitats. Female shortnose sturgeon may live to be 67 years old, while males seldom live beyond 30 years of age (NOAA Fisheries, 2014).

5.5.2.2 Atlantic Sturgeon

On February 6, 2012, NMFS listed the Gulf of Maine distinct population segments (GOM DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) as a threatened species under Section 7 of the ESA. Atlantic sturgeon are found along the eastern seaboard from Cape Canaveral, FL to Labrador, Canada. Within the U.S. Gulf of Maine, Atlantic sturgeon have been documented in the following rivers: Penobscot, Kennebec, Androscoggin, Sheepscot, Saco, Piscataqua, Presumpscott, and Merrimack. Table 7 below provides a list of the historic and current spawning rivers in the Gulf of Maine as well as their current use by Atlantic sturgeon.

TABLE 7. Historic and Current Spawning Status of Atlantic Sturgeon in the U.S. GOM and its Current Uses in the Riverine Habitat (ASSRT, 2007 and FR 2012). State River Historical Current Use of River by Spawning Spawning Atlantic Status Status Sturgeon NB/ME Saint Croix Yes Possibly Nursery ME Penobscot Yes Possibly Nursery ME Kennebec Yes Yes Spawning, Nursery ME Androscoggin Yes Possibly Nursery

26

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

ME Sheepscot Yes Possibly Nursery ME Saco1 Unknown Unknown Unknown ME/NH Piscataqua Unknown No Unknown NH/MA Merrimack Yes No Nursery River

Atlantic sturgeons are omnivorous benthic feeders, and filter quantities of mud along with their food. The diets of adult sturgeon include mollusks, gastropods, amphipods, isopods and fish. Juvenile sturgeon feed on aquatic insects and other invertebrates (Scott & Crossman, 1973). Sand lance make-up a large portion of the diet for Atlantic sturgeon caught in the Saco Bay estuary (Sulikowski, personal communication). In fact, Atlantic sturgeon are known to feed on sand lance at the mouth of the Saco River. Atlantic sturgeon will stay at the mouth of the river until the prey resource is gone, or until November-December when the water temperature decreases and they move offshore to deeper water. This species would return to the Saco River after the spawning run when water temperatures approach 10°C, typically late March to April (Max Tritt, NMFS, personal communication, July 2, 2015).

Atlantic sturgeon spawn in freshwater, but spend most of their adult life in the marine environment. Generally, spawning adults migrate upriver in the spring/early summer; February-March in southern systems, April-May in mid-Atlantic systems, and May-July in Canadian systems (Murawski and Pacheco, 1977; Smith, 1985; Bain, 1997; Smith and Clugston, 1997; and Caron, et al,. 2002). Atlantic sturgeon likely do not spawn every year, and multiple studies have indicated spawning intervals ranging from 1-5 years for males (Smith, 1985; Collins, et al., 2000; Caron et al., 2002) and 2-5 years for females (Smith, 1985). Fecundity of female Atlantic sturgeon is correlated with age and body size and ranges from 400,000 to 4 million eggs (Ryder, 1890; Scott & Crossman, 1973; van Eenennaam and Doroshov, 1998).

Spawning is believed to occur between the salt front of estuaries and the fall line of large rivers in flowing waters with strong currents and hard bottoms (Borodin, 1925; Keiffer and Kynard, 1993; Dadswell, 2006). Their highly adhesive eggs are deposited on the bottom substrate usually on hard surfaces such as rock, gravel, and hard clay or deep pools with hard bottom (Gilbert, 1989; Smith and Clugston, 1997). It is likely that cold, clean water is important for proper larval development.

Following spawning, males may remain in the river or lower estuary until the fall; females typically exit the rivers within four to six weeks (NOAA Fisheries, 2015). Juveniles (subadults) move downstream and inhabit brackish waters for a few months. When they reach a size of about 30 to 36 inches (76-92 cm) they move into nearshore coastal waters. Tagging data indicate that these immature Atlantic sturgeons travel widely once they emigrate from their natal (birth) rivers. Subadults and adults live in

1 Atlantic sturgeons are using the Saco River for significant portions of the year. Studies are underway to determine how the fish are using the river (e.g., as just a foraging area or attempting to reestablish a spawning population). Email from NMFS dated May 1, 2012.

27

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

coastal waters and estuaries when not spawning, generally in shallow (10-50 meter depth) nearshore areas dominated by gravel and sand substrates (NOAA Fisheries, 2015). When at sea, the adults mix with populations from other rivers, but return to their natal rivers to spawn as indicated from tagging records (Collins, et al., 2000) and from population genetic studies showing relatively low rates of gene flow (King et al., 2001 and Waldman et al. 2002).

Tagging and tracking of captured fish has shown that Atlantic sturgeon are making use of the lower four river kilometers of Saco River from the mouth up to Cataract Dam. They have been observed in the river between April and December with the highest concentrations in June and July. Atlantic sturgeons have been observed moving between Saco River and Scarborough River to the north within hours (Sulikowski, personal communication).

5.5.2.3 Atlantic Salmon

Atlantic salmon move upriver in the spring, to breed in the fall, and return to the marine environment in early winter. After spending approximately two years in freshwater, the juveniles migrate to sea in the spring. The Saco River is not part of the endangered Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of anadromous Atlantic salmon. Only a few individuals are recorded passing the fish ladders at Cataract Dam but others were recorded a the Skeleton Dam, suggesting that some fish were jumping over the dam (Saco River Salmon Club and Hatchery, 2014). Although the total number of Atlantic salmon might not be known for the Saco River the abundance is still very low.

5.6 Land Use, Recreation, and Public Interest Areas

The project occurs in the marine coastal waters of Saco Bay at the confluence of the Saco River, Saco and Biddeford, Maine. The dominant land use in the adjacent mainland is a coastal beach community with moderate to high population density. Saco Bay is a marine environment which has commercial and recreational uses. Activities conducted in the bay area include boating, canoeing, surf casting, swimming, sunbathing, sailboarding, surfing, sailing, and fishing.

The Saco River is protected by the state of Maine as a designated special region through the Saco River Watershed and Saco River Corridor Commission because of its diverse natural resources, particularly the water quality. The Saco River Corridor Commission was created by the Maine Legislature in 1973. Its purpose is to regulate the use of land and water within the Saco River watershed. The Commission serves as a regulatory agency that provides coordinated, basin-wide land use regulation that is run by the affected communities themselves (Maine Statue Title 38, §954). The Saco River area hosts an abundance of recreational activity, such as sightseeing, wildlife observation, camping, hiking, photography, fishing, swimming, and boating (canoeing, kayaking, whitewater rafting, etc). 5.7 Socioeconomics

28

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

The population of Saco, Maine is 18,482 and the median household income is $55,873. The average annual labor force was 11,061, of which 10,476 were employed, 585 were unemployed, and 4,264 were not in the labor force for the population 16 years and over. The unemployment rate was 3.8 percent. Average annual employment for Saco by occupation is shown in Table 8 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey).

TABLE 8 Average Annual Employment for Saco by Occupation (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009) Occupation Saco Management, professional and related occupations 3,617 Service occupations 2,057 Sales and office occupations 2,858 Natural Resources, construction, & maintenance occupations 830 Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 1,114 Total 10,476

The population of Biddeford, Maine is 21,277 and the median household income is $58,692. The average annual labor force was 11,901, of which 11,085 were employed, 798 were unemployed, and 5,533 were not in the labor force for the population 16 years and over. The unemployment rate was 4.6 percent. Average annual employment for Biddeford by occupation is shown in Table 9 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey).

TABLE 9 Average Annual Employment for Saco by Occupation (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009) Occupation Saco Management, professional and related occupations 3,411 Service occupations 2,349 Sales and office occupations 2,913 Natural Resources, construction, & maintenance occupations 1,028 Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 1,384 Total 11,085

The Saco River Federal Navigation Project makes important contributions to the local economy, particularly in regards to the fishing and service occupations. The city pier and adjacent anchorages support a fishing fleet of nearly 40 vessels, and several charter and sport fishing boats operate out of the Camp Ellis area. Three marinas along the river provide berths or moorings for about 290 recreational boats, and three public boat ramps provide additional access to the river. A commercial boat yard, situated further upstream on the Biddeford side of the river, manufactures and services

29

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

commercial and pleasure craft. Commercial paper products are also shipped from this boat yard. Visits to this picturesque area, primarily during the summer months, support two sizable restaurants that are situated near the pier. Marine programs at the University of New England in Biddeford, kayak rentals, and other related activities are also supported or enhanced by the project.

5.8 Historic and Archeological Resources

5.8.1 Pre-Contact (Native American) Archaeology

From documentary evidence and preliminary archaeological work, it is clear that the lower Saco River was a center of Native American activity, both in prehistoric times and during the contact period (the time of initial encounters between Europeans and Indians in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). From the writings of the French explorer, Samuel de Champlain, as well as other French and English observers, we know that there was a series of large native villages near the mouth of the Saco River in the first decade of the seventeenth century. A 1605 map drawn by Champlain shows a large Native American village near the present-day campus of the University of New England in Biddeford. The map also depicts Indian cornfields on both sides of the river. The name "Saco" itself is attributed to the Abenaki people's word for "flowing out" or "outlet" and to the word "Sawacotuck" meaning "mouth of the tidal stream." Native Americans occupied Saco in both prehistoric and historic times. The York Institute Museum owns a collection of Indian artifacts which were discovered at various places throughout the city. Some of these artifacts may be as much as 4-5,000 years old. More recently, in the 1600's and 1700's, Indians lived in several areas of Saco. The most notable location was Factory Island, which was known in colonial times as Indian Island. Few contact period sites have been found in Maine, so these sites along the Saco River may provide important data for understanding early Indian- European interaction (Baker, 1987). 5.8.2 History and Historical Archaeology

The lower Saco region has a long and rich history. English occupation began as early as 1618, when Captain Richard Vines and his expedition spent the winter at Winter Harbor (Biddeford Pool). Starting in 1630, just ten years after the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, the mouth of the Saco became a center of English settlement which included fishermen, traders, lumberjacks, and farmers. By 1636, at least 37 families had settled in the area. Thus, Saco became one of the first English settlements in northern New England.

The settlement grew gradually throughout the seventeenth century, until it was abandoned in 1690 at the outbreak of King William's War. It was not until the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 that any significant effort at resettlement was made in Saco. After 1713, the Saco side of the river quickly returned to prosperity as a farming, fishing, and lumbering community. By 1762, the population on the east side of the river became so

30

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

great, that the east side split off from Biddeford to form the town of Pepperrellborough. The name would later be changed to Saco.

While archaeological sites in coastal Maine from the colonial period are all important, the Maine Historic Preservation Commission has determined that those from the seventeenth century are the most significant. Very few documents are left to tell scholars the history of the very early settlement of Maine. In addition to those few documents, scholars rely on archaeology to learn about the seventeenth century in Maine. To date, very little archaeological work has been done in Saco. Only one site in Saco has been placed in the Maine Historic Preservation Commission's Maine Historic Sites Inventory. This site, designated as ME379-01, and named "Goosefare Brook #1," is a late eighteenth and early nineteenth century homestead site located on the bank of Goosefare Brook.

For centuries in pre-historic times, the dramatic falls of the Saco River near where it now crosses Main Street attracted summer visits from the Native people for seasonal fishing and hunting. By the early 17th century, the safe harbor and abundant natural resources attracted European visitors. In 1617 a company of adventurers led by Richard Vines weathered a winter at the mouth of the river in a place still known as Winter Harbor. After subsequent visits, permanent settlers arrived in 1631. Both sides of the river were considered as one town, known first as Saco, and after 1718 as Biddeford. For the next century the town remained sparsely settled because of the devastation of frequent wars with the Natives and the French.

The fortunes of the small settlement changed in 1716 when William Pepperrell, a young merchant from Kittery, purchased 5,000 acres and timber rights to an additional 4,500 acres on the east side of the Saco. Pepperrell sold off parts of his holdings to millwright Nathaniel Weare and mariner Humphrey Scamman to help expedite his lumbering operation. The eastern settlement's principal roads, Main Street and the Portland, Buxton, and Ferry Roads, were laid out in 1718.

The village grew steadily throughout the 18th century. In 1752, Sir William Pepperrell, then an English Baronet, donated four acres of land near the falls to the town for use as a village common, a burying ground, and a site for a new meetinghouse. The settlers on the eastern bank separated from Biddeford in 1762 and named the new village Pepperrellborough in honor of the town's benefactor. The town grew rapidly in size and wealth as farming, lumbering, and ship building bloomed and prospered. By the time of the Revolution, the growth of international commerce in the town required the government to establish a customs house near the wharves.

In 1805, the town dropped the weighty and difficult to spell name, Pepperrellborough, in favor of the simpler ancient name, Saco. The 19th century brought modern industrial capital development to Saco. The first corporation, a nail factory, was established in 1811. The factory was such a paying venture that it was followed in 1825 by the first of many cotton milling factories. In the next 25 years, Saco could boast of dozens of industries from cotton mills and machine shops, to iron

31

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

foundries and cigar factories. With the development of massive cotton mills on the western falls of the river, the sister cities of Biddeford and Saco became leaders of manufacturing in the industrial age.

Civic life took on new ceremony with the building of a handsome Town Hall in 1855. The pressures of growth and increasing needs for services led the citizens of Saco to incorporate as a city in 1867. In the second half of the 19th century, an influx of immigrants from Europe and Quebec added cultural diversity to the city's other assets. Despite setbacks during the Civil War, the Panic of 1873, and the Crash of 1929, the city's people and industries prospered for most of the next hundred years.

Perhaps the greatest challenge in the city's history came from the closing of the York Mills in 1958. For a century the York Mills had been the city's largest employer and largest taxpayer. Thanks to diversification of the city's economy and the hard work of its citizens, Saco has withstood the changes of the 20th century and is thriving once again. The rich history of Saco has left a priceless legacy in the beauty and variety of the city's buildings. The architecture of Main Street reflects almost every period of change and development in the city's history, from the eighteenth century to the present (Hardiman, 2010).

5.9 Air Quality

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal pollutants. The NAAQS sets primary (public health) and secondary (decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, ecosystems, etc.) concentration limits to determine the attainment status for each criteria pollutant. The six criteria air pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone, and sulfur dioxide.

EPA redesignated the Portland area including York County and the Town of Saco as in attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard on December 11, 2006 (Maine DOT, 2011). As the State of Maine was already in attainment for the remaining criteria pollutants, the State of Maine meets the NAAQS for all applicable pollutants. The study area is currently categorized as 8-hour ozone maintenance area.

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

6.0.1 No Action Alternative

Under a No Action Alternative the federal channel in the Saco River would continue to shoal, ultimately decreasing the water depth. During the process, the channel would become increasingly hazardous to navigate and would eventually prevent vessel passage.

32

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

6.0.2 Preferred Alternatives

The preferred alternatives involves placing the material dredged from the upstream regions of the project in-river between Hills Point and Thunder Point (see Figure 2). Material from the lower reaches of the river will be pumped onto Camp Ellis Beach or placed in a nearshore site off of Camp Ellis Beach.

6.1 Physical and Chemical Impacts

6.1.1 Dredge Areas

No significant adverse water quality impacts are anticipated from the dredging operations. The majority of the material to be dredged is composed of medium to fine sands with no silt-clay fraction. Sandy material is generally not associated with high levels of organic carbon, and dredging of sandy material is not likely to result in the release of nutrients or decreases in dissolved oxygen. No significant release of chemical contaminants into the water column are anticipated due to the coarse grained nature of the material. In addition, there are no known sources of contamination in or near the dredge area.

Dredging operations have the potential to temporarily increase turbidity in waters of the project area. The extent and duration of these impacts are a function of the type of material to be dredged, the type of equipment used and the hydrologic regime of the dredging and disposal areas (Collins, 1995). Turbidity primarily affects the performance of visual predators such as fish and birds, the primary production of phytoplankton, growth and survival of benthic organisms (Essink, 1999), and other sensitive receptors (e.g. gill abrasion) on organisms (Kurland et al., 1994).

Turbidity can alter light regimes by reducing light which has the potential to impact primary production, species distribution, behavior, feeding ability, and movements of fish especially larval fish (Berry et al., 2003). However, increased turbidity is not always detrimental to resources. The distribution of several species of juvenile marine fish common in estuaries can be influenced by water turbidity (Cyrus and Blaber, 1987), but some species prefer more turbid waters, possibly as protection from predators. In terms of dredging, the increases in turbidity over background are short-term (hours, days to months) but are usually not continuous due to project scheduling, dredge type, and tidal regimes.

The effects of turbidity on the water quality of the project area are anticipated to be short-term and localized around the dredge due to the sandy nature of the material to be removed from the Saco River channel and anchorages. The type of dredge to be used (i.e., a hydraulic pipeline dredge) is capable of removing sediments in the dredge area with relatively small amounts of resuspension extending beyond the immediate vicinity of the dredge itself. A hydraulic cutterhead dredge could suspend 25-250 mg/l of silty sediments within 100 to 400 feet downcurrent of the dredge (Hayes, 1986). Since the dredged material from the FNP is sand with little to no silt content, any turbidity will be

33

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

short-term and highly localized.

The upper reaches of the Saco River are proposed to be dredged with a government owned special purpose hopper dredge (i.e. Currituck or Murden), or a mechanical dredge. An increase in suspended solids levels during hopper dredging is the result of the dredge disturbing the bottom sediments and overflow of the hopper into the surrounding waters. Because the material is sand, it will rapidly settle out of the water column. A study conducted on turbidity following dredging of sandy sediments by the Currituck found that suspended sediments above 150mg/l were only present within small volumes of the central portions of the plumes, and concentrations above 50 mg/l were generally confined to within 300 feet of the active overflow (draft report Clarke et al.). For a mechanical dredge, sediment resuspension comes from four major sources: sediment suspended by the impact and withdrawal of the bucket from the bottom; overflow of material from the top and sides of the bucket back into the water column; spillage of sediment-laden water out of the bucket as it breaks the water surface; and the inadvertent spillage of material during barge loading or intentional overflow intended to increase a barge’s effective load (Hayes, 1986; LaSalle, 1988). Because this project involves dredging clean sand, any suspended material should rapidly settle out of the water column. Therefore, the proposed project is only expected to have minimal impacts to water quality resulting from turbidity.

Other water quality effects that can result from elevated levels of suspended sediments could potentially include reductions in dissolved oxygen from the increased oxygen demand of sediments high in organic content in some cases (Gordon, 1974). However, because the sediment from the Saco River FNP consists of clean sand, there will not be any localized significant impacts to dissolved oxygen levels in the water column. Therefore, the proposed dredging operations of portions of the Saco River FNP are not expected to have any long-term negative effects on water quality. Furthermore, removal of the sediments from the shoal areas will not significantly change the character of the channel substrate, and no appreciable changes in the salinity regime or tide height are expected as a result of the proposed project.

6.1.2 Placement Sites

6.1.2.1 Beach Placement

As noted above in Section 6.1.1, the material to be dredged from the Saco River FNP is clean sand so no release of contaminants to the water column or placement area is anticipated.

Waters adjacent to the beach placement site may experience increases in turbidity during disposal operations. Wilber et al. (2006) studied the changes in suspended sediments from hydraulic dredging operations at a beach placement site in New Jersey. Results showed that the sandy material being dredged and placed on a beach did indeed elevate suspended sediments in the swash, surf, and nearshore zones of the beach near the sediment-water slurry discharge. However, the suspended sediments levels were minimal in the adjacent nearshore waters as the majority of

34

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

sediments dropped out of suspension in the swash and surf zones. Material is anticipated to be placed above mean high water, but some runoff may occur to the adjacent nearshore areas. As the material from the lower reaches of the Saco River FNP is similar in nature (i.e., sand), it is anticipated that elevated turbidity levels will be seen in the surf zone adjacent to the beach disposal area, but that turbidity effects in the nearshore waters will be minimal and short-term.

No changes to the physical characteristics or sediment quality of the beach placement site are expected as a result of this project. The sediment grain size (i.e., predominately medium to fine grained sand) of the material to be removed from the channel areas are compatible with the beach sediments.

6.1.2.2 In-River Placement

The sediments to be removed from the shoal areas in the upper reaches of the Saco River FNP are similar to those found at the proposed in-river placement site. The material will be placed within deeper sections of the river bottom in the Saco River channel (Figure 3) and gradually transported downstream by riverine currents. This disposal site was used in 1992 for maintenance dredging of the upper reach of the Saco River FNP.

The material is similar in nature at the dredging and placement sites, thus only short-term perturbations to existing habitat after the placement of dredged material are expected. There will be temporary increases in turbidity at the placement site during disposal operations which could last up to one hour after placement (draft report, Clarke et al). However, once placement is completed, water quality conditions will rapidly return to background conditions with no long-term impacts.

6.2 Biological Impacts

6.2.1 No Action Alternative

The no action alternative would allow the sediments to continue to build up in shoaled areas within the Saco River FNP. This would decrease the water depth in some areas reducing available subtidal habitat and eventually reducing intertidal habitat with the potential for creation of additional upland habitat along the river banks.

6.2.2 Dredge Areas

Turbidity

Coastal and estuarine organisms are exposed to suspended sediments and short term perturbations to water quality from tidal flows, currents and naturally occurring storm events; therefore they have adaptive behavioral and physiological protective mechanisms that allows for their survival in this type of environment. Dredging related

35

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

suspended sediments or turbidity plumes may differ in scope, timing, duration, and intensity from natural conditions (Clarke and Wilber, 2000). Major storms can displace larger amounts of sediments than dredging operations, and tend to occur on a yearly basis. This is more frequent than most dredging operations at a specific site. Additionally, dredging affects much smaller regions, resulting in a localization of impacts (Wilber and Clarke, 2001). Therefore, no significant, long-term effects to biological resources caused by an increase in turbidity due to the proposed project are anticipated.

Benthos

Dredging the shoaled areas within the Saco River FNP will alter the existing benthic communities in these areas. Benthic organisms within the immediate dredging area(s) will likely suffer mortality and may be destroyed during the dredging process. Resettling of suspended sediments may impact any benthic organisms within the immediate and adjacent dredging areas not immediately impacted by the dredge. The organisms found in high energy areas such as the lower reaches are often adapted and tolerant of considerable changes in their environment. Mobile organisms living on the surface sediments would be displaced. However, once the dredging is completed, it is expected that impacted areas would be recolonized by opportunistic species from adjacent areas and that the benthic communities in the dredged areas would ultimately return to pre-dredge assemblages.

Newell et al. (2004) provided a time sequence of recovery of macrofauna in coastal marine deposits in an area of high energy after cessation of dredging activities. Initial colonization of small mobile species and larval recolonization was seen in as little as 7 days, but it took about 100 days for species diversity to be restored within 70-80% of that occurring in surrounding areas. At about 175 days, population density is restored to 60-80% of that in the surrounding area. Restoration by growth of individuals or biomass takes about 2 to 3 years. As a result, no significant long term impacts are anticipated from the proposed dredging. Therefore, no long-term effects on the benthos from dredging shoal areas within the FNP are anticipated.

Shellfish and Lobsters

The Saco River is classified as Prohibited for shellfish harvesting and the area around Camp Ellis is classified as Restricted. Although there is some surf clam habitat located off Saco Beach to Old Orchard Beach, little is known about surf clam habitat around Camp Ellis or the mouth of the river (Denis-Marc Nault, MEDMR, personal communication, June 4, 2015). Dredging of the Saco River FNP will remove any shellfish in the direct footprint of the dredge. However, shellfish resources from adjacent areas should not be significantly impacted and will serve as a recruitment source following the cessation of dredging. Impacts from elevated turbidity to shellfish resources in the vicinity of the dredging operation should be minimal as the impact area will be highly localized due to the nature of the sediments (sand) in the project area and the equipment used to dredge.

36

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

Several studies have demonstrated that shellfish are capable of withstanding elevated turbidity levels for short time periods (i.e., days) with no significant metabolic consequences or mortality (Wilbur and Clarke 2001; Norkko et al. 2006). Sensitive life stages of shellfish are not expected to be impacted as a result of dredging, as the project will take place outside of the summer months. Shellfish are not likely to be found in the upper reach areas of the project due to the lower salinities, therefore dredging activities in this area of the river are not expected to affect shellfish. Since the dredging of the project areas will be a short-term effort and re-establishment of shellfish populations in the dredge footprint should occur, impacts to shellfish resources are anticipated to be minimal.

Although a lobster survey was not conducted for this proposed project, other surveys have noted lobster in the area (Reynolds and Casterlin, 1985; Sherman, et.al., 2003). Lobsters would be expected to find some shelter in nearby rocky outcrops and possibly the jetties. However, dredging operations are not likely to affect lobsters as they prefer rocky and hard bottom substrates. Additionally, little to no commercial crab or lobster harvest occurs in the project area (Denis-Marc Nault, MEDMR, personal communication, June 4, 2015).

Fish

The majority of the fish species that have the potential to utilize the habitat in the Saco River FNP should be able to avoid the areas of disturbance caused by dredging and return upon completion. While impacts to fish species will likely differ between species depending on life history, habitat use, distribution and abundance, most fish are motile and can avoid any disturbances caused by the operational activities. The potential exists to entrain some fish resources in the hydraulic dredge, however this impact is anticipated to be of minimal impact to the overall resource.

Larvae and juveniles may be less able to avoid project related disturbances and are more susceptible to water quality and sedimentation impacts. Under most dredging scenarios, fish and other motile organisms encounter localized suspended-sediment plumes for limited durations. The proposed project is expected to have minimal impacts to all life stages of fish due to the short duration of the project, and the localized impacts of suspended sediments.

There are diadromous fish species that use the Saco River to spawn. Adult fish migration periods in the Saco River for blueback herring, alewife, American shad, and Atlantic salmon are June through July, May to mid-July, mid-May through August, and October respectively (McLaughlin et al., 1987). Dredging should not physically obstruct the migratory activities of these fish since the dredging of sand does not create a large or long-lasting turbidity plume. Additionally, the project will be conducted outside of the migration and spawning periods for these species, thereby avoiding significant impacts to diadromous fish utilizing the Saco River.

Wildlife

37

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

The project is not likely to adversely impact waterfowl, shorebirds, or other wildlife occurring in the vicinity of the project area. Some individuals may be displaced due to noise during dredging activities, but use of the area by wildlife should occur rapidly following completion of the project.

6.2.3 Placement Areas

6.2.3.1 Beach and Nearshore Placement

Benthos

Burial of benthic organisms will occur at the beach placement site; however, as indicated by the 2015 Corps benthic survey there is a low density of invertebrates at these areas. It is expected that recolonization of the impacted area will occur rapidly following cessation of disposal activities. Some limited impacts to benthos (in the form of burial and increases in suspended sediment levels) may be experienced in the upper intertidal zone as a result of beach placement. However, any impacts to benthic organisms in these areas are expected to be short-term with rapid recolonization following placement activity.

The nearshore environment is more stable than the intertidal areas of the beach and typically supports a more stable community with higher abundances of benthic organisms (Vesar, 2004) as exhibited by the 2015 Corps benthic survey (see Appendix D). Benthic organisms living in the nearshore placement site will likely suffer mortality from burial. Although, species such as the nut clam would be expected to have the ability to potentially burrow through the newly deposited compatible sediments (Kranz, 1974, Maurer et al., 1978).

Successful vertical migration of buried benthic organisms depends on the sediment depth, length of burial time, season, particle size distribution, temperature (Maurer et al., 1978) and tolerance of anoxic conditions while buried (Hinchey et al., 2006). Impacts tend to be most severe to small relatively immobile species, those unable to burrow through the overburden of new sand (Maurer et al., 1978; USACE, 2001). Material from the Saco River FNP will be transported in and around the nearshore environment by wave and current action, eventually depositing on Camp Ellis Beach. This natural process will allow for a more gradual accumulation of sediments and greater potential for organisms to burrow through the sediments and survive.

Impacts to the benthic community of the nearshore environment adjacent to Camp Ellis Beach will be temporary and short-term. Recolonization by benthic species from adjacent areas and new recruitment is expected to occur in a relatively short period of time, with no long-term negative impacts to the nearshore benthic community. The proposed work will be completed in the fall and winter months allowing for rapid re- colonization of benthic species given seasonal recruitment patterns. Additionally, impacts to benthic species will be minimized given the time of year that the work will take place since intertidal infauna typically has the lowest abundances and biomass in

38

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

the winter months (Reilly and Bellis, 1983; USACE, 2001).

Resettling of suspended sediments may impact any benthic organisms within the immediate and adjacent placement areas (beach or nearshore). The organisms found in high energy areas such as the proposed placement sites are often adapted and tolerant of considerable changes in in their environment, including increases in turbidity. As a result, no significant, long-term impacts to the benthic communities of the beach or nearshore placement sites are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.

Shellfish and Lobsters

The area around Camp Ellis Beach is classified as Restricted for shellfish harvesting. In the 2005 Corps surf clam survey of the intertidal area parallel to Camp Ellis Beach findings suggested a dispersed incidental surf clam population in this area. Atlantic surf clams live burrowed in the sand on the continental shelf and beneath the turbulent waves of the surf breaker zone (NMFS, 1999). Impacts to any surf clams inhabiting the intertidal area and nearshore environment adjacent to Camp Ellis Beach include burial, and/or effects resulting from elevated levels of suspended sediments.

Limited indirect effects to shellfish in the form of elevated turbidities in the waters adjacent to Camp Ellis Beach may be realized during the active placement process. As the sediment-water slurry from the hydraulic pipeline releases material onto the beach, residual runoff will impact the nearshore areas resulting in increased turbidities and suspended sediments directly adjacent to the beach (see Section 6.1.2.1). Given the nature of the material, these impacts are expected to be short term and localized to the areas directly adjacent to the nearshore beach area as material will fall out rapidly and settle in the nearshore area. Therefore, impacts to any shellfish resources in the placement sites caused by turbidity are expected to be temporary and short-term.

Camp Ellis Beach and its nearshore are high energy environments. The sediment processes at these sites are dynamic in nature given littoral processes. As a result, any shellfish resources existing in the area are capable of tolerating these constantly shifting conditions. At the nearshore placement site, deposited material will be transported in and around the nearshore environment by wave and current action. This natural process will allow for a more gradual accumulation of sediments on Camp Ellis Beach and greater potential for organisms to burrow through the sediments and survive. Due to the fact that these areas are highly dynamic and there is only a dispersed, incidental surf clam population in the vicinity of Camp Ellis Beach, no significant, direct impacts to shellfish resources are expected as a result of placement operations. Furthermore, the proposed work will be completed in the late fall and winter months, thereby avoiding the spawning season of surf clams which typically runs from summer to early fall.

Although a lobster survey was not conducted for this project, other surveys have noted lobster in the Saco River area (Reynolds and Casterlin, 1985; Sherman, et.al., 2003), but there is little to no commercial crab or lobster harvest in the project area (Denis-Marc Nault, MEDMR, personal communication, June 4, 2015). Lobsters would

39

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

be expected to find shelter in nearby rocky outcroppings and possibly on the jetties of the Saco River FNP. No rocky or hard-bottom surfaces are present at the beach or nearshore placement sites; therefore, no impacts to lobsters are anticipated as a result of this project. On Camp Ellis Beach, material will be placed above mean high water where lobsters are not present.

Fish

No direct impacts to finfish are anticipated as a result of placement on Camp Ellis Beach or in the nearshore placement site. Adult finfish are able to leave the area of disturbance as exhibited in beach re-nourishment monitoring studies in New Jersey (USACE, 2001) and North Carolina (Versar, 2004). Overall, beach nourishment resulted in short-term declines in abundance, biomass and taxa richness of the benthic community. However, no deleterious long-term impacts to intertidal or nearshore fish assemblages were identified in those studies. The response of surf zone fish has been localized attraction (northern Kingfish) or avoidance (bluefish) when pumping sand onto a beach (USACE, 2001) due to the increase in suspended sediments. The highly mobile nature of the fish community constrained the ability to detect impacts and recovery (Versar, 2004), but indicated the fish could move in and out of the areas impacted by nourishment activities.

Localized elevated concentrations of suspended sediments are anticipated as a result of the project during both nearshore and beach disposal activities. Most fish are quite tolerant of short-term exposures to elevated suspended sediment levels (see Stern and Stickle, 1978). The material that will be deposited on the beach or in the nearshore area is sand, thus the impacts resulting from an increase in turbidity will be short term and localized to the area within and immediately adjacent to the disposal sites. Therefore, no long term impacts to fish resources as a result of disposal operations are anticipated.

Wildlife

The project is not likely to adversely impact waterfowl, shorebirds, or other wildlife occurring in the vicinity of the project area. Some individuals may be displaced during pipeline placement and pumping activities, but use of the area by wildlife should occur rapidly after completion of the project. Impacts to ESA species are detailed in Section 6.4.

6.2.3.2 In-River Placement

Benthos

Burial of benthic organisms will occur at the in-river placement site; however, as discussed in Section 5.3.2.3, there is a limited benthic community due to the high energy environment of the site. The recent benthic survey (Corps 2015) showed relatively low diversity at the site, with a total of nine species found across six sampling sites. Low individual abundance was also reported from the in-river placement site, with

40

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

the highest number of individuals at site D (45 total individuals). Recolonization of the benthic community of in-river placement site is expected to occur rapidly by opportunistic species from adjacent areas and seasonal recruitment following cessation of disposal activities. No long term impacts to the benthic community are expected.

Shellfish and Lobsters

No impacts to shellfish resources or lobsters at the in-river placement site are expected. Shellfish and lobsters are not likely to be found in the in-river placement site due to the lower salinities present there. Furthermore, lobsters prefer rocky and hard- bottom substrates not present at the in-river placement site. Little to no crab or lobster harvest takes place in the Saco River (Denis-Marc Nault, MEDMR, personal communication, June 4, 2015) and shellfish harvesting is classified as Prohibited in the river. Therefore, placement operations at the in-river disposal site are not likely to affect shellfish or lobsters.

Fish

Placement of dredged material at the in-river disposal site should not significantly impact finfish as they are expected to have the ability to avoid project activities. Most fish are quite tolerant of short-term exposures to elevated suspended sediment levels (Stern and Stickle 1978; Barr 1987). Finfish present in the project area are unlikely to be significantly impacted by the short-term increase in turbidities during disposal operations due to the coarse-grained nature of the material, which will settle rapidly from the water column.

Any species in the immediate disposal footprint may be negatively impacted as a result of the disposal process due to direct burial and/or a loss of benthic prey availability. The benthic community in the immediate placement footprint would be buried by placement activities. However, available prey species could be found in adjacent areas and serve as an alternate prey resource until the benthic community is re-established at the in-river placement site following cessation of the disposal activity. Therefore, only short-term impacts to fish resources at the in-river placement site are anticipated.

Wildlife

The project is not likely to adversely impact waterfowl, shorebirds, or other wildlife occurring in the vicinity of the in-river placement site in the Saco River channel. Some individuals may be displaced during disposal activities due to noise, but use of the area by wildlife should occur rapidly after completion of the project.

6.3 Essential Fish Assessment

6.3.1 No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative could potentially have an impact on EFH due to

41

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

changes in the existing habitat type over time due to increased shoaling. As stated in Section 6.2.1, the nature of the sub-tidal community structure has the potential to change with resulting decreasing depths and may eventually result in an overall decrease of subtidal habitat.

6.3.2 Proposed Alternative

An assessment of the Saco River FNP project area indicates that there will be no significant impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), as defined by the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. Impacts to EFH from this project include temporary increases in turbidity from dredging and placement activities, and the temporary loss of benthic organisms associated with the dredged material. However, this project is not expected to significantly affect the habitat of any managed species.

EFH is designated for a total of fourteen species in the Saco River and Bay area. Of the EFH managed species listed for Saco Bay, the following ten managed EFH species (and their life stages) may be expected to occur in the project area: Atlantic salmon (adults and smolts transiting the area), pollock (juveniles), white hake (juveniles, adults), winter flounder (all life stages), windowpane flounder (juveniles, adults, and spawning adults), American plaice (spawning adults), ocean pout (possibly all life stages), Atlantic halibut (larvae), bluefish (juveniles and adults), and Atlantic mackerel (juveniles and adults). The remaining species or life stages are not expected to occur in the project area due to unsuitable (shallow) water depths, or bottom substrate.

Appendix D contains the EFH assessment for potential impacts due to dredging and placement of the sandy sediments from the Saco River FNP. Dredging will not occur April 1 through November 14 to avoid impacts to anadromous fish runs of Atlantic salmon, alewife, blueback herring, and American shad.

6.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

6.4.1 Birds and Mammals

Piping plovers have been known to nest on beaches in the vicinity of the Saco River FNP. The City of Saco is in the process of preparing a beach management plan in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This beach management plan incorporates current standard piping plover habitat conditions as outlined in the 1994 “Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities in Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast to Avoid Take under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act” and any other specific conditions unique to Camp Ellis Beach. Example conditions include providing beach monitors to conduct surveys and determine if suitable piping plover nesting habitat exists, as well as posting warning signs and putting up temporary fencing to prevent disturbances to plovers.

As a result of the proposed project, suitable piping plover nesting habitat is likely

42

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

to be created with the addition of a 40 foot wide beach berm in a 1,500 foot long area along Camp Ellis Beach. All work will occur between November 15 and March 31, meaning that no beach nourishment will occur during the nesting season of April 1 through August 31. Beach slopes will be no steeper than 10:1, and planting of beach grass or other vegetation is not included as part of the project. Based on these and the City of Saco’s plan to protect piping plovers, it has been determined that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect piping plovers.

Roseate terns are not likely to be in the project area during dredging and disposal due to the time of year that the project will occur (November to March). Roseate terns typically arrive at their breeding islands in Maine in mid-May and migrate through the area in August and early September. Dredging and beach nourishment activities should not have a major impact on roseate terns as the construction window for this project avoids the time of year terns are in the area. Therefore, the proposed work is not likely to adversely affect roseate terns.

Red knots are recorded using Saco Bay and Biddeford coastal areas from July 1 through early October. Red knots are known to stop and roost on structures including the Saco River jetties, and forage on the mudflats at low tide and among the wrack along the coast, including the Camp Ellis area (USFWS letter dated August 5, 2014 for Camp Ellis Section 111 Study). In 2013, twenty-six red knots were recorded roosting on the Camp Ellis Jetties on October 6 (MDIFW unpublished data). Red knots migrate northward from May to early June, and Maine hosts large numbers of red knots during their southward migration beginning in mid-July and continuing through early October. The timing of the project (November 15 to March 31) sufficiently avoids the time of year that the birds are present in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect red knots.

Northern long-eared bats are known to roost in trees and structures during the summer months. Breeding begins in late summer to early fall. Female NLEBs store the male’s sperm during winter hibernation for delayed fertilization which occurs in the spring. In the winter, NLEBs hibernate in caves and mines. The proposed project will take place outside of NLEBs breeding and roosting season and there are no caves or mines near the project area; therefore, this project is not likely to adversely affect Northern long-eared bats. 6.4.2 Fish

Shortnose sturgeon are listed as a federally endangered species. The Saco River has been observed to serve as a stopover area for shortnose sturgeon during longer migrations (Little et al., 2013). Based on data from tagged fish, it is possible that shortnose sturgeon may be found in the river from April through November with most present in the spring and summer. Since only four fish were caught over a two-year sampling period, the potential for impact to shortnose sturgeon during the dredging of the Saco River FNP is unlikely.

The Gulf of Maine distinct population segment for Atlantic sturgeon is a federally

43

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

listed threatened species. No critical habitat is listed for any of these species within the project area, but juveniles and adults may be present in the Saco River. Atlantic sturgeons may transit the project area, most likely while making coastal migrations or while foraging for benthic invertebrates and small fish such as sand lance. The project area does not provide suitable habitat for overwintering; so the presence of Atlantic sturgeon is likely limited to the warmer months. The nearest spawning rivers are the Kennebec River, Maine and the Hudson River, New York, so no eggs, larvae or juvenile Atlantic sturgeon are likely to occur in the project area. Migrating Atlantic sturgeon have the potential to be present in the project area from spring through the fall. The project’s dredge window begins on November 15, reducing the potential for impacts to Atlantic sturgeon.

If Atlantic sturgeon are present in the Saco River during dredging operations, active dredging is not expected to affect their movements. Reine et al. (2014) tracked tagged juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in the James River, Virginia during maintenance dredging with a cutterhead pipeline dredge. The active dredging did not represent a physical barrier to sturgeon movement; upstream and downstream passage occurred in the vicinity of the dredge. Atlantic sturgeon behavior did not show attraction or avoidance to any stimuli associated with the dredging operation. Since there is no known spawning activity in the river, any juveniles and adults present should be able to swim from the flow field generated by the cutterhead dredge. Consequently, the proposed dredging with a cutterhead pipeline dredge as proposed for use in this project is not likely to adversely affect any Atlantic or shortnose sturgeon in the river.

The upper reach of the Saco River FNP will be dredged with either a special purpose hopper dredge (e.g. Currituck) or a mechanical dredge. The Currituck has small drag arms with low suction, so it is unlikely to negatively impact any sturgeons that may be in the area. In rare instances, sturgeons have been captured in dredge buckets in areas where sturgeon are present.

Placement activities on Camp Ellis Beach would not adversely impact any sturgeon species as they are unlikely to be feeding in the surf zone. Sand will be placed on the beach above the high water line, and then graded toward the water during low tide. No direct impacts to sturgeon species from these actions are expected. Placement in the nearshore environment is also unlikely to adversely affect any sturgeon species. The impact area of the placement site is limited in size (700 by 1,200 feet in area). Vessels used for placement activities for the proposed project (i.e. the Currituck or scows) will be traveling at sufficiently low speeds making a vessel strike to a sturgeon unlikely. Thus, impacts to sturgeon during placement activities are not expected.

In-river placement may impact prey species for foraging sturgeon. However, the proposed time of year of dredging and placement activities (November 15 to March 31) avoids the time of year when sturgeon are most likely present in the river. Material placed in the placement site will move through the river as a result of tidal currents and flushing, which are natural occurrences affecting scour areas. Because of this natural

44

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

process, any organisms near the deep holes of the placement site should have the ability to withstand burial by thin sand layers and short term increases in turbidity. Therefore, sturgeon should not be impacted by changes in prey. Any vessels transiting to the placement site will be traveling at low speeds so a vessel strike to a sturgeon is unlikely.

6.5 Historic and Archeological Resources

6.5.1 Pre-Contact (Native American) Archaeology

6.5.1.1 Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach Areas

The lower Saco River was a center of Native American activity in both prehistoric and contact periods. The English occupation in this area began as early as 1618. As the Saco River FNP is a previously dredged area no impacts to any archeological or historic resources are expected from the proposed maintenance dredging. No previously documented Native American sites are recorded in the Camp Ellis Beach area, or in the immediate adjacent onshore area. However, site files at the Maine Historic Preservation Commission (MHPC) indicated that six recorded archaeological sites, dating from the late Ceramic (3,000-450 Before Present (BP) to Contact (circa 450 BP) periods, were located less than one mile from the project area. This was consistent with the location of the study area and its proximity to a major river, the river’s mouth, and confluence with the ocean. A review of environmental data and sea level rise curves for coastal Maine indicates that the entire Camp Ellis Beach project area was likely exposed land available for human occupation from the beginning of the Paleoindian period (circa 11,500 BP) up until the start of the Late Archaic Period (circa 6,000 BP). Between about 6,000 and 3,000 BP (roughly the beginning of the Late Archaic period to the start of the Ceramic Period, the area was gradually inundated by what likely would have been a destructive marine transgressive process of shore-face retreat, as rising sea level caused the shoreline and surf zone to migrate landward across the project survey area. By the beginning of the Ceramic Period (3,000 BP), the Camp Ellis Beach area would have been entirely underwater. However, due to the combined effects of the area’s inundation through shore- face retreat processes, its exposure to high-energy impacts from wind-driven oceanic waves and tidal currents, and the recent erosion that Camp Ellis Beach has experienced, any archaeologically sensitive paleosols and Native American sites that may have been present have most likely been eroded and destroyed. Therefore, there is a low potential for formerly terrestrial and/or maritime Native American archaeological sites within the project area.

6.5.1.2 History and Historical Archaeology

A review of shipwreck databases and coordination with the SHPO reported a

45

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

total of 24 vessel casualties along the Saco and Biddeford coasts; however, none of these shipwrecks are recorded within the Camp Ellis Beach project area and adjacent shore. Most of the reported shipwrecks occurred in close proximity to land and were witnessed by shoreline observers. Given the project area’s close proximity to shore, it seems unlikely that if a shipwreck occurred, it would have gone unnoticed and not been documented in the historic record. However, earlier and smaller vessels may have been grounded on the beach without being documented. Therefore, the project area was assessed as having a moderate potential for historic archaeological deposits, namely shipwrecks.

A systematic remote sensing archaeological survey was performed in November 2009 at the location of the USACE proposed construction of nearshore breakwaters and a spur jetty at the Camp Ellis Beach site for the Section 111 Study (USACE, 2014). The investigation involved archival background research, a field survey to record marine geophysical and geotechnical data, and analysis and synthesis of the research and survey results to assess the project study area’s archaeological sensitivity and to determine the presence/absence of pre-contact and historic period submerged archaeological deposits within it.

A total of 22 side scan sonar anomalies and nine separate magnetic anomalies were inventoried during the remote sensing survey. These anomalies were interpreted to be associated with a sunken modern core drilling barge and its associated steel boring tubes and debris, other pieces of isolated modern debris, or exposed and buried geological features. None of the targets or anomalies were interpreted to be archaeological deposits. Additionally, sub-bottom profile data produced no acoustic reflectors indicative of buried cultural or geological features.

A total of 20 geotechnical boring samples recovered in the Camp Ellis Beach project area under a separate contract were provided to Fathom for analysis and comparison with the sub-bottom profiler data for the presence of possible stratified paleosols. The stratigraphic sequence consisted primarily of sand mixed with silt and gravel overlying clay or, in some cases, compacted gravel or bedrock. None of the boring samples exhibited sediments that are characteristic of archaeologically sensitive paleosols.

Based on the results of this study, no remote sensing targets or anomalies or buried geological features indicative of archaeological deposits were identified. As a result, no further archaeological investigation of the proposed Camp Ellis was recommended.

In summary, the USACE believes that the proposed maintenance dredging of Saco River with placement on Camp Ellis Beach, nearshore or in-river should have no effect upon any structure or site of historic, architectural or archaeological significance as defined by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implementing regulations 36 CFR 800. The Maine State Historic Preservation Officer has been requested to concur with this determination.

46

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

6.6 Socioeconomic Environment

6.6.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative the Saco River FNP will not be dredged and the shoal areas will continue to increase, decreasing the depth of the river and ultimately affecting the recreational and commercial vessel use of the river. Continued shoaling could affect businesses that are dependent on navigational access in and out of Saco River, negatively impacting the economy of the local community.

6.6.2 Dredge and Placement Areas

Under the proposed action, full use of the Federal navigation channel of the Saco River will be restored for both commercial and recreational vessel operations. The Federal project would be restored to its authorized depth, which is not expected to increase erosion since the river flow will return to its previous configuration before shoaling developed.

Saco River is used by numerous recreational boaters. There are presently three marinas; a yacht club, and state, town and private boat ramps used by these boaters. There are also numerous private docks along the river. Most of the fishing fleet (lobster and finfish) in the river is based at Camp Ellis Harbor, just upstream of the river mouth, and the bulk of the catch is landed at Biddeford Pool, about one mile south. Most of the recreational fleet is split between the Saco Yacht Club, Norwood Marina, Rumrey's Boat Yard and the three Federal anchorages at the mouth of the river. Returning the project to its authorized depths may increase recreational boating within the system. As noted in Section 5.7, the FNP channel and anchorage are currently used extensively by commercial and recreational vessels. Dredging the FNP to authorized depths will decrease the likelihood that inexperienced boaters or boaters unfamiliar with the area ground on the existing unmapped shoals.

Placement on Camp Ellis Beach will provide nourishment to the beach and limited storm damage protection to the residences behind the beach until the sand erodes away.

7.0 AIR QUALITY STATEMENT OF CONFORMITY

Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that Federal agencies assure that their activities are in conformance with Federally-approved CAA state implementation plans for geographic areas designated as non-attainment and maintenance areas under the CAA. The EPA General Conformity Rule to implement Section 176 (c) is found at 40 CFR Part 93.

Clean Air Act compliance, specifically with EPA’s General Conformity Rule, requires that all Federal agencies, including Department of the Army, review new

47

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

actions and decide whether the actions would worsen an existing violation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), cause a new NAAQS violation, delay the State Implementation Plan (SIP) attainment schedule of the NAAQS, or otherwise contradict the State’s SIP.

The State of Maine is authorized by the EPA to administer its own air emissions permit program, which is shaped by its SIP. The SIP sets the basic strategies for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The SIP is the federally enforceable plan that identifies how that state will attain and/or maintain the primary and secondary NAAQS established by the EPA (USEPA, 2014). In Maine, Federal actions must conform to the Maine SIP or Federal Implementation Plan. For non-exempt activities, the USACE must evaluate and determine if the proposed action (construction and operation) will generate air pollution emissions that aggravate a non-attainment problem or jeopardize the maintenance status of the area for ozone. When the total direct and indirect emissions caused by the operation of the Federal action/facility are less than threshold levels established in the rule (40 C.F.R. § 93.153), a Record of Non- applicability (RONA) is prepared and signed by the facility environmental coordinator.

7.1 General Conformity

The general conformity rule was designed to ensure that Federal actions do not impede local efforts to control air pollution. It is called a conformity rule because Federal agencies are required to demonstrate that their actions "conform with" (i.e., do not undermine) the approved SIP for their geographic area. This maintenance dredging project is exempt from performing a conformity review based on 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2) which states: “The following actions which would result in no emissions increase or an increase in emissions that is clearly de minimis: (ix) Maintenance dredging and debris disposal where no new depths are required, applicable permits are secured, and disposal will be at an approved disposal site.”

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND IMPACTS ON CHILDREN

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” requires Federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its program, policies, and activities on minority and low- income populations in the U.S., including Native Americans. Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” requires Federal agencies to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children.

No significant adverse impacts to children, minority or low income populations are anticipated as a result of this project or the proposed alternatives. In Saco, Maine about 4% of the population is considered a minority or non-white, and 22% of the population is under 18 years old (U.S. Census, 2010). In Biddeford, Maine, 9 % of population is considered a minority, or non-white and 19% of the population is under 18 years old (US

48

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

Census, 2010). Only 5.9% of families or 10.6% of individuals within the City of Saco are below the poverty level and in Biddeford, 9 % of families or 12% of individuals are below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

The proposed project is designed to maintain a federal project and the placement of the dredged material will protect property and provide recreation for the people in the Camp Ellis section of Saco. Some type of temporary fencing is likely to be provided by the contractor to alert children and the general public of the construction site and to secure the area. The dredging and placement alternatives are within the river and ocean and not in areas that would impact children. Therefore, any potential environmental effects of this project on minorities, those below the poverty line, or children are small.

9.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts are those resulting from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past and current activities in Saco River include the maintenance dredging of the Federal channel and anchorage areas, maintenance of the breakwaters, maintenance of private marinas, and navigation through the channel. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include the continuation of current maintenance and navigation activities.

Actions at the Saco River FNP include the Camp Ellis Section 111 Shore Damage Mitigation Study. A Decision Document on the Section 111 study is expected to be finalized in March 2016 and construction is slated to begin in Fiscal Year 2018 and be completed in Fiscal Year 2019. The study purpose is to prevent or mitigate for shoreline erosion losses and damage directly attributed to the existing Federal navigation project. During project modification of the Saco River FNP in 1968, the shoreward end of the north jetty was raised and tightened to reduce the maintenance dredging frequency in the river channel. The zone of influence for this structure induced sand loss, and shoreline retreat now extends the full 2,500 feet of Camp Ellis Beach. As sand is depleted from this area, shoreline retreat has steadily extended northward along the beach over the past several decades, with losses of over 30 homes and property, roadways, and public and private infrastructure. These continuing losses prompted the city of Saco to request Federal assistance from the Corps of Engineers to reduce or eliminate further shoreline impacts.

The Camp Ellis Section 111 Study evaluated a myriad of alternatives to reduce shoreline erosion and damages, including: no action, buyout of properties, beach nourishment, north jetty modifications or removal, a spur jetty, an offshore breakwater, and dredging. After screening and further study of these alternatives, the Corps recommended that a 750-foot long spur jetty attached to the north jetty be constructed plus beach fill to be placed along Camp Ellis Beach. This alternative provides direct mitigation for the effects of the Federal navigation project by substantially reducing increased wave energy caused by the north jetty, and providing continuous

49

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

renourishment of Camp Ellis Beach. The renourishment mitigates for the north jetty’s disruption of the natural sediment supply from the Saco River to Camp Ellis Beach. All significant aspects, including overall public interest, environmental, social and economic effects, and engineering and financial feasibility have been considered in concluding that the recommended plan meets the objectives of the Section 111 study.

The proposed maintenance dredging of the Saco River FNP is not anticipated to add adverse cumulative impacts to the Saco River estuary. Impacts from the project are expected to be short-term in duration. Furthermore, the dredging window will avoid sensitive ecological resources in the project area.

10.0 ACTIONS TAKEN TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Dredging will occur between November 15 and March 31 to avoid the spawning migration period for anadromous fish, and spawning of winter flounder and shellfish that may be present in the project areas. This time of year restriction also limits adverse impacts to federally-listed endangered and threatened species.

11.0 COORDINATION

Coordination with the following State and Federal agencies is on-going.

Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, Massachusetts

State Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Augusta, Maine Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine Maine Department of Marine Resources, Augusta, Maine Maine Historic Preservation Commission, Augusta, Maine Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, Maine

50

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

12.0 REFERENCES

Bain, M.B. 1997. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson River: common and divergent life history attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 48:347-358.

Baker, E. 1987. Saco Comprehensive Plan. Accessed on September 24, 2010 from the City of Saco website. .

Barr, B. 1987. Dredging Handbook. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management.

Berry, W., N. Rubinstein, B. Melzian, and B. Hill. 2003. The biological effects of suspended and bedded sediment (SABS) in aquatic systems. Internal Report to US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, Narragansett, RI.

Borodin, N. 1925. Biological observations on the Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser sturio). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 55(1): 184-190.

Caron, F., D. Hatin, and R. Fortin. 2002. Biological characteristics of adult Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) in the St Lawrence River estuary and the effectiveness of management rules. Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 18:580-585.

Clarke, D., K. Reine, and C. Dickerson. (draft report). Suspended Sediment Plumes Associated with Hopper Dredges at Sesuit Harbor, Massachusetts, USACE, ERDC, Vicksburg, MS.

Clarke, D.G. and D.H. Wilber. 2000. Assessment of potential impacts of dredging operations due to sediment resuspension. DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E9), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Clayton, G., C. Cole, S. Murawski, and J. Parrish. 1978. Common Marine Fishes of Coastal Massachusetts. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Massachusetts, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and County Extension Services cooperating with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant Program.

Collins, M.A. 1995. Dredging-induced near-field resuspended sediment concentrations and source strengths. Miscellaneous Paper D-95-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Collins, M.R., T.I.J. Smith, W.C. Post, O. Pashuk. 2000. Habitat utilization and biological characteristics of adult Atlantic Sturgeon in two South Carolina rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 129:982-988.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2015. Biddeford Pool-Hills Beach. York County, Maine. < http://ebird.org/ebird/hotspot/L489398>.

51

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

Cyrus, D.P. and S.J. M. Blaber. 1987. The influence of turbidity on juvenile marine fishes in estuaries. Part 2. Laboratory studies, comparisons with field data and conclusions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 109: 71-91.

Dadswell, M.J. 2006. A review of the status of Atlantic sturgeon in Canada, with comparisons to populations in the United States and Europe. Fisheries 31(5): 218-229.

ENSR International. 2002. Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project: Phase 2 Summary Report. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District and Massachusetts Port Authority. Document No. 9000-178-000. Contract No. DACW33-96-D-004, Task Order 51. May 2002.

Essink, K. Ecological effects of dumping of dredged sediments; options for management. Jour. Coastal Conservation, 5(1):69-80.

Farrell, S.C. 1970. Sediment distribution and hydrodynamics Saco River and Scarboro estuaries, Maine. Contribution No. 6-CRG. Department of Geology, University of Massachusetts, June 1970, pp 129.

Furey, N.B. and J.A. Sulikowski. 2011. The Fish Assemblage Structure of the Saco River Estuary. Northeastern Naturalist 18(1):37-44.

GEI, Consultants, Inc. 2006. Geotechnical Explorations, Camp Ellis Beach, Section 111, Shoreline Stabilization Study, Saco, Maine. Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Concord, MA.

Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight)—Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.122). U.S. Army corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. 28pp.

Hardiman, T. 2010. History of Saco. City of Saco, Maine. Accessed on September 24, 2010. .

Hayes, Donald F. 1986. Guide to Selecting a Dredge for Minimizing Resuspension of Sediment. Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Notes EEDP-09-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Hinchey, E.K., L.C. Schaffner, C.C Hoar, B.W. Vogt, and L.P. Batte. Responses of estuarine benthic invertebrates to sediment burial: the importance of mobility and adaptation. Hydrobiologia 556: 865-98.

Karel, E. 1999. Ecological effects of dumping of dredged sediments; options for

52

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

management. Journal of Coastal Conservation. 5: 69-80.

Kieffer, M.C. and B. Kynard. 1993. Annual movements of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in the Merrimack River, Massachusetts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 122:1088-1103.

King, T. L., B.A. Lubinski, and A.P. Spidle. 2001. Microsatellite DNA variation in Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) and cross-species amplification in the Acipenseridae. Conservation Genetics. 2:103-119.

Kranz, P.M. 1974. The anastrophic burial of bivalves and its paleological significance. Journal of Geology 82: 237-265.

Kurland, J.M., F.M. Ludwig, S.W. Gorski, and C. Mantazaris. 1994. Dredging and dredged-material disposal. In: Langton, R.W., J.B. Pearce, J.A. Gibson. Selected living resources, habitat conditions, and human perturbations of the Gulf of Maine. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-106. pp. 44-47.

LaSalle, Mark W. 1988. "Physical and Chemical Alterations Associated with Dredging: An Overview", In Effects of Dredging on Anadromous Pacific Coast Fishes: Workshop Proceedings, Seattle, September 8-9, 1988. Charles A. Simenstad, editor. Workshop sponsors: Wetland Ecosystem Team, Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington and Washington Sea Grant Program and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station.

Maine Audubon. 2015. Wildlife and Habitat: Birding. .

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife (MDIFW). 2003. Federally Endangered, State Endangered Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii).

Maine Department of Marine Resources (MEDMR). 2008. How Shellfish Areas are Classified. Website. Accessed on March 22, 2016. .

MEDMR. 2015. State of Maine Atlantic Mackerel Total Recreational Catch. Website. Accessed on March 21, 2016.

Maine DOT and DEP. 2011. Air Quality Conformity Analysis for the 2012-2015 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and Connecting Maine: Planning our Transportation Future. For Maine’s Ozone Maintenance Areas including the Metropolitan Planning Organizations: PACTS and KACTS. 15 pp + appendices.

53

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

Maurer, D.L., R.T. Keck, J.C. Tinsman, W.A. Leathem, C.A. Wethe, M. Huntzinger, C. Lord, and T.M. Church. 1978. Vertical migration of benthos in simulated dredged material overburdens Vol. 1 Marine benthos. Dredged Material Research Program Technical Report D-78-35: 1-97. For the Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi by University of Delaware, College of Marine Studies.

McLaughlin, E.A., A.U. Sillas, A.E. Knight, U.D. Pierce, N.R. Dube and L. Flagg. 1987. Saco River - Strategic Plan for Fisheries Management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Maine Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission, Maine Dept. of Marine Resources.

Murawski, S.A., and A.L. Pacheco. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus (Mitchell). U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Center. Technical Series Report 10. 69pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1980. Seasonal Restrictions on Dredging Projects by NMFS in the Northeast. Prepared by Profiles Research and Consulting Groups, Inc., Vernon, Connecticut.

NMFS. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Surfclam, Spisula solidissima, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-142.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2014. Office of Protected Resources. Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). .

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2015. Office of Protected Resources. Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). .

Naqvi, S.M. and E.J. Pullen. 1982. Effects of Beach Nourishment and Borrowing on Marine Organisms. Miscellaneous Report No. 82-14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. December 1982, pp. 44.

Norkko, A., J.E. Hewitt, S.F. Thrush, and G.A. Funnell. 2006. Conditional outcomes of facilitation by a habitat-modifying subtidal bivalve. Ecology: 87(1):226-234.

Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance. 2004. Saco Bay Scallop Enhancement Project. .

Novitch, D. and Freeport Wild Bird Supply. 2013. Birding in Maine. Wordpress

54

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

blogpost. .

Reilly Jr., F.J., and V.J. Bellis. 1983. The Ecologial Impact of Beach Nourishment with Dredged Materials on the Intertidal Zone at Bogue Banks, North Carolina. Miscellaneous Report No. 83-3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. March 1983, pp.75.

Reine,K., D. Clarke, M. Balzaik, S. O’Haire, C. Dickerson, G. Garman, C. Hager, A. Spells, and C. Turner. 2014. Assessing Impacts of Navigation Dredging on Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. EL TR-14-12.

Reynolds, W.W. and M.E. Casterlin. 1985. Vagile Macrofauna and thae Hydrographic Environment of the Saco River Estuary and Adjacent Waters of the Gulf of Maine. Hydrobiologia, vol. 128, pp. 207-215.

Ryder, J.A. 1890. The sturgeon and sturgeon industries of the eastern coast of the United States, with an account of experiments bearing upon sturgeon culture. Bulletin of the U.S. Fisheries Commission. 8:231-328.

Saco River Salmon Club. 2013. Saco River fish returns as of 11/25/13. Website. Accessed on January 21, 2015. .

Saco River Salmon Club & Hatchery. 2014. The Salmon Run Newsletter, December 2014, Saco, ME.

Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 184.

Scott, W.B., and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic Fishes of Canada. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 219: 731 pp.

Sherman, S.A., K.L. Stepanek, F. Pierce, R. Tetrault, R. Michael Inc., and R. Eckert. 2014. Annual Report on the Maine – New Hampshire Inshore Trawl Survey January 1, 2013-December 31, 2013. Submitted to the NOAA Fisheries- Northeast Region, Cooperative Research Partners Program (Contract 5NA07NMF4720357). June 2014.

Smith, T.I.J. 1985. The fishery, biology, and management of the Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 14(1): 61-72.

Smith, T.I.J., and J.P. Clugston. 1997. Status and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 48:335-346.

55

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

Stern, E.M. and W.B. Stickle. 1978. Effects of Turbidity and Suspended Material in Aquatic Environments. U.S. Army COE Waterways Exp. Stat. Tech. Rep. D-78-21.

Stevenson, J. T., and D. H. Secor. 1999. Age determination and growth of Hudson River Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus. Fishery Bulletin 98(1): 153-166.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1991. Sedimentation Study for Chatham Stage Harbor, Chatham, MA. NED Materials Laboratory, Waltham, Ma. January 1991.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2001. The New York District’s Biological Monitoring Program for the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Asbury Park to Manasquan Section Beach Erosion Control Project. USACE Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksbury, MS. Final Report.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Submittals to RIDEM, Providence River and Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project. Prepared by Woods Hole Group, CR Environmental, and ENSR Corporation for Corps, New England District, Concord, MA. November 2003.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014. Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Saco Maine Shore Damage Mitigation Project Final Environmental Assessment. Concord, Massachusetts, March 2014.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1980. An Ecological Characterization of Coastal Maine. Vol. 3, Atlantic Coast Ecological Inventory. FWS/OBS-80/29.

USFWS. 2016. IPaC Trust Resources Report: Saco River EA. Generated March 22, 2016.

Van Eenennaam, J.P., and S.I. Doroshov. 1998. Effects of age and body size on gonadal development of Atlantic sturgeon. Journal of Fish Biology. 53:624-637.

Versar Inc. 2004. Year 2 Recovery from Impacts of Beach Nourishment on Surf Zone and Nearshore Fish and Benthic Resources on Bald Head Island, Caswell Beach, Oak Island, and Holden Beach, North Carolina. Final Study Finding. Columbia, MD 128 pp + appendices. Prepared for USACE, Wilmington District, Wilmington, NC, January 2004.

Waldman, J.R. 2002. Impacts of life history and biogeography on the genetic stock structure of Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxychrinchus, Gulf sturgeon A. oxyrinchus desotoi, and shortnose sturgeon A. brevirostrum. Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 18:509.518.

Wilber, D.L. and D.G. Clarke. 2001. Biological effects of suspended sediments: A

56

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

review of suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in estuaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 21: 855-875.

Wilber, D.L., D.G. Clarke, and M.H. Burlas. 2006. Suspended Sediment Concentrations Associated with a Beach Nourishment Project on the Northern Coast of New Jersey. Jour. Of Coastal Research, 225:1035-1042.

Zitske, L.M, K. O’Brien, and B. Zitske. 2016. 2015 Piping Plover and Least Tern Report. Maine Audubon, USFWS, and Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge. Accessed on March 21, 2016. .

57

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

13.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERAL STATUES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Federal Statutes

1. Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended, 16 USC 470 et seq.

Compliance: Issuance of a permit from the Federal land manager to excavate or remove archaeological resources located on public or Indian lands signifies compliance. Not applicable to this project.

2. Preservation of Historic and Archeological Data Act of 1974, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.

Compliance: Project has been coordinated with the State Historic Preservation officer. No impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated.

3. American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 1996.

Compliance: Must ensure access by native Americans to sacred sites, possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.

4. Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Compliance: Public notice of the availability of this report to the Environmental Protection Agency is required for compliance pursuant to Sections 176c and 309 of the Clean Air Act.

5. Clean Water Act of 1977 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Compliance: A Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation and Compliance Review has been incorporated into this report. An application has been filed for State Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

6. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.

Compliance: A CZM consistency determination has been provided to the State for review and concurrence that the proposed project is consistent with the approved State CZM program.

7. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

Compliance: Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is expected to determine that formal consultation

58

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

requirements pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are not required.

8. Estuarine Areas Act, 16 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.

Compliance: Applicable only if report is being submitted to Congress.

9. Federal Water Project Recreation Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 4601-12 et seq.

Compliance: Public notice of availability to the project report to the National Park Service (NPS) and Office of Statewide Planning relative to the Federal and State comprehensive outdoor recreation plans signifies compliance with this Act.

10. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.

Compliance: Coordination with the FWS, NMFS, and State fish and wildlife agencies signifies compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

11. Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.

Compliance: Public notice of the availability of this report to the National Park Service (NPS) and the Office of Statewide Planning relative to the Federal and State comprehensive outdoor recreation plans signifies compliance with this Act.

12. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1971, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.

Compliance: Not applicable; project does not involve the transportation or placement of dredged material in ocean waters pursuant to Sections 102 and 103 of the Act, respectively.

13. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.

Compliance: Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office signifies compliance.

14. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3000-3013, 18 U.S.C. 1170

Compliance: Regulations implementing NAGPRA will be followed if discovery of human remains and/or funerary items occur during implementation of this project.

15. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C 4321 et seq.

Compliance: Preparation of an Environmental Assessment signifies partial compliance with NEPA. Full compliance shall be noted at the time the Finding of No Significant Impact or Record of Decision is issued.

59

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

16. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.

Compliance: No requirements for projects or programs authorized by Congress. The proposed maintenance project is being conducted pursuant to the Congressionally-approved authority.

17. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act as amended, 16 U.S.C 1001 et seq.

Compliance: Not applicable

18. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C 1271 et seq.

Compliance: Not applicable.

19. Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Compliance: Coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service and preparation of an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment signifies compliance with the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Coordination is currently on-going and will be finalized upon completion of the EA. Response to the EFH conservation recommendations completes EFH compliance.

20. Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Compliance: Not applicable, there are no mapped coastal barrier resource units within or adjacent to the project areas.

Executive Orders 1. Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 13 May 1971

Compliance: Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer signifies compliance.

2. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 24 May 1977 amended by Executive Order 12148, 20 July 1979.

Compliance: Not applicable; project is not located within a floodplain.

3. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 24 May 1977.

Compliance: Not applicable; project does not involve nor impact wetlands.

60

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

4. Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 4 January 1979.

Compliance: Not applicable to projects located within the United States.

5. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice, 11 February 1994.

Compliance: Not applicable; the project is not expected to have a significant impact on minority or low income population, or any other population in the United States.

6. Executive Order 13007, Accommodation of Sacred Sites, 24 May 1996

Compliance: Not applicable unless on Federal lands, then agencies must accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, and avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites.

7. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. 21 April, 1997.

Compliance: Not applicable; the project would not create a disproportionate environmental health or safety risk for children.

8. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 6 November 2000.

Compliance: Consultation with Indian Tribal Governments, where applicable, and consistent with executive memoranda, DoD Indian policy, and USACE Tribal Policy Principles signifies compliance.

Executive Memorandum

1. Analysis of Impacts on Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands in Implementing NEPA, 11 August 1980.

Compliance: Not applicable; the project does not involve or impact agricultural lands.

2. White House Memorandum, Government-to-Government Relations with Indian Tribes, 29 April 1994.

Compliance: Consultation with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes, where appropriate, signifies compliance.

61

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Saco River Maintenance Dredging Project Saco and Biddeford, Maine

Saco River is located approximately 16 miles southwest of Portland. The existing Federal Navigation Project (FNP) for Saco River, Maine consists of a channel (-8 feet MLLW) extending approximately six miles from Saco Bay to a 10 acre maneuvering basin (-6 feet MLLW) at Factory Island. Channel width varies from 100 to 200 feet along the length of the river. Three anchorage areas (-6 feet MLLW) in the down river portion provide a total of 13.5 acres of anchorage. There is a 6,600 foot riprap breakwater on the north side of the river mouth and a 4,800 foot riprap jetty on the south side of the river mouth. The existing Saco River FNP was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 1927, supplemented by enactments of 30 August 1935, and modified by the Acts of 14 November 1967, March 8, 1982.

The proposed work involves dredging approximately 150,000 cubic yards (cy) of sand (100,000 cy in lower reaches and 50,000 cy in upper reaches) from an area of roughly 77 acres in the lower and upper reaches of the river (Figure 1) to restore the FNP to authorized dimensions (-8 eight feet in channels and -6 feet below MLLW in anchorages) plus 1 foot overdepth may be dredged.

A pipeline cutterhead dredge or a mechanical dredge will be used to remove material from the lower reach of the Saco River. The material will be beneficially used for beach nourishment on Camp Ellis Beach, Saco if the work is conducted with a pipeline dredge. The material will be placed in the nearshore environment adjacent to Camp Ellis Beach if the work is completed with a mechanical dredge. This site was previously used in 1995 when the Scarborough River FNP was maintained. The nearshore placement site is about 15 feet in depth and measures 700 feet by 1,200 feet in area. This work will take approximately 2.5 to 3.5 months to complete within the dredge window of November 15 and March 31. The upper reach areas of the Saco River will be dredged with either a mechanical dredge or the government-owned special purpose hopper dredge and this material will be placed in either the previously used naturally deep in-river placement site, or the nearshore site off of Camp Ellis Beach. The work for this area will take approximately 2 months to complete within the dredge window of November 15 and March 31.

The project should have no significant long-terms impacts on the ecological resources in the FNP or adjacent waters. The project window has been designed to protect ecologically sensitive and valuable resources in the project area (i.e. endangered species, anadromous fish, and spawning shellfish). The direct impacts associated with the project include the temporary impacts to benthic organisms within the shoal areas of the channel and anchorages and the temporary disturbance of wildlife resources in the immediate areas of dredging and disposal activities.

The U.S. EPA and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection concurred with the Corps’ Suitability Determination that deems all material dredged from the Saco

62

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

River FNP suitable for disposal as proposed. Due to the clean, sandy nature of the material to be dredged, dredging and placement operations will have no significant long- term adverse impacts upon water quality other than temporary increases in turbidity and suspended sediments localized to the immediate areas of dredging and placement activities.

Impacts on public health or safety: The project is expected to have no effect on public health and safety.

Unique characteristics: There are no unique characteristics associated with this project.

Controversy: The proposed project is not controversial.

Uncertain impacts: The impacts of the proposed project are not uncertain; they are readily understood based on past experiences from this project and other similar USACE projects.

Precedent for future actions: The proposed project is maintenance of an authorized project and will not establish a precedent for future actions other than future maintenance activities.

Cumulative significance: As discussed in the EA, to the extent that other actions are expected to be related to project as proposed, the majority of these actions will provide little measurable cumulative impact.

Historic resources: The project will have no known negative impacts on any pre- contact or post-contact archaeological sites recorded by the State of Maine.

Endangered species: The project will have no known adverse impacts on any State or Federal threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat for such species. The project timing is set to avoid the time of year when sturgeon are expected to be in the river and placement of sediment on the beach has the potential to provide additional nesting habitat for piping plovers.

Potential violation of state or federal law: This action will not violate federal or state laws.

Measures to minimize adverse environmental effects of the proposed action are discussed in Section 10 of the EA.

Based on my review and evaluation of the environmental effects as presented in the Environmental Assessment, I have determined that the Saco River maintenance dredging project in Saco and Biddeford, Maine is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. This project, therefore, is exempt from

63

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

requirements to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

______Date Christopher J. Barron Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer

64

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

NEW ENGLAND DISTRICT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SECTION 404(b)(1) EVALUATION

PROJECT: Saco River, Saco, Maine - Maintenance Dredging

PROJECT MANAGER: Craig Martin PHONE NO. (978) 318-8638

FORM COMPLETED BY: Valerie Cappola PHONE NO. (978) 318-8067

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Saco River is located approximately 16 miles southwest of Portland. The existing Federal Navigation Project (FNP) for Saco River, Maine consists of a channel (-8 feet MLLW) extending approximately six miles from Saco Bay to a 10 acre maneuvering basin (-6 feet MLLW) at Factory Island. Channel width varies from 100 to 200 feet along the length of the river. Three anchorage areas (-6 feet MLLW) in the down river portion provide a total of 13.5 acres of anchorage. The Saco River FNP was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 1927, supplemented by enactments of 30 August 1935, and modified by the Acts of 14 November 1967, March 8, 1982.

The proposed work involves dredging approximately 150,000 cubic yards (cy) of sand (100,000 cy in lower reaches and 50,000 cy in upper reaches) from an area of roughly 77 acres in the lower and upper reaches of the river to restore the FNP to authorized dimensions (-8 eight feet in channels and -6 feet below MLLW in anchorages) plus 1 foot overdepth may be dredged.

A pipeline cutterhead dredge or a mechanical dredge will be used to remove material from the lower reach of the Saco River. The material will be beneficially used for beach nourishment on Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, if the work is conducted with a pipeline dredge. The material will be placed in the nearshore environment adjacent to Camp Ellis Beach, if the work is completed with a mechanical dredge. This site was previously used in 1995 when the Scarborough River FNP was maintained. The nearshore placement site is about 15 feet in depth and measures 700 feet by 1,200 feet in area. This work will take approximately 2.5 to 3.5 months to complete within the dredge window of November 15 and March 31. The upper reach areas of the Saco River will be dredged with either a mechanical dredge or the government-owned special purpose hopper dredge and this material will be placed in either the previously used naturally deep in-river placement site, or the nearshore site off of Camp Ellis Beach. The work for this area will take approximately 2 months to complete within the dredge window of November 15 and March 31.

The U.S. EPA and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection concurred with the Corps’ Suitability Determination that deems all material dredged from the Saco River FNP suitable for disposal as proposed. Due to the clean, sandy nature of the

65

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

material to be dredged, dredging and placement operations will have no significant long- term adverse impacts upon water quality other than temporary increases in turbidity and suspended sediments localized to the immediate areas of dredging and placement activities.

66

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

NEW ENGLAND DISTRICT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CONCORD, MA

EVALUATION OF CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES

PROJECT: Maintenance Dredging of the Saco River Federal Navigation Project, Saco, Maine

1. Review of Compliance (Section 230.10(a)-(d)).

YES NO a. The discharge represents the least environmentally damaging X 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. b. The activity does not appear to: 1) violate applicable state water X quality standards or effluent standards prohibited under Section 307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize the existence of Federally listed threatened and endangered species or their habitat; and 3) violate requirements of any Federally designated marine sanctuary. c. The activity will not cause or contribute to significant degradation X 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. d. Appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to minimize X potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem.

2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F).

Not N/A Significant Significant a. Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C) 1) Substrate X 2) Suspended particulates/turbidity X 3) Water column impacts X 4) Current patterns and water circulation X 5) Normal water fluctuations X 6) Salinity gradients X

67

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

Not N/A Significant Significant b. Potential Impacts on Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D) 1) Threatened and endangered species X 2) Fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other X organisms in the aquatic food web 3) Other wildlife (mammals, birds, reptiles X and amphibians) c. Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E). 1) Sanctuaries and refuges X 2) Wetlands X 3) Mud flats X 4) Vegetated shallows X 5) Coral reefs X 6) Riffle and pool complexes X d. Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F). 1) Municipal and private water supplies X 2) Recreational and commercial fisheries X 3) Water-related recreation X 4) Aesthetics impacts X 5) Parks, national and historic monuments, X national seashores, wilderness areas, research sites and similar preserves

3. Evaluation and Testing (Subpart G).

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 X 2) Hydrography in relation to known or anticipated sources of contaminants 3) Results from previous testing of the material or similar material in the X vicinity of the project 4) Known, significant sources of persistent pesticides from land runoff or percolation 5) Spill records for petroleum products or designated hazardous X substances (Section 311 of CWA)

68

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

6) 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. See Environmental Assessment for Saco River

YES NO b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a above indicates X that there is reason to believe the proposed dredged material is not a carrier of contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are substantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and not likely to require constraints. The material meets the testing exclusion criteria.

4. Disposal Site Delineation (Section 230.11(f)).

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) Depth of water at disposal site X 2) Current velocity, direction, variability at disposal site X 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 X material, settling velocities) 8) Number of discharges per unit of time 9) Other factors affecting rates and patterns of mixing (specify) List appropriate references. See Environmental Assessment for Saco River. YES NO b. An evaluation of the appropriate information factors in 4a above X indicated that the disposal sites and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable.

69

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).

YES NO All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken, through X application of recommendation of Section 230.70-230.77 to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed discharge.

List actions taken

1. Dredging will not occur from April 1 through November 14 to avoid andromous fish spawning migrations, shellfish spawning, winter flounder spawning, and piping plovers that may nest on the Camp Ellis Beach.

6. Factual Determination (Section 230.11).

A review of appropriate information, as identified in Items 2 – 5 above, indicates there is minimal potential for short or long term environmental effects of the proposed discharge as related to: YES NO a. Physical substrate at the disposal site (review Sections 2a, 3, 4, and X 5 above) b. Water circulation, fluctuation and salinity (review Sections 2a, 3, 4, X and 5) c. Suspended particulates/turbidity (review Sections 2a, 3, 4 and 5) X d. Contaminant availability (review Sections 2a, 3, and 4) X e. Aquatic ecosystem structure, function and organisms (review X Sections 2b and 2c, 3, and 5) f. Proposed disposal site (review Sections 2, 4, and 5) X g. Cumulative effects on the aquatic ecosystem X h. Secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem X

70

Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP

7. Findings of Compliance or Non-compliance YES NO The proposed disposal site for discharge of dredged or fill material X complies with the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.

______Date Christopher J. Barron Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer

71