Cape Fear River Fisheries Restoration: An Economic Engine

1. Cape Fear River Fisheries Restoration: An Economic Engine October 31, 2013 Dawn York, Coastal Scientist

2. Momentum – Don’t Stop Now! Restoring Access to Historic Migratory Fish Habitat in the Cape Fear River basin; Lock and Dam No. 2 and No. 3 “Restoring greater fish passage beyond these two barriers is critical to rebuilding migratory fish populations in the Cape Fear River and a top priority of this Action Plan.” NOAA Final Action Plan 2013

3. Atlantic sturgeon on a dock in 1901. Habitat Issue Limiting Recovery • Overfishing, declining water quality and habitat, and blockage of upstream spawning migrations have continued to limit once thriving populations of migratory fish. • In 1962, a program was implemented in which the lock at each of the three Lock and Dams was used for moving fish upstream to continue spawning runs. • Nichols and Louder (1970) estimated between 1962 and 1966, 9,770 American shad passed through Lock and Dam No. 1, and only 50 passed at Lock and Dam No.3.

4. Partnership Action Plan Goal 1: Restore access to historic migratory fish habitat. Problem Statement 1: Obstructions block or impede migratory fish access to historic spawning and nursery habitat. Target 1: Anadromous fish access is restored to the approximately 40% of their remaining historic habitat that is currently disrupted or blocked by dams.

5. What is the economic impact to the State? • Recreational anglers took an estimated 12,765 trips in the Cape Fear River.  • On these trips, surveyed anglers traveled an average of 47 miles round trip and spent an average of $33.76 per trip. • $431,000 was spent on recreational fishing trips   economic impact of approximately $600,000 to the state economy.  • In 2013 commercial fishermen landed 24,888 pounds of American shad worth $27,807 economic impact of $45,000 to the state economy. • Overall, the estimated economic impact of the Cape Fear River American shad fishery (recreational and commercial) in 2013 is upwards of $645,000.

6. L&D 2 vs. L&D 3 Pros • L&D2 next in line • Determination of effectiveness at L&D1 not complete • L&D3 less expensive • Grant application for L&D3 previously submitted Cons • Scour hole • Structure stability • Maintenance vs. Restoration • Expensive • USACE Authorizations • Section 408/Non-federal local sponsor

8. NOAA FY 2013 Habitat Restoration Grant • Habitat restoration to help recover Listed Species, sustain or help rebuild Managed Species • Range of awards $500K - $10 million • Three-Year Cooperative Agreement

11. Partnership Organization

12. Proposed Timeline and Milestones

13. So close….and still in the running • Out of 150 proposals nationwide, Lock and Dam 2 proposal was #21 and Lock and Dam 3 proposal was #25. • The top 19 proposals were funded.

14. Interim Solution Considering limited passage above Lock and Dam 2, spawning habitat enhancement downstream will provide substrate to encourage successful spawning activity.

15. Partners • Cape Fear River Watch • US Fish and Wildlife Service • National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration • Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership • National Marine Fisheries Service • Division of Marine Fisheries • Wildlife Resources Commission • Dial Cordy and Associates, Inc. • Maritech Dredging • US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington Division • Martin Marietta Aggregates

16. People Are Paying Attention • Awarded one of 10 “Waters to Watch” list for 2013 • Proposed jointly by SARP and ACFHP • Locally driven conservation project prioritized by FHP • Showcase success in conservation efforts • NOAA paying attention – National Level Interest • Coastal Recreation Fishing License Fund