Umpqua River, Oregon

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites Evaluation Study and Environmental
Assessment

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

April 2009

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CFR		Code of Federal Regulations

cfs		cubic feet per second

cy		cubic yard(s)

Corps		U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

DMEF		Dredge Material Evaluation Framework

DPS		Distinct Population Segment

EA		Environmental Assessment

EPA		U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

km		kilometers

m3		cubic meter(s)

mg/kg		milligrams per kilogram

mg/L		milligrams per liter

MDL		method detection limit

mm		millimeter(s)

MRL		method reporting limit

MLLW	mean lower low water

MPRSA	Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act

n mi		nautical mile(s)

NAD		North American Datum

NMFS		National Marine Fisheries Service

ODMDS	ocean dredged material disposal site(s)

ODFW		Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

OHV		off-highway vehicle

PAH		polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon(s)

PCB		polychlorinated biphenyl(s)

ppb		parts per billion

ppm		parts per million

RM		river mile(s)

SEF		Sediment Evaluation Framework

SMMP		Site Management and Monitoring Plan

TOC		total organic carbon

TBT		tributyltin and other organotins

TVS		total volatile solids

ug/g		microgram per gram

ug/kg		micrograms per kilogram

ug/L		micrograms per liter

WIS		Wave Information Study

ZSF		Zone of Siting Feasibility

Umpqua River, Oregon

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Evaluation

and Environmental Assessment

Report Preparers

Wendy K. Briner	Biologist		CENWP-PM-E

Mark D. Siipola	Civil Engineer		CENWP-EC-HR

Timothy J. Sherman	Biologist		CENWP-EC-HR

Kim W. Larson	Fishery Biologist		CENWP-PM-E

Bert Rader	Archaeologist		CENWP-PM-E

Jonathan Freedman	Ocean Dumping Coordinator		EPA, Region 10

Jessica Winkler	Biologist		EPA, Region 10

Karen Bahus	Biologist/Writer		Consultant

Umpqua River, Oregon

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Evaluation

and Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876013"  PURPOSE AND
NEED	  PAGEREF _Toc226876013 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876014"  Need for Disposal Site Designation	 
PAGEREF _Toc226876014 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876015"  Background	  PAGEREF _Toc226876015 \h  3
 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876016"  Offshore Disposal History	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876016 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876017"  Umpqua River Ocean Disposal Before 1977	
 PAGEREF _Toc226876017 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876018"  Umpqua River Ocean Disposal 1977 to 1986
  PAGEREF _Toc226876018 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876019"  Umpqua River Ocean Disposal 1987 to
Present	  PAGEREF _Toc226876019 \h  5  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876020"  AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876020 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876021"  Physical Resources	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876021 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876022"  General	  PAGEREF _Toc226876022 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876023"  Umpqua River Sediments	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876023 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876024"  ODMD Site Sediments	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876024 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876025"  Oceanographic Circulation	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876025 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876026"  Surficial Geology	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876026 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876027"  Water Quality	  PAGEREF _Toc226876027 \h
 12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876028"  Biological Resources	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876028 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876029"  Plankton and Fish Larvae	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876029 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876030"  Benthic Invertebrates	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876030 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876031"  Fish and Epibenthic Species	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876031 \h  14  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876032"  Commercial and Recreational Fisheries	 
PAGEREF _Toc226876032 \h  14  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876033"  Wildlife	  PAGEREF _Toc226876033 \h  15 


  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876034"  Threatened and Endangered Species	 
PAGEREF _Toc226876034 \h  15  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876035"  Socio-Economic Resources	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876035 \h  16  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876036"  Cultural Resources	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876036 \h  16  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876037"  Recreational Uses	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876037 \h  16  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876038"  Commercial Uses	  PAGEREF _Toc226876038
\h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876039"  ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876039 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876040"  No Action Alternative	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876040 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876041"  Upland Disposal Alternative	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876041 \h  18  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876042"  Estuarine Disposal Alternative	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876042 \h  18  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876043"  Ocean Disposal Alternatives	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876043 \h  19  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876044"  Disposal Off the Continental Shelf	 
PAGEREF _Toc226876044 \h  19  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876045"  Continued Use of Existing Site	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876045 \h  20  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876046"  Designation of New ODMD Sites	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876046 \h  20  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876047"  ANALYSIS OF OCEAN DUMPING SITE
DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS	  PAGEREF _Toc226876047 \h
 21  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876048"  Overview	  PAGEREF _Toc226876048 \h  21 


  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876049"  Defining a Zone of Siting Feasibility	 
PAGEREF _Toc226876049 \h  21  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876050"  Umpqua River ODMD Sites Zone of Siting
Feasibility	  PAGEREF _Toc226876050 \h  22  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876051"  Regulatory Criteria for Ocean Disposal
Site Selection	  PAGEREF _Toc226876051 \h  24  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876052"  Application of Five General Criteria (40
CFR 228.5)	  PAGEREF _Toc226876052 \h  24  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876053"  Application of Eleven Specific Factors
(40 CFR 228.6)	  PAGEREF _Toc226876053 \h  33  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876054"  SUMMARY OF COORDINATION UNDER OTHER
APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTES	  PAGEREF _Toc226876054 \h  41  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876055"  Federal Action	  PAGEREF _Toc226876055
\h  41  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876056"  Public Involvement	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876056 \h  41  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876057"  Endangered Species Act	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876057 \h  42  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876058"  Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act	  PAGEREF _Toc226876058 \h  43  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876059"  Marine Mammal Protection Act	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876059 \h  43  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876060"  Coastal Zone Management Act	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876060 \h  44  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876061"  National Historic Preservation Act	 
PAGEREF _Toc226876061 \h  44  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876062"  Tribal Coordination	  PAGEREF
_Toc226876062 \h  44  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876063"  SELECTION OF OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES FOR
FORMAL DESIGNATION	  PAGEREF _Toc226876063 \h  45  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc226876064"  LITERATURE CITED	  PAGEREF _Toc226876064
\h  46  

 

List of Tables

  TOC \h \z \c "Table"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc213738436"  Table 1.  Umpqua
River Project Dredging Volumes Placed in the ODMD sites	  PAGEREF
_Toc213738436 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc213738437"  Table 2.  Physical Analysis and Volatile
Solids, 2006	  PAGEREF _Toc213738437 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc213738438"  Table 3.  Physical Analysis, Volatile
Solids, and Total Solids, June 2007	  PAGEREF _Toc213738438 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc213738439"  Table 4.  Original Interim Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Conflict Matrix	  PAGEREF _Toc213738439 \h  25  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc213738440"  Table 5.  Existing Section 103 Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site Conflict Matrix	  PAGEREF _Toc213738440
\h  26  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc213738441"  Table 6.  Proposed South Umpqua River
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Conflict Matrix	  PAGEREF
_Toc213738441 \h  27  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc213738442"  Table 7.  Proposed North Umpqua River
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Conflict Matrix	  PAGEREF
_Toc213738442 \h  28  

 

List of Figures

  TOC \h \z \c "Figure"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc213738443"  Figure 1. 
Umpqua River ODMD Sites and Vicinity	  PAGEREF _Toc213738443 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc213738444"  Figure 2.  ODMD Site Sampling Locations,
2007	  PAGEREF _Toc213738444 \h  10  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc213738445"  Figure 3.  Overlay Evaluation of
Individual Resources of Limited Distribution	  PAGEREF _Toc213738445 \h 
31  

 

Technical Appendices

Appendix A – Living Resources

Appendix B – Physical Processes and Geological Features

Appendix C – Sediment and Water Quality

Appendix D – Cultural Resources

Appendix E – Recreational Resources

Appendix F – Sediment Management and Monitoring PlanPURPOSE AND NEED

This Ocean Dredged Material Disposal (ODMD) Site Evaluation and
Environmental Assessment (EA) has been jointly prepared by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).  The purpose of this evaluation is to provide documentation in
support of final designation by EPA of two ODMD Sites located offshore
from the Umpqua River, Oregon (Figure 1).  These sites are needed for
long-term use by the Corps for the federally authorized Umpqua River
navigation project and for use by others for the disposal of dredged
material meeting ocean disposal criteria.  This evaluation will assess
the proposed final designation of two Umpqua River ODMD Sites against
the statutory requirements set forth in the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act, as amended, (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445, and
the regulations found in Part 228 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR).  These regulations were promulgated in accordance
with the criteria set out in Sections 102 and 103 of the MPRSA.  This
evaluation also outlines EPA’s coordination under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 4321 to
4370f, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA),16 U.S.C. Sections 1531
to 1544, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of
1994, (MSA), 16 U.S.C. Sections 1801 to 1891d, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. Sections 1361 to 1389, the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. Sections
470 to 470a-2, and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16
U.S.C. Sections 1451 to 1465, all as amended.

Need for Disposal Site Designation

EPA undertook this evaluation to determine whether to designate any
dredged material disposal site(s) near the mouth of the Umpqua River
pursuant to its authority under the MPRSA at Section 102(c) in response
to several factors. These factors included the following:

the prohibition on further use of the existing Umpqua Section 103
disposal site following the close of the 2008 dredging season pursuant
to the Corps' site selection authority under the MPRSA at Section
103(b), which allows the Corps to designate a Section 103 site for a
period of 5 years with a maximum 5 year extension, with EPA’s
concurrence;

the understanding that in the absence of an EPA-designated disposal
site, or sites, any necessary open-water disposal would either be
precluded or the Corps would have to undertake additional short-term
site selections, perhaps a number of them, in the future;

the clear Congressional preference, expressed in the MPRSA at Section
103(b), that any open-water disposal of dredged material take place at
EPA-designated sites, if feasible; and

the statutory preference to concentrate any open-water disposal at sites
that have been used historically and at fewer sites, see 40 CFR
228.5(e).

EPA's evaluation considered whether there was a need for any disposal
site designations for long-term dredged material disposal, including an
assessment of whether other dredged material management methods and/or
disposal options could reasonably be judged to obviate the need for such
designations. Having concluded that there was a need for open-water
disposal sites, EPA then assessed whether there were sites that would
satisfy the applicable environmental criteria to support a site
designation under the MPRSA at   Section 102(c). 

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  1 .  Umpqua River ODMD Sites and Vicinity

Background 

The MPRSA was passed by Congress in recognition of the fact that the
disposal of material into ocean waters could potentially result in
unacceptable adverse environmental effects.  Under the MPRSA, the EPA
and the Corps were assigned responsibility to regulate the dumping of
all types of material into ocean waters and to prevent or strictly limit
the dumping into ocean waters of any material that would “unreasonably
degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine
environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities.”

The EPA administers and enforces the overall permit program for ocean
disposal of material other than dredged material and designates dredged
material disposal sites.  The Corps, with EPA’s concurrence, issues
permits for the disposal of dredged material for the purpose of ocean
disposal where the Corps determines that dumping will not unreasonably
degrade the environment or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities,
or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic
potentialities.  While the Corps does not administratively issue itself
a permit, the requirements that must be met before dredged material
derived from Corps’ projects can be disposed into ocean waters are the
same as those where a permit would be issued.

EPA must consider statutory criteria and evaluate the five general
regulatory criteria codified at 40 C.F.R.§ 228.5 and the eleven
specific regulatory criteria at 40 C.F.R. § 228.6.  Pursuant to
Section 102(c) of the MPRSA, the EPA is responsible for designating
sites for the disposal of dredged material.  The Corps is allowed, with
EPA’s concurrence, to select a site for ocean disposal of dredged
material pursuant to Section 103(b) of the MPRSA, when a feasible
disposal site has not been designated by EPA, or when the continued use
of an alternative site is necessary to maintain navigation and
facilitate interstate or international commerce, and EPA has determined
that the alternative site does not pose an unacceptable risk to human
health, aquatic resources, or the environment.  An EPA-designated site
requires a site management and monitoring plan (SMMP).  Use of a
designated site is subject to the restrictions included in the SMMP and
EPA’s designation regulations.  These restrictions are based on an
in-depth evaluation of the site and potential disposal activity, as well
as public review and comment.  Designation of an ODMD Site itself does
not result in disposal of dredged material.  A separate evaluation of
the suitability of dredged material for ocean disposal must be
undertaken for each proposed use of the site by either the Corps or
non-Corps permit applicant.  Typically this involves evaluation of the
specific disposal activity under the criteria (which can include
multiple years of use), circulation of a public notice, and specific
coordination with stakeholders, as well as concurrence by the
appropriate EPA region.

EPA proposes to designate two new ODMD Sites, the proposed North Umpqua
ODMD Site and South Umpqua ODMD Site, which are each approximately 4,000
feet northwest and southwest respectively, of the entrance to the Umpqua
River (see Figure 1).  Each proposed Umpqua River ODMD Site is 6,300
feet by 4,000 feet, with a depth ranging from 30 feet to 120 feet, and
an average depth of 75 feet.  

Offshore Disposal History

Umpqua River Ocean Disposal Before 1977

For the Umpqua River, offshore disposal of dredged material began in
1924.  Since that time, more than 17 million cubic yards (cy) of dredged
material have been placed in offshore disposal sites.  Prior to formal
designation of an Interim ODMD Site in 1977, the ocean dredged material
disposal site offshore of the Umpqua River entrance was sited in terms
of approximate location and areal configuration.  Placement of dredged
material within the offshore disposal site was governed by the need to
minimize navigational impacts from dredged material being transported
back into the navigation channel and to minimize haul distance for
dredge vessels.  Mounding of dredged material on the seabed did not
appear to be a concern due to the spatial variability of dredged
material placement within the disposal site.  Site boundaries were not
fixed and it was not required to place material strictly within the
disposal site.  The operational flexibility allowed the dredge vessel
during material placement likely resulted in a higher rate of dispersion
of dredged material than at present.  Additionally, dredged material was
placed over a wider areal expanse than the fixed configuration of the
Interim site prior to 1977.

Umpqua River Ocean Disposal 1977 to 1986

From 1977 to 1986, management of an Interim ODMD Site offshore of the
Umpqua River was characterized by the transition from unregulated
dredged material disposal program to a regulated program.  In January
1977, the active ocean disposal site at Umpqua River received interim
designation when EPA issued the final Ocean Dumping Regulations      (40
CFR Subchapter H).  The Interim disposal site configuration was governed
by the requirement to minimize the area of impact due to open-water
disposal of dredged sediments.  The areal size of the Interim ODMD Site
was based on the following parameters:

ODMD Site length:  average dumping run to place one load of dredged
material = (disposal vessel speed while dumping) x (time to empty
disposal vessel).

ODMD Site long axis orientation:  preferential approach heading during
dredged material disposal, which is determined in part by the
predominate direction of incoming waves.

ODMD Site width:  average turn during one dump = disposal vessel turning
radius while dumping.

The lineal dimensions and water depth variation for the Interim ODMD
Site included: dimensions = 3,600 feet x 1,400 feet; azimuth = ~270(;
average depth = 90 feet; and 1998 elevation variation = -113 to -55 mean
lower low water (MLLW).

In contrast to the pre-1977 practice of placing material in larger
unconfined areas, aiding rapid dispersion, fixing site boundaries at the
Interim ODMD Site required the Corps to restrict disposal dredge
material to within those boundaries.  Material accumulated rapidly in
the smaller Interim site, which caused mounding and potentially adverse
impacts to navigation at the Umpqua River entrance.  One potential
explanation for dredged material mounding in the Interim ODMD Site was
an increase in the average disposal volume from 1987 to 1991 (Table 1). 
The average annual volume of dredged material placed in the Interim ODMD
Site from 1968-1986 was 141,000 cy/year, while the average annual volume
from 1987 through 1991 was 188,000 cy/year.  The use of a contractor
operated, large capacity split-hull hopper dredge in 1990 also could
have contributed to an increase in the vertical extent of dredged
material placed in the disposal site.

Corps’ specifications required contract dredges to place dredged
material within the Interim ODMD Site boundaries.  The Interim ODMD Site
corner coordinates and a single disposal location coordinate were given
as a reference for disposal position within the Interim Site. 
Importantly, uniform spreading of dredged material placed within the
site was not a site management requirement.  Thus, conceptually,
placement of dredged material was done randomly, but within a fixed
distance from a disposal buoy.  Dredging contractors most likely placed
dredged material on the extreme eastern, or channel side of the disposal
area to shorten the haul distance and minimize the aerial extent of
dispersal (referred to as point-dumping).  This point-dumping likely
accelerated the vertical accumulation of dredged material within the
relatively small Interim ODMD Site.  Except in 1990, the bulk of the
sediment dredged from the Umpqua River and placed in the ODMDS was
accomplished using government hopper dredges.  Hopper dredges use a
series of doors located on the hull bottom to release each load of
dredged material.  The bottom doors are sequentially opened during
disposal until the entire load of material is released from the vessel,
resulting in a gradual release of material from the vessel.  Contractor
split-hull hopper dredges release their load of dredged material by
opening the entire hull of the vessel.  The split-hull method of
disposal is much more rapid than disposal from bottom-door hopper
dredges.  The use of split-hull hopper dredges reduces the time required
for material disposal, but also reduces the horizontal dispersal of
dumped dredged material on the seabed while increasing the vertical
accumulation of placed material during each dump cycle.  In addition to
the type of hopper dredge used, the capacity (volume per dump) of the
hopper dredge also affects the amount of vertical accumulation.  Since
1987, the bottom-door hopper dredge Yaquina with a capacity of 1,000 cy
has been used as the government dredge at the Umpqua River.  In 1990,
the much larger split-hull dredge Padre Island (capacity 2,600 cy) was
used as the primary dredging/disposal vessel.

In 1988, mounding of dredged material at the Interim ODMDS began
amplifying incoming ocean waves at the approaches to the Umpqua River
entrance.  Mariners and the Coast Guard reported the occurrence of
shoaling and breaking of waves at the approach to the Umpqua entrance
channel.

Umpqua River Ocean Disposal 1987 to Present

The Interim ODMD Site that was designated by EPA in 1977 did not receive
final designation.  A Portland District site evaluation report completed
in 1989 (Corps 1989) recommended an “alternate” site to the north. 
Pending EPA designation, the Corps, under its Section 103 authority,
selected this alternate site in 1991 and began site use in October 1991.
 The Section 103 ODMD Site is located 2,800 feet directly north of the
former Interim ODMD Site in an average water depth of 105 feet (see
Figure 1, “adjusted site”).  The lineal dimensions, orientation, and
water depth variation for the Section 103 ODMD Site include: the
following planar dimension = 3,600 feet x 1,400 feet; azimuth = 270(;
average depth = 105 feet; and 1991 elevation variation = -130 to -64
mean lower low water level (MLLW).  Since October 1991, all sediments
dredged from the Umpqua River Project have been placed within the
Section 103 ODMD Site.  The Interim ODMD Site became unavailable for
further use. 

Since 1979, annual bathymetric surveys have been conducted at the Umpqua
sites and vicinity.  Consistent monitoring is necessary to track
bathymetric change at the sites, ensure that the Corps does not
unintentionally worsen the mounding problem, or place dredged material
outside of the active Section 103 ODMD Site boundaries.  Based on the
bathymetric monitoring of the Section 103 ODMD Site, the specified
location of dredged material disposal has been shifted throughout the
site on an annual basis to avoid dumping material on high spots created
in previous years.  Despite the effort to evenly distribute dredged
material within the Section 103 ODMD Site, material has accumulated
within this site to unacceptably high levels.  Meanwhile, at the Interim
ODMD site, monitoring showed that closure of this site since 1991 and
exclusive utilization of the new Section 103 site for dredged material
disposal between 1991 and 1998, allowed waves and currents within the
Interim ODMD Site to disperse the mound to an elevation consistent with
the ambient seabed.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 .  Umpqua River Project Dredging Volumes
Placed in the ODMD sites

Year or

Period	Dredging

Vessel	Interim

ODMD SITE (cy)	Section 103

ODMDS (cy)	Totals (cy)

1968-1986

2,678,849

2,678,849

1987	Yaquina	152,369

152,369

1988	Yaquina	330,163

330,163

1989	Yaquina	158,697

158,697

1990	Padre Island	180,285

180,285

1991	Yaquina	118,416

118,416

1992	Yaquina

209,072	209,072

1993	Yaquina

212,755	212,755

1994	Yaquina

204,000	204,000

1995	Yaquina

93,700	93,700

1996	Yaquina

116,799	116,799

1997	Yaquina

114,572	114,572

1998	Yaquina

196,300	196,300

1999	Yaquina

168,700	168,700

2000	Yaquina

68,600	68,600

2001	Yaquina

99,400	99,400

2002	Yaquina

246,200	246,200

2003	Yaquina/Clamshell

113,500	113,500

2004	Yaquina

93,200	93,200

2005	Yaquina

9,400	9,400

2006	Yaquina

62,000	62,000

2007	Yaquina/Clamshell

106,800	106,800

Totals	3,618,779	2,114,998	5,733,777



In 1996, shoaling and breaking waves associated with mounding at the
Section 103 ODMD Site were reported.  Subsequently, a site utilization
study was conducted (Corps 1998).  The study found that the size of the
Section 103 ODMD Site mound in 1998 was sufficient to warrant serious
concern regarding continual mound accumulation and further impact on the
wave environment near the Umpqua River entrance.  The average annual
volume placed in the Section 103 site from 1992 to 1998 was 158,200 cy. 
Because of the concern for mounding, the volume of dredged material
placed at the site was reduced.  From 1999 to 2007, the average annual
volume placed was 108,000 cy with 5 years having volumes below 100,000
cy (Table 1).  In 2005 only 9,400 cy was placed.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Physical Resources

General

The Umpqua River estuary covers 6,430 acres.  The estuary lies within
the Heceta Head littoral cell, which extends for 90 kilometers (km) from
Heceta Head south to Cape Arago.  The estuary is fed by two rivers, the
Umpqua River and the smaller Smith River.  The coastal portion of the
littoral cell consists of a 1- to 2-mile-wide plain covered by active
and stabilized sand dunes backed by the mature upland topography of the
Coast Range.  The lower portion of the Umpqua River is bordered by broad
alluvial flats.  The continental shelf off the mouth of the Umpqua is
about 30 km wide.  Just to the north the continental shelf bulges
outward forming Heceta Bank.  Between Siuslaw and Yaquina the shelf is
at its widest, extending over 70 km offshore.  Sand covers the shelf at
the Umpqua for about 3 km out from the shore.  From there a thin layer
of mud (1-3 centimeters thick) mantles the surface (Kulm, 1977).

The Heceta Head littoral cell is the largest on the Oregon Coast,
stretching almost 80 km.  Except for the headlands at both ends of the
cell, the coast line is made of beach fronting sand dunes.  Two major
river systems, the Siuslaw and the Umpqua, and a large estuary, Coos
Bay, occur within the cell. The Umpqua River is the major source for
sediment in the littoral cell.  The littoral cell is fed by the Umpqua
and Smith rivers with a combined drainage basin of 5,042 square miles. 
Mean monthly discharge is highest in January at about 18,000 cubic feet
per second (cfs) and lowest in September at about 1,200 cfs.  Mean
annual discharge is about 8,200 cfs.

The ocean bed in the vicinity of the mouth of the Umpqua River is
characterized by a bulging outward of the bathymetric contours in front
of the mouth of the Umpqua River, and an otherwise featureless slope
that increases from the north to the south.  A mile and a half north of
the Umpqua’s mouth the average slope is about 75 feet/mile between the
24 feet and 156 feet contours.  Two miles south of the entrance the
slope has increased to about 90 feet/mile.  The slope also shows a
general increase with distance offshore.  The bulge in front of the
mouth is evident to a depth of 130 feet, after which the contours are
straight.

Umpqua River Sediments

The latest sampling and testing of sediments in the Umpqua River
entrance channel and Gardiner/Winchester Bay access channels took place
in 2006 (Abney 2006; see Appendix C).  Eighteen samples were submitted
for physical analyses (Table 6).  The results of the physical analyses
showed mean values of 0.37% gravel, 76.0% sand, and 23.7% silt/clay,
with 6.82% volatile solids.  This material is classified as silty sand
in Gardiner channel and the Umpqua River main channel, and sandy silt in
Winchester Bay.

Chemical analyses conducted on the samples included metals, total
organic carbon (TOC), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
phenols, phthalates, miscellaneous extractables, and polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).  The chemical analyses indicated only very
low levels of contamination in any of the samples, with all levels below
their respective Dredge Material Evaluation Framework (DMEF 1986) or
Sediment Evaluation Framework (SEF 2006) screening levels.  No PCBs or
chlorinated hydrocarbons were found at the method detection limits
(MDLs) in any of the samples.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2 .  Physical Analysis and Volatile Solids,
2006

Sample I.D.	Percent (%)	Location (RM)

	Gravel	Sand	Silt/Clay	Volatile Solids

	082906URGC-BC-01	0	86.7	13.3	3.59	Gardiner Channel (RM 8.1)

082906URGC-BC-02	1	93	6	8.51	Gardiner Channel (RM 9)

082906URMC-BC-01	0	75.7	24.3	--	Umpqua Channel (RM 8)

082906URMC-BC-02	0.2	96.2	3.6	--	Umpqua Channel (RM 8.5)

082906URMC-BC-03	0.2	87.6	12.2	--	Umpqua Channel (RM 10)

082906URMC-BC-04	0	93.9	6.1	2.54	Umpqua Channel (RM 11.5)

082906URMC-BC-05	0.1	96.3	3.6	1.67	Umpqua Channel (RM 11.4)

082906URMC-BC-06	0.9	96.3	2.8	--	Umpqua Channel (RM 5.1)

082906URMC-BC-07	0.1	95.4	4.5	--	Umpqua Channel (RM 4.2)

082906URMC-BC-08	0.3	96.2	3.5	--	Umpqua Channel (RM 2.9)

083006URMC-BC-09	1.2	97.5	1.3	--	Umpqua Channel (RM 0.9)

083006URMC-BC-10	0.1	98.4	1.5	--	Umpqua Channel (RM 1.1)

083006WBWC-BC-01	0.1	82.5	17.4	4.84	Winchester Bay West Channel

083006WBWC-GC-02	0	30.3	69.7	9.57	Winchester Bay West Channel

083006WBWC-GC-03	0.7	17.1	82.2	8.55	Winchester Bay West Channel

083006WBEC-GC-04	1.1	62.5	36.4	4.76	Winchester Bay East Channel

083006WBEC-GC-05	0.6	46.9	53.5	13.20	Winchester Bay East Channel

083006WBEC-GC-06	0.1	15	84.9	11.00	Winchester Bay East Channel



Several metals, organotins, pesticides, phthalates, miscellaneous
extractables, phenols and low and high molecular weight PAHs were
detected but at low levels.  Detection levels were sufficiently low to
evaluate material proposed for dredging and open water disposal.  The
analytical results of this characterization are consistent with
historical data.  Material represented by these samples was determined
to be suitable for unconfined, in-water placement without further
characterization.

Dredging of the Gardiner Channel during the summer of 1991 revealed a
location where there was possible contamination at the fueling dock
operated by Bunker C fuel oil.  While dredging to the authorized depth
of 22 feet in the reach of the federal channel off the fueling dock (RM
8.4), an oily substance was seen bubbling to the surface.  Dredging
operations were stopped, two water samples were taken for analysis, and
a video was taken of the surface where the oil was observed.  Analysis
of the water samples identified the oily substance as weathered Bunker C
fuel oil.  Subsequent dredging since 1991 was limited to 18 feet without
encountering fuel oil-contaminated sediment.  This indicates there is no
contamination at shallower depths, although contamination might still be
present in the deeper sediment at this location.  The source of the oil
remains unknown.  Oil has not been detected during either dredging or
sampling operations since the incident in 1991, consequently, there has
been no further attempt to identify the source of the oil.  However, the
site is still considered a potential source of contaminants and
sediments from the general vicinity of the fueling dock were sampled and
analyzed during the 1996 and 2006 sediment quality evaluation. 

ODMD Site Sediments

Sediment samples from the existing Section 103 ODMD Site, the proposed
North and South ODMD sites, and reference stations were collected by the
Corps in June 2007 (Figure 6).  Physical analysis of the samples showed
the offshore area to be uniform in texture and characteristics (Table
7).  The percent sand size and greater, including gravel, had a narrow
range from 95% to 98%.  Percent fines (percent passing through a 230
sieve, silt and clay) ranged from 1.98% to 4.97% with a mean of 3.18%. 
Organic content measured as percent total volatile solids (TVS) ranged
from 1.0% to 1.88% with a mean of 1.33%.  There was no discernable
difference in stations located in the actively used Section 103 ODMD
Sites and those areas which have not received dredged material from the
Umpqua project.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  3 .  Physical Analysis, Volatile Solids,
and Total Solids, June 2007

Sample I.D.	Percent (%)	Location (Depth)

	Gravel	Sand	Silt/Clay	Volatile Solids	Total Solids

	UMPO0707-BC-01	0.6	97.4	1.98	1.08	81.0	South Reference (61 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-02	11.6	84.6	3.76	1.59	76.9	South Reference (100 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-03	4.9	90.9	2.19	1.26	76.5	South Proposed (38 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-04	1.5	94.7	3.8	1.44	79.7	South Proposed (61 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-05	0.5	95.7	3.16	1.35	77.3	South Proposed (79 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-06	0.1	96.1	2.71	1.30	69.4	South Proposed (100 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-07	0.0	95.0	4.97	1.54	67.7	South Proposed (121 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-08	0.1	97.6	2.27	1.27	78.2	Section 103 (79 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-09	0.0	96.2	3.79	1.20	81.0	Section 103 (99 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-10	0.1	97.6	2.26	1.14	70.7	North Proposed (40 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-11	6.5	90.0	3.47	1.88	71.9	North Proposed (60 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-12	0.1	96.7	3.21	1.16	74.0	North Proposed (81 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-13	0.0	96.7	3.28	1.38	72.4	North Proposed (99 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-14	0.0	97.2	2.77	1.43	77.8	North Proposed (120 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-15	0.6	97.2	4.72	1.00	78.3	North Reference (60 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-16(1)	0.0	97.4	2.55	1.30	79.1	North Reference (122 feet)

UMPO0707-BC-16(2)	0.0	97.1	2.88	--	81.0	North Reference (122 feet)



Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  2 .  ODMD Site Sampling Locations, 2007

Chemical analyses were conducted on sediments from the 16 offshore
locations, see figure 2, and included analysis for metals (10
inorganic), TOC, pesticides, PCBs, phenols, phthalates, miscellaneous
extractables, and PAHs.  Metal analyses showed that the sediments are
typical of clean marine sands.  The organic analyses showed
concentrations of most chemicals of concern to be below MDLs and well
below established levels of concern.  The one exception was for
4-methylphenol that was detected at a concentration of 1,000 ppb at
station UMPO0707-BC-11 and detected at 190 ppb at station
UMPO0707-BC-03.  Station UMPO0707-BC-11 is located at a depth of 60
feet, while UMPO0707-BC-03 is at a depth of 30 feet.  Neither location
is associated with past dredged material placement.  There are no known
current or historical sources of 4-methylphenol in the Umpqua River
basin, and no dredge material approved for disposal at the Umpqua site
has contained this concentration of this chemical.   The highest level
found in the estuary in the round of sampling taken in 2006 was 20 ppb
in the fine-grained material at a station in Winchester Bay east
channel.  These values for 4-methylphenol are therefore an anomaly for
this location, environment, and sediment type, and do not warrant a
re-sampling effort.

Oceanographic Circulation

Circulation of the coastal waters on the continental shelf (near the
Umpqua River) results in an interaction of regional oceanic circulation,
astronomical tides, local wind-generated surface waves and current,
swell, and Umpqua River flow as affected by inland meteorological
events.  Times scales for coastal circulation processes range from
seconds, for wind generated waves, to months for seasonal weather
patterns, to years for large-scale events such as El Nino and La Nina.

A generalized model for the seasonal changes along the shore and for
offshore circulation along the Pacific Coast of Oregon was developed by
the Corps.  The summer circulation of surface water on the continental
shelf is influenced by the southward flowing California current, which
attains maximum strength during the summer when surface winds are
consistently from the north-northwest.  Winter circulation of shelf
waters is dominated by the northward flowing Davidson current, which
attains maximum strength due to winter storm (wind stress) patterns. 
The subsurface part of the Davidson current (below 300 feet in depth) is
believed to flow northward throughout the year, although the surface
waters respond to seasonally varying wind stress patterns (reversals). 
Therefore, the net direction of bottom currents on the mid- and outer
continental shelf (120 to 600 feet in depth) is believed to be northward
and along shore.

The time-varying circulation of coastal waters controls the transport
and seasonal distribution of bottom sediments and suspended material
within the water column.  Circulation that is consistent through time
(for example, flow through the Umpqua River jetties) tends to produce
identifiable and relatively constant bathymetry features.  Circulation
that is highly variable (for example, flow along the open coast) tends
to produce homogenous bathymetry having ephemeral features.

Inner Continental Shelf.  The most active region along the continental
shelf is the inner shelf (depth less than 120 feet), over which shoaling
wind waves and swell, shelf-driven currents, and estuarine-induced
currents are at least as important as wind-driven currents for promoting
the transport of bottom sediments.  These variable processes act on ebb
tidal shoal sediments at the Umpqua River (for depths less than 120
feet) to produce the bathymetric conditions observed at any particular
time.  Circulation of coastal (inner shelf) waters is subject to
seasonal reversal, generally being northward during winter and southward
during summer.  Bottom currents along the inner shelf often reach speeds
high enough to transport sand-sized sediment.

Middle and Outer Shelf.  Circulation along the middle shelf (120 to 300
feet in depth) is governed mainly by wind-driven currents.  Circulation
along the outer shelf (300 to 600 feet in depth) is affected by
shoaling, internal waves, and seasonally modified regional currents. 
Bottom currents along the middle and outer shelf generally do not reach
speeds high enough to transport sand-sized sediment, but are capable of
transporting fine-grained sediments (silt size and smaller).

Surficial Geology

The geological data collected in 2007 from the proposed ODMD sites, and
in 2006 from the navigation channel, showed that the properties of the
sediments from the Umpqua navigation project and the offshore area are
very similar.  The average percent sand and gravel sized material from
the lower 5 miles of the river was 97.3% based upon the 2006 sediment
sampling.  The average for all 16 offshore samples collected in June
2007 was 96.7%.  Based on samples collected in 2006, sediments from
Winchester Bay and the upper portion of Gardiner channel are
fine-grained material dissimilar to the offshore sediments.  Material
dredged from Gardiner channel and Winchester Bay is limited in volume
and historically has been placed upland or in estuarine disposal areas.

Water Quality

Water column chemistry and physical characteristics in the vicinity of
the proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites were studied in the mid 1980s
(Fuhrer and Rinella 1982).  The water quality parameters fell within the
normal ranges expected for nearshore ocean waters off the Oregon Coast.

Biological Resources

This section summarizes biological conditions in the ocean environment
offshore of the Umpqua River.  Additional information is provided in
Appendix A.  The proposed ODMD sites are located in the nearshore area
and are typical of habitat common to the nearshore Pacific Coast off
Oregon.

Plankton and Fish Larvae

No specific data is available for zooplankton in the Umpqua River
offshore area.  However, Keister and Peterson (2003) provided a
discussion of the zooplankton community found off of the central Oregon
Coast (along the Newport hydrographic line).  They indicated that the
zooplankton community is influenced strongly by seasonal variations in
wind and current patterns.  During late spring and summer, northwesterly
winds set up flow towards the equator and coastal upwelling. 
Northwesterly winds dominate from April/May-September; periodic
relaxations or southwesterly storms rapidly affect the hydrograph of
nearshore areas. During this time period conditions about 30 kilometers
(km) offshore are less variable.  Boreal neritic copepods such as
Pseudocalanus mimus, Calanus marshallae, Centropages abdominalis,
Acartia longiremis, and Acartia hudsonica dominate the coastal plankton
during summer (Peterson and Miller 1977).  In early fall, winds reverse
and upwelling ceases; during autumn and winter, winds are predominantly
southwesterly, the Davidson Current flows toward the pole, and offshore
surface waters are transported onshore.  In winter, the coastal
zooplankton is populated by warm-water species such as Mesocalanus
tenuicornis, Paracalanus parvus, Ctenocalanus vanus, Clausocalanus spp.,
Acartia tonsa, and Corycaeus anglicus (Peterson and Miller 1977).

Auth and Brodeur (2006) examined ichthyoplankton off the central Oregon
Coast (along the Newport hydrographic line).  The dominant taxa
collected were northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), slender sole
(Lyopsetta exilis), rockfishes (Sebastes spp.), northern lampfish
(Stenobrachius leucopsarus), and blue lanternfish (Tarletonbeania
crenularis).  Total larval concentration increased from 49.3 per 1000
cubic meters (m3) in 2000 to 72.0 per 1000 m3 in 2002, with seasonal
concentrations highest in August 2000 (90.3 per 1000 m3) and April 2002
(151.2 per 1000 m3).  Relatively few larvae were found at depths greater
than 100 meters, while highest larval concentrations generally were
observed from depths of 0 to 50 meters.  Larval diversity and
concentration were higher offshore (46-84 km off the coast) than in
nearshore areas (9-28 km off the coast).  Highest concentrations were
normally found at an intermediate station, approximately 65 km off the
coast.  Species designated as either coastal or offshore species by
previous studies were predominantly found in their respective shelf
regions.  Most larval concentrations were positively correlated with
temperature and negatively correlated with salinity.

Auth and others (2007) examined the ichthyoplankton assemblages from a
single station 69 km off Heceta Head on the central Oregon Coast.  The
authors noted that the species composition, assemblages, and dominant
taxa were similar to those found in other studies conducted in this area
during summer (Richardson 1973; Richardson and Pearcy 1977; Brodeur et
al., 1985; Auth and Brodeur 2006).  This similarity provided evidence to
support the hypothesis of Auth and Brodeur (2006) that past sampling
along the Newport hydrographic line during summer is representative of
ichthyoplankton assemblages elsewhere along the Oregon Coast.

Benthic Invertebrates

In September 1984 and January 1985, field sampling was conducted in
water depths from 60 to 120 feet to collect data on benthic
invertebrates in and adjacent to the Interim and Section 103 sites
(Emmett et al., 1987; Corps 1989).  The species composition of the area
was found to be typical of nearshore high-energy environments.  The
benthic infaunal community was dominated by gammarid amphipods and
polychaete worms.

Field surveys were conducted in July and September 2007, by Marine
Taxonomic Services (2008), to provide current information about the
benthic invertebrate species present in the vicinity of the proposed
North and South ODMD sites.  The benthic invertebrate fauna in the
vicinity of the proposed ODMD sites was found to be typical of the
nearshore, high-energy environment found along the Oregon Coast.  The
density distribution data represents juvenile recruitment of most
species from spring spawning.  This recruitment includes both
opportunistic short-lived species (Spiophanes bombyx) and (Owenia
fusiformis) and longer-lived species (Siliqua sp. juv. and Dendraster
excentricus).  The crustaceans show some population spikes throughout
the sampling; however, the same species were not always the driving
factors.  Gammarid amphipods were often present but also present were
Diastylopsis dawsoni (Cumacea) and barnacles (Cirripedia) which showed
up on hard features such as snail shells and the occasional rock.  The
echinoderms were driven by Dendraster sp. juveniles and Dendraster
excentricus and the other miscellaneous groups were largely populated by
Nemertinea and juvenile holothuroids.

The benthos in the area is typical of the communities found near other
ocean disposal sites along the Oregon Coast, such as Coos Bay areas E
and F, Rogue River, Siuslaw River, and Chetco River (Hancock et al.,
1981; Corps 1985, 1988a, 1988b, 1989, 1990, 1999).  This benthic
community, largely dominated by very mobile organisms, provides an
important link in the marine food web.  These organisms serve as a
direct food source for other benthic organisms and demersal fishes. 
They also play an active role in the breakdown of organic debris and the
tube-building species that help stabilize the marine sediments.  Many of
the benthic species in the area are able to survive in this dynamic
environment being either very mobile or being able to react both to
natural or man made perturbations.  The benthic community would be
expected to re-colonize within a period of a few weeks to months after
disposal (Corps, 1993).

Fish and Epibenthic Species

Commercially and recreationally important epibenthic species in the
Umpqua inshore coastal area are shellfish and Dungeness crabs.  Razor
clam beds are located north of the Umpqua River jetty along the beach. 
Recruitment to the inshore beaches comes from the subtidal spawning
areas.  Gaper, softshell, butter, and bentnose clams are present in
large numbers near the mouth of the Umpqua and upriver in the estuary
proper.  Dungeness crab adults occur on sandflat habitat along the
entire Oregon Coast.  They spawn in offshore areas and the juveniles
rear in the estuary.  The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
has not identified any squid spawning areas off the Umpqua estuary.  The
nearshore area off the Umpqua River supports anadromous salmonids
including coho salmon, steelhead, spring and fall Chinook salmon, and
cutthroat trout, as well as a variety of other pelagic and demersal fish
species. Trawl data collected in 2007 overall showed female Dungeness
crab to be somewhat more numerous than males.  Average size of 237
individuals in the July trawls approximately 92 mm, with size ranges
from 63-163 mm.  Average sizes of the 41 individuals in the September
trawls were very close to those in the July trawls.

Commercial and Recreational Fisheries

Based on data from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2006) for
commercial fishing, in 2000 there were 57 vessels that delivered
landings, i.e. market-sized fish caught and suitable for sale, to
Winchester Bay; there were no landings in Reedsport.  Data for landings
in Winchester Bay are presented for the following West Coast fisheries
(data shown represents landings in metric tons/value of total
landings/number of vessels landing; NA = a data item was not available):
coastal pelagic (NA/NA/1), crab (250.8/$1,170,610/23), groundfish
(33.6/$129,193/20), highly migratory species (44.4/$105.495/10), salmon
(44.1/$159,668/33), shellfish (NA/NA/3), shrimp (0.1/$711/4), and other
species (30.8/$196,940/12).  Recreational fishing takes place in the
same general areas as the commercial fishery but usually closer to
shore.  For Winchester Bay, the 2000 recreational salmonid catch in the
Ocean Boat Fishery was 4,432 Chinook salmon and 2,882 coho salmon (NMFS
2006).  The recreational non-salmonid catch was 2,147 fish (NMFS 2006). 
The top species landed included yellowtail rockfish (Sebastes flavidus),
lingcod, canary rockfish (S. pinniger), yelloweye rockfish (S.
ruberrimus), greenstriped rockfish (S. elongatus), and quillback
rockfish (S. maliger).

Wildlife

Steller sea lions, harbor seals, and California sea lions are present
most of the year in the Umpqua River coastal area.  Steller sea lions
forage at river mouths and nearshore areas along the Oregon Coast. 
Harbor seals breed in the estuary and on nearshore rocks.  The Umpqua
River nearshore area and shoreline provides important habitat for
shorebirds, waterfowl, herons, bald eagles, hawks, and many other
species of birds.  Pelagic birds (e.g., murres, auklets, cormorants) are
likely to use the area near the proposed Umpqua sites and adjacent
waters for foraging.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Both the Oregon Coast coho salmon and the Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast (SONCC) coho are federally threatened Evolutionary
Significant Units (ESUs) that may be present in the vicinity of the
proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites.  Although critical habitat has been
designated for both ESUs, the ocean area off the Umpqua River is not
included in that designated critical habitat.  Coho salmon are present
in the vicinity of the proposed ODMD Sites as both adults and juveniles.
 Adults hold in the offshore area prior to entering the estuary to
migrate up river to spawn.  Juveniles rear in the nearshore ocean area
after migrating downstream and transitioning to saltwater.  Upstream
migration of adult coho salmon generally takes place from August through
November.  Juvenile outmigration extends from April through June, but
peaks in May.

The Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of green sturgeon
(Acipenser medirostris) is a federally threatened species.  Southern DPS
green sturgeon may occur at or near the Umpqua River ODMD sites as they
migrate to northern estuaries during summer and early fall.  Critical
habitat for the Southern DPS green sturgeon proposed on September 8,
2008 (73 Federal Register 52084) included the proposed sites, but
critical habitat has not yet been designated..  Green sturgeon that
spawn to the north, primarily in the Klamath and Rogue rivers,
constitute the Northern DPS, which is not federally listed.  These two
DPSs for sturgeon were established because they were genetically
distinct.  

Federally listed avian species that may be present in the Umpqua
offshore area include the marbled murrelet, brown pelican, and
short-tailed albatross.  Threatened Marbled murrelets are observed in
small flocks or as individuals in the ocean throughout the year. 
Endangered Brown pelicans are abundant from June to September along the
coast and in the lower reach of the Umpqua River estuary.  The
endangered short-tailed albatross may forage in open ocean areas off the
Oregon coast.

The blue, fin, sei, sperm, humpback, and southern resident killer whales
are all federally endangered and have been observed as migrants off the
coast in waters typically farther from shore than within the proposed
Umpqua River ODMD sites.  Threatened Steller sea lions are year-long
residents along the Oregon Coast, and will occur as migrants in the
vicinity of the proposed North and South Umpqua sites.  Orford Reef and
Rogue Reef, the nearest Steller sea lion rookeries and designated
critical habitat, are located approximately 60 and 80 miles south of the
proposed sites respectively. The loggerhead, green, leatherback, and
olive ridley sea turtles have been recorded from strandings along the
Oregon and Washington coasts.  The occurrence of sea turtles off Oregon
is associated with the appearance of albacore.  Albacore occurrence is
strongly associated with the warm waters of the Japanese Current. 
Because these warm waters generally occur 30 to 60+ miles offshore,
these sea turtle species do not typically occur in the nearshore area.

Socio-Economic Resources

The community of Winchester Bay is located at the mouth of the Umpqua
River, about 4 miles south of the City of Reedsport.  The 2000 Census
reported that Winchester Bay had a total population of 488 people, and
Reedsport a population of 4,378 people.  Based on the 2000 Census, the
industries with highest employment in Winchester Bay were construction
(14.7%), accommodation and food services (16.3%), and manufacturing
(10.0%).  The agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting category
represented 5.7% of the employed population.  Approximately 27% of the
labor force in 2000 was employed in government.  For Reedsport, retail
trade was the top occupational field (14.7%), followed by accommodation
and food services (13.9%), and health care and social assistance
(12.0%).  The agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting occupations
represented 4.2% of the employed population.  Approximately 18% of the
labor force in 2000 was employed in government.

Cultural Resources

Appendix D provides detailed information concerning cultural resources
in the Umpqua River offshore area.  Prehistoric cultural resources are
unlikely to be found within the Umpqua River offshore area.  Shipwrecks
are the most probable cultural resources to be expected within the
offshore area.  A review of the historical records indicates several
recorded shipwrecks in the vicinity of the Umpqua River offshore area
(see Appendix D).  Side-scan sonar surveys were conducted within a 1.5
nm arc from the mouth of the Umpqua River channel.  No shipwrecks or
other historic remnants were detected from this survey.

Recreational Uses

Recreational resources in the area of the proposed Umpqua River ODMD
sites are described in Appendix E.  The Umpqua River and its associated
offshore waters are known as one of the best salmon fishing areas along
the Pacific Coast.  Although the area receives recreational use
year-round, the most popular months are from May through September. 
Primary activities include fishing, camping, beachcombing, off-highway
vehicle use, and sightseeing.

The coastal land adjacent to the proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites is
part of the Oregon Dunes National Recreational Area.  The beach is open
year round to motorized vehicles.  Directly south of the Umpqua River,
public land is administered by Douglas County.  Camping and picnic
facilities are provided for public use.  The Oregon Dunes National
Recreation Area continues south along the coast to Coos Bay.  The most
common activities taking place in the recreation area are off-highway
vehicle use, hiking, photography, fishing, canoeing, horseback riding
and camping.  The southern portion of the national recreation area has
developed access and receives much higher public use than the area north
of the river. The area directly south of the south jetty is utilized for
wave-dependent near shore recreation, such as surfing, diving, kayaking,
boogie-boarding, skim boarding, and body surfing.  

The Umpqua River jetty fishery is well known and accounts for a high
number of angler use days.  The South Jetty is the primary fishing area
because it is easily accessed.  A popular place for fishing and crabbing
in the entrance channel is off an old Coast Guard pier on the south side
of the channel.  Peak months of activity on the jetties and pier are
June, July, and August.  Most crabs are taken from the main entrance
channel by individuals in boats, although some are taken directly off
the Coast Guard pier.  The most popular months for crabbing are June
through September.

Commercial Uses

The Umpqua River offshore area supports a moderate commercial fishery
primarily for salmon, Dungeness crabs, and bottom fish.  Clams are
commercially harvested in the estuary.  The fishing and tourist
industries are a primary source of income to the local economy.  No
significant mineral or petroleum deposits are known to exist in the
vicinity of the proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites.

ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

EPA and the Corps considered several alternatives for disposal of
dredged material generated from the Umpqua River navigation project and
other projects with authorized users.  Those alternatives included: no
action, upland disposal, and estuarine disposal.  The alternatives
considered for ocean disposal included disposal off the continental
shelf, continued use of the existing ODMD Site, and/or designation of a
new ODMD Site.  Although other users may require dredged material
disposal options, the Corps navigation project is the largest and most
regular source of dredged material in the vicinity.  Since other
potential, but smaller, users of the site would likely face many of the
same constraints as the Corps in the disposal of dredged material, the
discussion of alternatives focuses primarily on the Corps’
navigational dredging.

No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, EPA would refrain from formal
designation of any ODMD Site for the placement of dredged material by
the Corps or other authorized persons or entities.  If EPA did not
designate sites, the Corps has the authority to select alternate sites
under MPRSA Section 103.  The substantive requirements for information
and evaluation of a Section 103 site are similar to those of an EPA
formal designation under Section 102, and site designation under Section
103 requires EPA concurrence.  In addition, the use of a Section 103
site is limited to 5 years with one possible 5-year extension.  The
present site being used at Umpqua River is a Section 103 site.  It will
reach its 10-year use restriction at the end of the 2008 dredging season
and will no longer be available for use.  The no-action alternative
would not meet the project purpose, which is to provide dredged material
disposal capacity for long-term use by the Corps for the federally
authorized Umpqua River navigation project and disposal capacity for
other potential users. Therefore, the no action alternative was judged
by both the Corps and EPA to be unacceptable and was dropped from
further consideration.  

Upland Disposal Alternative

Hopper dredges, self-propelled, seagoing vessels, are the only equipment
that can be used to dredge the navigation channel because they can move
quickly to minimize interference with navigation traffic and can adjust
to rapidly changing weather and sea conditions.  Because hopper dredges
stockpile dredged material on-board and are designed to bottom dump that
material, they are most efficiently utilized in conjunction with an
in-water disposal area.  Rehandling of material, moving it from the
hopper dredge to another location for disposal, introduces an additional
cost and logistical component to the process.  To dispose of material
from a hopper dredge to a land-based disposal site would necessitate
dredging an in-water sump within the river estuary, bottom-dumping the
dredged material from the hopper dredge into the in-water sump, then
pumping the material ashore with a pipeline suction dredge.  Aside from
increased costs, this approach would have additional adverse
environmental impacts associated with the dredging of an in-water
estuarine site to be used as the sump.  Estuarine sites are both highly
valued and limited (see below for additional discussion).  In addition,
a significant adverse impact of upland disposal is that
naturally-occurring sediments would be removed from the littoral system.
 Upland disposal of entrance material dredged from the Umpqua River
project is not considered feasible due to the economic and environmental
effects resulting from nearshore rehandling of dredged material.

Estuarine Disposal Alternative

Estuarine habitat is limited and environmentally sensitive.  Placement
of dredged material in estuarine areas is generally only environmentally
acceptable for specific beneficial uses, such as in areas where
substrate is eroding and the dredged material would be suitable (e.g.,
fine grained and clean) to supplement existing substrate.  In general,
disposal of dredged material in estuaries would result in greater
adverse environmental impacts than disposal in the ocean due to both the
limited abundance and high productivity of estuaries relative to
nearshore oceanic habitats.  Disposal of material into the estuary would
also increase the risk of the material eroding and reshoaling in the
channel, potentially increasing dredging frequency and/or volumes.

There are operational constraints to estuarine disposal as well.  Due to
the narrowness and shallowness of the Umpqua River estuary, no suitable
estuarine disposal areas were identified that could be accessed by a
hopper dredge or accept the volume of material annually dredged from the
Umpqua River entrance channel.

The Corps has historically placed dredged material from the Winchester
Bay entrance and east and west boat basin access channels at an in-bay
site located on the north side of the channel at RM 0.8.  The site has a
sand substrate with no vegetation and is dispersive.  Estuarine disposal
of dredged material from Winchester Bay entrance and boat basin is
possible because of the relatively small quantity of material dredged
from these specific locations and their proximity to this disposal site.
 However, owing to its limited capacity, this site would not be suitable
for the entire volume of material dredged from the navigation channel
annually.

Ocean Disposal Alternatives

Ocean disposal alternatives include disposal of the material off the
continental shelf, continued use, by designation, of the existing 103
ODMD Site, or designation of a new ODMD Site or Sites.

Disposal Off the Continental Shelf

The MPRSA directs EPA to utilize, whenever feasible, locations beyond
the edge of the Continental Shelf.  Section 102(a)(I), 33 U.S.C. §
1412(a)(I).  This same directive is found in the regulations in the
general criteria at 40 CFR § 228.5(e).   

Transporting dredged material off the continental shelf presents
potentially significant environmental concerns.  Benthic and pelagic
ecosystems near the shelf contain important fishery resources and the
effects of disposal operations on them are not well understood. 
Fine-grain sediment and rocky habitats would be directly impacted by
disposal.  These deep-water areas are stable and generally not disturbed
by wave action or sediment movement.  Consequently, the benthic
invertebrate communities in these deep, offshore environments are
adapted to very stable conditions and would likely be less able to
survive disturbance from the immediate impact of disposal and the
long-term alteration of substrate type.  Bottom gradients can be 5% to
25% on the continental slope, making accumulated unconsolidated
sediments susceptible to slumping.  Deposited sediments could be
transported long distances both downslope, through turbidity currents,
and offshore, by near-bottom currents, potentially affecting organisms
outside of any designated site. 

Disposal off the continental shelf would remove natural sediments from
the nearshore littoral transport system, a system that functions with
largely non-renewable quantities of sand in Oregon.  While the loss of
the present volumes of Corps’ dredged material are unlikely to result
in disruption of the mass balance of the littoral system, the State of
Oregon is already experiencing erosion/accretion patterns that are
adversely impacting beaches, spits, wetlands, and other shoreline
habitats.

The limiting factor in considering a location beyond the edge of the
continental shelf is feasibility.  At, and in the vicinity of, the
Umpqua River, potential disposal areas located off the continental shelf
would be at least 15 nautical miles offshore in water depths of 600 feet
or greater.  This distance is well beyond the reasonable haul distance
of hopper dredges working the Umpqua River project, which is discussed
in greater detail in the discussion of the “Zone of Siting
Feasibility”.  In addition, the feasibility of monitoring a site
located off of the continental shelf is questionable, based on safety,
cost, and time constraints correlated with increased distance from
shore.

Given the currently unanswered environmental concerns, coupled with the
cost/logistical issues of both disposal and monitoring, disposal off of
the continental shelf is not currently a feasible alternative. 
Substantial additional investigation would be required in order to
determine the scope of the possible environmental impacts of this
alternative.  Such an investigation is not warranted unless there are no
suitable sites closer to shore.   

Continued Use of Existing Site

There is a preference towards using sites that have been used
historically as expressed in the regulations at 40 CFR § 228.5(e). 
However, dredged material mounding and related navigation consequences
have been documented and would be expected to continue despite existing
limits placed on site use at either of the previously utilized sites. 
Excessively high dredged material mounds at the 103-selected Umpqua
River ODMD Site can potentially increase the height of incident waves by
20% to 30% as compared with baseline (pre-mound) bathymetries.  Due to
the limited size, historical mounding, and navigational safety concerns,
neither the interim site nor the Corps’ 103-selected site is
considered by the Corps or EPA to be suitable for long-term use.

Designation of New ODMD Sites

As discussed above in the evaluation of ocean disposal alternatives, the
Corps and EPA concluded that designation of the existing 103-selected
Umpqua River ODMD Site as an EPA site under Section 102 of the MPRSA
does not have the capacity to meet the long-term disposal needs for the
Umpqua River project.  

Therefore, the Corps and EPA began an analysis of the ocean in the
general vicinity of the Umpqua River mouth to explore the feasibility of
designating a new ODMD site, or more than one site.  A number of
criteria listed below were developed to evaluate potential site
locations.  

Provide ODMD site capacity for disposal of maintenance dredging material
originating from the Umpqua River navigation project for a 20-year
life-cycle.  The annual disposal volume to be placed in an Umpqua River
ODMD Site is expected to be approximately 188,000 cy.  Over 20 years,
the total volume to be placed at an ODMD Site would be approximately 3.8
million cy.

Locate the new ODMDS so that average haul distance is within the Zone of
Siting Feasibility (ZSF).  The ZSF for hopper dredges is within a
3.15-mile radius from RM -1 (see Defining a Zone of Siting Feasibility
section below).

Avoid environmental and navigation impacts due to annual dredged
material disposal operations.  Prevent mound-induced wave shoaling. 
Enhance bathymetric dispersal of dredged material placed at ODMD Sites
for split-hull vessels by using non-repetitive disposal to evenly
distribute dredged material placement in sensitive areas.

Where practical, enhance transport of suitable dredged material placed
at ODMD Sites into the littoral zone.  Locate new ODMD Sites such that
the littoral transport of placed dredged material toward the entrance
channel is minimized.  Facilitate the littoral by-passing of dredged
material around the Umpqua River jettied entrance.

Minimize vertical accumulation (mounding) of placed dredged material,
from multiple dredging disposal operations (enhance long-term use of
ODMD Sites).  Designate ODMD Sites with large areal configuration and
use sub-regions of the ODMD Sites on an annual rotational basis.  If
necessary, use placement grid to enhance uniform distribution of dredged
material.

Ensure that new or expanded ODMD Sites conform to the five general and
eleven specific criteria for the selection of ocean disposal sites (40
CFR 228.5 and 228.6).

These criteria were modeled and analyzed in depth in Appendix B,
Physical Processes and Geologic Features, resulting in the development
of two proposed new ODMD Sites.  The remaining analysis considers the
environmental impacts of designating these two sites in concordance with
NEPA and their consistency with the general and specific criteria from
40 CFR 228.

ANALYSIS OF OCEAN DUMPING SITE DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS

Overview

Formal designation of ocean dumping sites is the responsibility of EPA
as stated in the MPRSA.  The process for site designation is found in
the ocean dumping regulations at    40 CFR Part 228.  The process
followed by EPA, Region 10, and the Corps for the proposed Umpqua River
ODMD Sites generally follows the site designation procedures developed
by a joint task force of EPA and Corps personnel titled, General
Approach to Designation Studies for Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Sites (EPA and Corps, 1984).

The procedures utilize a hierarchical framework that initially
establishes the broadest economically and operationally feasible area of
consideration for site location.  A step-by-step sequence of activities
is then conducted to eliminate critical and/or unsuitable subareas. 
Further evaluation of alternative sites (candidate sites) within this
area entails various levels of assessment as suggested by the
sensitivity and value of critical resources or uses at risk, and
potential for unreasonable adverse impact presented by the dredged
material to be disposed.  The site designation criteria at 40 CFR §§
228.5 to 228.6 are applied to the information assembled through this
process, and a final site or sites are selected and proposed for formal
designation.

Defining a Zone of Siting Feasibility

The MPRSA (33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445) tasks EPA and the Corps with the
joint obligation to ensure that ocean disposal will not "unreasonably
degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine
environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities."  EPA's
site criteria and joint EPA/Corps guidance are intended to result in the
designation of an environmentally acceptable site, oriented toward
avoidance of unreasonable degradation or endangerment of human health,
welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or
economic potentialities, which is operationally efficient.  At the
outset, and pursuant to jointly developed guidance titled General
Approach to Designation Studies for Ocean Dredged Materials Disposal
Sites (EPA/Corps, 1984), a geographic area of consideration referred to
as a Zone of Siting Feasibility (ZSF) is a first step towards
designating a site.  According to the guidance, a reasonable distance of
haul from the dredge site to the disposal site is the determining factor
in establishing the ZSF, and will be affected by available dredging
equipment, energy use constraints, costs, and safety considerations. 
The initial ZSF, once established, is evaluated according to the
statutory and regulatory criteria under the MPRSA.  Each of the criteria
is overlain on the preliminary ZSF in sequence to eliminate unsuitable
areas and determine the location and overall suitability of remaining
sites, if any, within the ZSF that could be designated for the disposal
of dredged material.  If, based on that evaluation, a suitable site is
not located within the initial ZSF, than the area of consideration must
be expanded in order to ensure that a disposal site can be designated
which will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare,
amenities, the marine environment, or ecological systems.

On the West coast, weather and ocean conditions are major considerations
and act as significant limiting factors when assessing the reasonable
distance of haul.  Rough seas and adverse weather conditions are the
norm from October through May on the Pacific Coast.  These conditions
act to limit ocean disposal of dredged material to a narrow window where
it is generally safe to work from roughly the end of May to no later
than mid-October, with a high probability of down time due to adverse
weather at either end of that period.  

The availability of dredging equipment is also a constraint that must be
considered in the determination of a ZSF for a proposed ocean disposal
site, but particularly so for sites on the West Coast of the United
States.  For most of the designated sites in Oregon, the Corps is the
primary user and must confront equipment availability issues.  For
example, the Jones Act ,46 USC § 12106, precludes the Corps from
contracting with foreign-owned vessels, which limits the accessible pool
of vessels for Federal dredging and disposal projects to U.S. Government
or privately owned (contract) equipment.  The Corps evaluates the
availability of Government or contract equipment annually and allocates
the use of government dredges for the nation.  Hopper dredges are
mobile, can work in sea swell conditions up to 10 ft, and are
self-propelled.  Therefore, they are generally the only feasible
equipment for dredging most ocean entrance channel/bar situations.  

Hopper dredge availability on the West Coast has been limited.  Many
hopper dredges working in the U.S. are often committed to other work on
the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts and are not available to be used
elsewhere, except perhaps on an emergency basis.  As a result, there are
typically three hopper dredges working on the West Coast that can be
used safely for dredging and disposal of dredged material in ocean
disposal sites in Oregon and these dredges must also be shared along the
coast with Washington, California, and occasionally Hawaii and Alaska.  

Umpqua River ODMD Sites Zone of Siting Feasibility

Although an ODMD Site, once designated, may be used by any person or
entity who has received a permit to dispose in the site, the primary
anticipated user for the currently proposed Umpqua River ODMD Sites is
the Corps.  The Corps is expected to utilize the sites annually for
disposal of dredged material from the Umpqua River Navigation Project. 
Potential users of the proposed Umpqua River ODMD Sites include the U.S.
Coast Guard and others, but since no pending requests have been
identified at this time, the discussion of the ZSF for the Umpqua River
ODMD Sites below is based solely on the Corps’ anticipated disposal
activities.

Due to the limited work window resulting from weather/safety and
equipment constraints, time is the limiting factor in calculation of the
reasonable haul distance, and thus ZSF, for the proposed Umpqua River
ODMD Sites.  The amount of time necessary to maintain the Umpqua River
Navigation Project (exclusive of weather downtime) is a function of
dredging a hopper full of material (loading), then transporting that
material to, and placing it at, the disposal site(s).  This is called
“cycle time” and the cycle time can vary for each individual dredge.
 Loading time is essentially fixed based on the characteristics of the
sediments being dredged, the dredge itself (e.g., pumps, size of hopper,
and drag arms.), and the dredging site conditions.  The time to
discharge material also is basically fixed for a given dredge and the
type of material, but may vary slightly depending on the disposal
methodology outlined in the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP)
for the site.  The SMMP will generally direct disposal activities in
such a manner as to minimize mounding or other environmental effects at
the ODMD Site(s).  Transport time depends primarily on the haul distance
to the disposal site(s) as the speed of different hopper dredges when
full is similar.  Thus, a longer haul distance affects the total number
of cycles per day, resulting in an impact on the total volume of
material that can be dredged and disposed in one season.

In discerning a ZSF for the Umpqua River ODMD sites, certain factors are
relatively fixed.  The 5-year average (2002 to 2004, and 2006 to 2007)
for dredging at the Corps’ Umpqua River Navigation Project is 95,264
cy of material.  Under current and foreseeable conditions at the project
the estimated volume of material to be removed annually is expected to
remain at the current average of 95,264 cy.  Based upon work load,
available funding and other constraints, the Government owned hopper
dredge YAQUINA is typically available 6.7 days (according 5 year
average) at the Umpqua River navigation project or a contract dredge is
available for a similar length of time.  This translates into a 13,860
cy per day average production requirement.  The rated capacity for the
YAQUINA is 1,034 cy.   Load time typically is around 41 minutes for the
Umpqua River navigation project.  Dependent on the SMMP, environmental
conditions, and characteristics of the dredged material, dump time could
vary from 2 to 5 minutes.  The dredge typically works 24 hours per day,
except on Thursdays when crews are changed.  The ZSF, as determined by
haul distance, can be calculated as follows:

Assume 13.4 loads per day (13,860 cy ( 1034 cy/load = 13.4 loads)

Load time (.686 hr) + Dump time (0.055 hr) = .74 hr/load X (13.4 loads)
or 9.92 hr/day

24 hr/day – 9.92 hr/day = 14.08 hr/day for transit to and from the
disposal site

14.08 hr/day ( 13.4 loads/day = 1.05 hr transit time for one round trip

1.05 hr ( 2 = 0.525 hr transit one way

0.525 hr X 6kts (vessel speed) = 3.15 nm

Thus the outer limit of the ZSF for the Umpqua River ODMDS, as limited
by the capacity of the available dredging equipment, average annual
dredging quantity, and limited dredging time period, is 3.15 nautical
miles (nm) from the Umpqua River navigation project.  This is the area
within which potential sites will initially be evaluated according to
the MPRSA statutory requirements and regulatory criteria.

Regulatory Criteria for Ocean Disposal Site Selection

EPA evaluated the five general (40 CFR 228.5) and 11 specific (40 CFR
228.6) regulatory criteria for site designation in reviewing the
currently proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites.  A conflict matrix format is
utilized in Tables 4 through 7 to simplify and consolidate scoring for
the general and specific site criteria review process for both of the
historically utilized and both of the proposed sits.  Each area of
consideration on the conflict matrix addresses at least one general or
specific criterion.  A legend defining the matrix categories follows the
tables.

Application of Five General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)

Minimize Interference with Other Activities (a.).  The first of the five
general criteria requires that a determination be made as to whether the
proposed sites or their use will minimize interference with other uses
of the marine environment.  This determination was made by overlaying
individual uses with the resources presented in the Umpqua Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Evaluation (Corps 1989) and the more recent
appendices prepared for this evaluation.  The 1989 report presents the
overlays on a base map, giving bathymetry and location of the ODMD sites
and ZSF.  The more interactions between various uses and limited
resources exist, the more critical the area.  The overlay process is
used to minimize interference with other uses of the ocean.  The 1989
selection of features to use for this determination was dependent on
whether the resource was considered limited.  The following were
selected to be included in the evaluation of resources of limited
distribution:

1.  Navigation Hazards Area/Other Recreation Areas;

2.  Shellfish Areas;

3.  Critical Aquatic Resources;

4.  Commercial and Sport Fishing Areas;

5.  Geological Features; and

6.  Cultural, Historically Significant Areas.

Figure 3 is a composite of all of the above areas and indicates, by
various patterns, the relative amount of total usage within the Umpqua
ZSF.  The denser the pattern overlap, the more interactions between
various limited resources exists and the more critical the overlap area
is.

The proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites have been located away from the
approach channel and are not likely to cause navigational hazards during
disposal activities.  As Figure 3 shows, the proposed Umpqua River ODMD
sites are located mostly within an area of minimal conflict in the ZSF. 
Commercial salmon and crab fishing would potentially take place in the
two proposed ocean disposal areas, but is not limited to those areas,
occurring (as it does) over a wide nearshore area.  Disposal operations
and the salmon fishing season do overlap; however, coordination with
ODFW personnel indicated no Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  4 .  Original
Interim Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Conflict Matrix

 

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  5 .  Existing Section 103 Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Conflict Matrix

 

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  6 .  Proposed South Umpqua River Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site Conflict Matrix

 

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  7 .  Proposed North Umpqua River Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site Conflict Matrix

 Conflict Matrix Tables Legend

1/  Definition of “Areas of Consideration”

1.  Unusual Topography/Unique Bottom Features:  Would placement of
material in this candidate site affect physical bottom feature that is
unique within the local or regional area?

2.  Physical Sediment Compatibility:  Does the candidate site have
similar sediment characteristics to anticipated dredged material?

3.  Chemical Sediment Compatibility:  Does the candidate site have
similar chemical characteristics to anticipated dredged material?

4.  Influence of Past Disposal:  Would placement of material in this
candidate site be affected by previous disposal of dredge material?

5.  Living Resources of Limited Distribution:  Would placement of
material in this candidate site affect any living resources that do not
have a coast-wide distribution?

6.  Commercial Fisheries:  Would placement of material in this candidate
site affect any commercial fishing activity (resource impacts are
covered in 8-11)?

7.  Recreational Fisheries:  Would placement of material in this
candidate site affect any recreational fishing activity (resource
impacts are covered in 8-11)?

8.  Breeding/Spawning Areas:  Would placement of material in this
candidate site affect breeding and spawning areas of any species?

9.  Nursery Areas:  Would placement of material in this candidate site
affect nursery areas of any species?

10.  Feeding Areas:  Would placement of material in this candidate site
affect feeding areas of any species?

11.  Migration Routes:  Would placement of material in this candidate
site affect migration routes of species?

12.  Critical Habitat of Threatened or Endangered Species:  Would
placement of material in this candidate site affect critical habitat of
threatened or endangered species?

13.  Spatial Distribution of Benthos:  Would placement of material in
this candidate site change the benthic invertebrate community structure
(e.g., fine-gain species to coarse-grain species, etc)?

14.  Marine Mammals:  Would placement of material in this candidate site
affect marine mammals or their habitat (e.g., gray whale feeding areas
etc)?

15.  Mineral Deposits:  Would any known mineral deposits be affected by
the placement of material?

16.  Navigation Hazard:  Would the placement of material create a
navigation hazard?

17.  Other Uses of Ocean:  Would placement of material impact other uses
of the ocean not addressed elsewhere, such as cables, pipelines, tow
boat lanes, and pilot transfer points?

18.  Degraded Areas:  Would disposal in this candidate site continue to
affect or improve the degraded area?

19.  Water Column Chemical/Physical Characteristics:  Would placement of
material in this candidate site affect water column chemical/physical
characteristics?

20.  Recreational Uses:  Would placement of material affect recreational
uses?

21.  Cultural/Historic Sites:  Would placement of material in this
candidate site impact or protect a cultural/historic site?

22.  Physical Oceanography, Waves/Circulation:  Would placement of
material affect wave/circulation patterns?

23.  Direction of Transport/Potential for Settlement:  Would placement
of material affect direction of sediment transport and/or potential for
settlement?

24.  Monitoring:  Would use of this candidate site affect either
on-going monitoring or the ability to monitor using conventional
methods?  Monitoring typically would include periodic hydrographic
surveys and could include sediment sampling or biological data
collection.

25.  Shape/Size of Candidate Site:  Is the candidate site suitable for
the operation of a dredge?

Maneuverability of the dredge?

Is it orientated so the dredge can place material while heading into the
waves?

Is the depth of water sufficient to open the hopper doors/dump scow?

Can the dredge operate safely?

Is the size of the candidate site large enough for long-term use?

26.  Size of Buffer Zone:  Is the candidates site a sufficient distance
from important resources or features to protect them from any affect of
disposal?

27.  Potential for Cumulative Effects:  Would placement of material
contribute to cumulative affects from other activities?

Conflict Matrix Tables Legend (continued)

2/  Definition of Degrees of Conflict

Conflict:  There will definitely be an adverse impact on the resource or
the use.

Potential Conflict:  There is a possibility of an adverse impact;
however, extent and significance are unknown.

No Conflict:  There will definitely not be an adverse impact on the
resource or the use.

Beneficial Use:  There will be a positive impact on the resource or the
use.

3/  Eleven Specific Factors for Ocean Disposal Site Selection

1.  Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography, and
distance from coast.

2.  Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or
passage areas of living resources in adult or juvenile phases.

3.  Location in relation to beaches or other amenity areas.

4.  Types and quantities of waste proposed to be disposed and proposed
methods of release, including methods of packaging the waste, if any.

5.  Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.

6.  Dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing characteristics
of the area, including prevailing current 1 velocity, if any.

7.  Existence and effects of present or previous discharges and dumping
in the area (including cumulative effects).

8.  Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral extraction,
desalination, shellfish culture, areas of special scientific importance
and other legitimate uses of the ocean.

9.  Existing water quality and ecology of the site, as determined by
available data or by trend assessment or baseline surveys.

10.  Potential for the development or recruitment of nuisance species
within the disposal site.

11.  Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any significant
natural or cultural features of historical importance.

4/  Five General Criteria for the Selection of Ocean Disposal Sites

a.  The dumping of material into the ocean will be permitted only at
sites or in areas selected to minimize the interference of disposal
activities with other activities in the marine environment, particularly
avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shell fisheries, and regions of
heavy commercial or recreational navigation.

b.  Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be chosen so that
temporary perturbations in water quality or other environmental
conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal operations anywhere
within the site can be expected to be reduced to normal ambient seawater
levels or to undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before
reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically
limited fishery or shell fishery.

c.  If at any time during or after disposal site evaluation studies, it
is determined that existing disposal sites presently approved on an
interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet criteria for site selection
set forth in Sections 228.5 – 228.6, the use of such sites will be
terminated as soon as suitable alternative disposal sites can be
designated.  [Note:  This criterion was eliminated after the draft EA
was made available to the public by EPA’s final rule published at 73
FR 74983 (December 10, 2008).]

d.  The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize, for identification and control, any single immediate adverse
impact and to permit the implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance programs to prevent adverse, long-range impacts.  The size,
configuration, and location of any disposal site will be determined as a
part of the disposal site evaluation or designation study.

e.  EPA will, whenever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites beyond
the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites that have been
historically used.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  3 .  Overlay Evaluation of Individual
Resources of Limited Distribution

observable conflicts between the two uses.  Appendix A discusses all
potential conflicts in the ZSF with living resources; it leads to the
conclusion that there have been no major conflicts in the past, and no
predictable conflicts are expected in the future.

Minimizes Changes in Water Quality (b).  The second of the five general
criteria requires changes to ambient seawater quality levels occurring
outside the disposal site to be within water quality criteria, and that
no detectable contaminants reach beaches, shoreline, sanctuaries, or
geographically limited fisheries or shellfisheries.  The primary impact
of disposal activities on water quality is expected to be the temporary
turbidity caused by the physical movement of sediment through the water
column.  Based on modeling completed by the Corps and detailed in
Appendix B, water column turbidity would be expected to dissipate within
a few minutes for 97% of the dredged material disposed (sandier
material), and within a half hour for finer grained sediments, which
comprise about 3% of dredged material.  

Based on an analysis of the sediment quality at both the proposed Umpqua
River ODMD sites and within the Umpqua River Corps Navigation project
detailed in Appendix C, no significant contaminant or suspended solids
releases are expected.  There would be no water quality perturbations to
be concerned with moving toward any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary,
or known geographically limited fishery or shell fishery.  Bottom
movement of deposited material generally shows a net movement to the
north, at the depth of the disposal site, but material appears to be
quickly dispersed.

Interim Sites Which Do Not Meet Criteria (c).  There are no interim
disposal sites near the final Umpqua River sites.  EPA’s final rule
published at 73 FR 74983 (December 10, 2008), after the draft EA was
made available to the public, repealed obsolete regulations under the
MPRSA regarding interim ocean dumping sites and interim ocean dumping
criteria.  

The historically used sites do not meet the criteria due to mounding and
associated impacts to navigational safety.  The data, which are more
fully discussed below, show that the proposed North and South Umpqua
River sites are environmentally acceptable for the types and quantities
of dredged material they will receive and suitable for use as designated
ODMD sites subject to site management pursuant to the SMMP.

Size of Sites (d).  The fourth general criterion requires that the size,
configuration, and location of the site(s) be evaluated as part of the
study and that the size be limited.  A detailed discussion of this
criterion as it relates to the two proposed sites is located in Appendix
B.  Ocean disposal sites are sized to localize, for identification and
control, any immediate adverse impact and permit the implementation of
effective monitoring and surveillance programs to prevent long-range
impacts.  The lineal dimensions, boundary coordinates, and water depth
variation for the proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites are:  lineal
dimension of approximately 6,300 feet x 4,000 feet; axis azimuth is
270(; average depth is 75 feet; and 1998 elevation variation is -30 feet
to -120 feet MLLW.  The sites are of appropriate size to handle the
volumes of material to be received annually over a minimum 20-year life
cycle.  Annual bathymetric surveys of the proposed ODMD sites will be
conducted in accordance with the SMMP.  The results will be used to
document the fate of the dredged material and provide information for
future management.

Sites Off the Continental Shelf (e).  At the Umpqua River, potential
disposal areas located off the continental shelf would be at least 15
nautical miles offshore in water depths of 600 feet or greater.  Benthic
and pelagic ecosystems near the shelf contain important fishery
resources and the effects of disposal operations are not well
understood.  Fine-grain sediment and rocky habitats would be directly
impacted by disposal operations.  These deep-water areas are stable and
generally not disturbed by wave action or sediment movement. 
Consequently, these areas have benthic invertebrate communities that are
adapted to very stable conditions and may not be able to survive
disturbance from disposal operations.  Little is known of the ecology of
benthic communities on the continental slope, and disposal in this area
could cause impacts of unknown severity and duration.  Bottom gradients
can be 5% to 25% on the continental slope, making accumulated
unconsolidated sediments susceptible to slumping.  Deposited sediments
could be transported long distances down slope as turbidity currents,
and offshore, by near-bottom currents, making any long term monitoring
and management challenging.

Disposal would also remove sediments from the nearshore littoral
transport system, a system that functions with largely non-renewable
quantities of sand in Oregon.  Additional disruption in the mass balance
of this system could contribute to the alteration of erosion/accretion
patterns impacting beaches, spits, wetlands, and other shoreline
habitats. 

In addition, the haul distance to a site beyond the shelf is much
greater than the 3.15 nm limit of the Umpqua River ZSF, making the site
economically and logistically infeasible for the Corps navigation
project, which is the primary expected user of the site.  The additional
cost/time associated with the increased haul distance, monitoring
difficulties, and environmental concerns regarding disposal in such
areas makes off-shelf disposal undesirable.

Application of Eleven Specific Factors (40 CFR 228.6)

Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography, and Distance
from the Coast (1).  The proposed North Umpqua ODMD Site is
approximately 4,000 feet northwest of the entrance to the Umpqua River
and the proposed South Umpqua ODMD Site is approximately 4,000 feet
southwest from the entrance to the Umpqua River (see Figure 1). 
Appendix B contains a detailed discussion of the bottom topography of
the proposed sites.  The two designated sites would be used for disposal
of dredged material from the Umpqua River navigation project and other
permitted projects.  The lineal dimensions, boundary coordinates, and
water depth variation for the proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites are: 
lineal dimension of each site is approximately 6,300 feet x 4,000 feet;
axis azimuth is 270(; average depth is 75 feet; and 1998 elevation
variation is -30 feet to -120 feet MLLW.  The corner coordinates (NAD
83) of the proposed sites are:

Proposed North Site 				Proposed South Site

43° 41’ 23.09”N 124° 14’ 20.28”W		43° 39’ 32.31”N 124°
14’ 35.60”W

43° 41’ 25.86”N 124° 12’ 54.61”W		43° 39’ 35.23”N 124°
13’ 11.01”W

43° 40’ 43.62”N 124° 14’ 17.85”W		43° 38’ 53.08”N 124°
14’ 32.94”W

43° 40’ 46.37”N 124° 12’ 52.74”W		43° 38’ 55.82”N 124°
13’ 08.36”W

Based upon consideration of the location, depth of water, bottom
topography, and distance from the coast, the proposed Umpqua River ODMD
sites are expected to be suitable for the disposal of dredged material
when the material is placed in accordance with the SMMP.

Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or Passage
Areas of Living Resources in Adult or Juvenile Phases (2).  Aquatic
resources of the oceanic region off the mouth of the Umpqua River are
described in detail in Appendix A.  In addition, EPA has evaluated
possible impacts to species and critical habitat listed under the
Endangered Species Act in the Umpqua River, Oregon: Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation Biological Assessment (BA), dated
June 5, 2008.  The proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites are located in the
nearshore area and many nearshore pelagic organisms are found in the
water column over the sites.  These include zooplankton (copepods,
euphausiids, pteropods, and chaetognaths) and meroplankton (fish, crab,
and other invertebrate larvae).  These organisms generally display
seasonal changes in abundance.  Since they are present in the oceanic
region off of most of the Pacific Coast, those populations directly off
the Umpqua River are small compared to the overall coastal populations. 
Based on evidence from previous zooplankton and larval fish studies, it
appears that there will be no impacts to organisms in the water column
(Sullivan and Hancock 1977).

Benthic samples are discussed in detail in Appendix A.  Based on the
analysis of benthic samples collected from the area of the proposed
Umpqua River ODMD sites, the sites contain benthic fauna common to
nearshore, sandy, wave-influenced regions that exist along much of the
Pacific Coast in Oregon and Washington.

Sediment in and near the proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites consists of
well-sorted, fine sands typical of Pacific Northwest coastal areas
(Appendix C).  The infaunal community of the Umpqua River study area is
dominated by gammarid amphipods and polychaete worms.  The benthos in
the area is typical of the communities found near other ocean disposal
sites along the Oregon Coast, such as Coos Bay areas E and F, the
Siuslaw River, and the Chetco River (Hancock et al., 1981; Corps 1985,
1988a, 1988b, 1990, 1999).  This benthic community, largely dominated by
very mobile organisms, provides an important link in the marine food
web.  These organisms serve as a direct food source for other benthic
organisms and demersal fishes.  They also play an active role in the
breakdown of organic debris and the tube-building species help stabilize
the marine sediments.  Many of the benthic species in the area are able
to survive in this dynamic environment since they are either very mobile
or are able to react both to natural or human perturbations.  They can
readily recolonize in disturbed areas.

The area off the mouth of the Umpqua River also supports a variety of
pelagic and demersal fish species, as well as shellfish, including
Dungeness crab (Cancer magister).  Many of these species have a
reproductive strategy which includes releasing a large quantity of eggs
so that some individuals will survive the substantial mortality common
to the species during the larval and juvenile stages.  Crabs in
particular release large number of eggs into the water column.  The
larvae that hatch from the eggs are planktonic for several months before
settling to the bottom of the estuary and in the nearshore ocean as
young crab.  During this time, they are subjected to a variety of
environmental factors that affect their survival and have a direct
affect on population numbers of adults.

The nearshore area off the Umpqua River supports anadromous salmonids
including coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), summer and winter
steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and spring and fall Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), as well as a variety of other pelagic and
demersal fish species.  Common pelagic species include northern anchovy
(Engraulis mordax) and smelts.  Demersal species present in the inshore
area are mostly residents and include sculpins and flatfish species
occurring predominantly over open sandflats.  Common flatfish species
include English sole (Parophrys vetulus), sand sole (Psettichthys
melanostictus), and sanddab (Citharichthys sp.).  English sole and sand
sole spawn in the inshore coastal area in the summer and juveniles of
these, as well as other marine species, may rear in the estuary.

Three species of seals and sea lions inhabit the lower Umpqua River and
coastal area.  Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus), a federally
threatened species, and harbor seals (Pusa vitulina) are year-long
residents, while California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) are
present most of the year.  Steller sea lions forage at river mouths and
nearshore areas along the Oregon Coast.  Harbor seals breed in the
estuary and on nearshore rocks.  The Umpqua River nearshore area and
shoreline provides important habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, herons,
bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), hawks, and many other species of
birds.  Pelagic birds (e.g., murres, auklets, cormorants) likely use the
area for foraging.

Federally listed avian species that may be present in the Umpqua River
offshore area include the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus,
threatened), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis, endangered),
short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus, endangered).  Marbled
murrelets are observed in small flocks or as individuals in the ocean
throughout the year. On October 2, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service announced that it will conduct a 12-month status review in
response to a petition to delist the California/Oregon/Washington
population of the marbled murrelet (73 Federal Register 57314).  Brown
pelicans are seasonally abundant (June to September) along the Oregon
Coast and in the lower reaches of various estuaries, including the
Umpqua River.  On February 20, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
proposed to remove the brown pelican from the federal list of endangered
and threatened wildlife due to recovery (73 Federal Register 9407).  The
short-tailed albatross may forage in open ocean areas off the Oregon
Coast.

There are many whale species and sea turtles in Oregon’s offshore
coastal area that are listed under the Endangered Species Act.  The blue
whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), sei
whale (Balaenoptera borealis), sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus),
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and southern resident killer
whale (Orcinus orca) are all federally endangered species and occur as
migrants off the Oregon Coast in waters typically farther from shore
than within the proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites.  Observations of the
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta, threatened), green sea turtle
(Chelonia mydas, threatened), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys
coriacea, endangered), and olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys
olivacea, threatened) have been recorded from strandings along the
Oregon and Washington coasts.  The occurrence of sea turtles off the
Oregon Coast is associated with the appearance of albacore.  Albacore
occurrence is strongly associated with the warm waters of the Japanese
Current.  Because these warm waters generally occur 30 to 60 or more
miles offshore from the Oregon Coast, these sea turtle species do not
typically occur in the nearshore area.

In general, the locations of the proposed ODMD sites do not provide
unique breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage habitat.  It is
unlikely that any of the larger organisms (fish, marine mammals,
turtles, etc.) would experience physiological effects as a consequence
of disposal because the resulting turbidity plume and physical
disturbance to the water column would likely cause them to avoid the
area.  Based on modeling completed by the Corps and detailed in Appendix
B, water column turbidity would be expected to dissipate within a few
minutes to half hour.  Any avoidance behavior would be limited to the
duration of this physical disturbance.  Indirect impacts could occur if
disposal operations changed the value of the habitat by burying the
existing benthic community where dredged material is deposited.  The
benthic community would be expected to re-colonize within a period of a
few weeks to months after disposal, limiting any effects to forage fish
(Corps, 1993).  Lastly, evaluation of past disposal activities has not
indicated that any long-term adverse impacts to living resources have
occurred.  Therefore, EPA concluded in the BA that site designation was
not likely to adversely affect any listed species or critical habitat.  

Location in Relation to Beaches and other Amenity Areas (3).  The
proposed North ODMD Site would be located 3,100 feet from the north
jetty and 3,000 feet from the nearest beach.  The proposed South ODMD
Site would be located 2,400 feet from the south jetty and 2,100 feet
from the nearest beach.  There are no rocks or pinnacles in the vicinity
of either site.  The Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, a part of
the Siuslaw National Forest, is located on the beach adjacent to the
proposed South ODMD Site, but does not extend into the water.  The dunes
in the Recreation Area are used for off-highway vehicle use, hiking,
photography, fishing, canoeing, horseback riding and camping.  The U.S.
Forest Services confirmed that the proposed designation of the Umpqua
River ODMD sites would not expected to have any impact on the
recreational uses of the adjacent upland areas within the Recreation
Area.

It is possible that some of the wave-dependent near shore recreational
uses near the south jetty may overlap with the proposed Umpqua River
ODMD Sites, resulting in temporary usage conflict during disposal
activities.  The proposed Umpqua River ODMD Sites were sized and located
in order to provide long-term capacity without causing any impacts to
the wave environment and the site monitoring and adaptive management
outlined in the SMMP would address any possible future mounding. 
Therefore, the use of the proposed Umpqua River ODMD Sites is not
expected to change the wave conditions for any of those recreational
uses.

Types and Quantity of Wastes Proposed to be Disposed of, and Proposed
Methods of Release, including Methods of Packing the Waste, if any (4). 
Dredged material subject to the MPRSA is not a waste.  The sites that
are designated will receive dredged materials transported by either
government or private contractor hopper dredges or dump barges.  Current
hopper dredges or dump barges available for use have hopper capacities
ranging from 800 to 6,000 cy.  This would be the likely volume range of
dredged material deposited in any one dredging placement cycle.  The
estimated volume to be removed annually from the Umpqua River federal
navigation project could be placed at the sites in one dredging season
by any combination of private and government dredges.  The dredges or
barges would be under power and moving during disposal.

The majority of the dredged material disposed in the ocean traditionally
comes from shoals in the Umpqua River entrance channel.  These shoals
consist primarily of marine sand transported into the entrance.  The
material contains no contaminants of concern in excess levels, is far
removed from known sources of contaminants, and has been characterized
under the Northwest Regional Sediment Evaluation Framework (SEF) as
suitable for unconfined open-water disposal.  Material proposed to be
dredged from the boat basin access channel is finer but has been
evaluated and found acceptable for unconfined open-water disposal. 
Material dredged from the boat basin access channels will be placed in
either the proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites or at an in-bay site on the
north side of the channel at approximately RM 1.  The proposed Umpqua
River ODMD sites have been sized to accommodate the quantity of material
to be placed.

Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring (5).  Monitoring and
surveillance are both feasible within the ZSF and are included as
requirements in the SMMP for these proposed sites, a draft of which is
included in Appendix F.  At a minimum, annual bathymetric surveys will
be conducted in areas that receive dredged material.  More frequent
surveys will be conducted when necessary to ensure unacceptable mounding
is not occurring that could pose a threat to navigation safety.  If
actual field monitoring of the disposal activities is required because
of a future concern for habitat changes or limited resources, several
research groups are available in the area to perform any required work. 
The proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites are readily accessible.  Most
surveillance and monitoring work can be performed from small, surface
research vessels at a reasonable cost or from the disposal vessel.

Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing Characteristics of
the Area Including Prevailing Current Direction and Velocity, if Any
(6).  Appendix B provides a detailed discussion regarding this
criterion.  The material dredged from the Umpqua River navigation
channel is predominantly marine sands and fluvial gravels.  Although the
Umpqua River delivers a large sediment load, the bottom contours suggest
a rapid distribution away from the river mouth.  The beaches seem to be
in equilibrium, suggesting that littoral transport is in balance.  From
bottom current records, there appears to be a bias in transport to the
north.  During the spring-fall seasons and during La Nina years, the
direction of littoral drift may have no net direction or may be towards
the south.  The constantly varying river outflow combines with tidal
flows to produce a highly variable influence on the nearshore
circulation.

Sediment movement in the littoral zone consists of two mechanisms
depending upon the size of the sediment.  Anything finer than sand-sized
material remains in suspension in the water and is transported offshore
relatively quickly.  The almost total lack of silts and clays near the
mouth of the Umpqua River attests to the efficiency of this mechanism. 
Sediments sand sized or coarser may occasionally be suspended by wave
action near the bottom of the seafloor and moved by bottom currents or
moved directly as bedload.  Tidal, wind and wave forces contribute to
generating bottom currents which act in relation to the sediment grain
size and water depth to produce sediment transport.

Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and Dumping in
the Area including Cumulative Effects (7).  The two new ODMD sites are
being proposed for the Umpqua River because of mounding problems
associated with disposal at the previous Interim and 103-selected ocean
disposal sites.  Since there is a potential for coarser sediments to be
deposited on finer sediments at the proposed disposal sites, there is a
potential for mounding to occur.  The proposed ocean disposal sites have
been located and sized to minimize mounding.  Periodic monitoring as
outlined in the SMMP will evaluate potential mounding.  A uniform
disposal strategy as outlined in the SMMP will also be implemented to
minimize mounding.

Interference with Shipping, Fishing, Recreation, Mining Extraction,
Desalination, Fish and Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special Scientific
Importance, and Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean (8).

	Commercial and Recreational Fishing.  Two existing commercial fisheries
occur in the inshore area:  salmon trawling and Dungeness crab fishing
(see Appendix A).  The length of the salmon fishing season varies each
year depending upon the established quota; however, it normally extends
from July to September.  During this period, the potential exists for
conflicts between the dredge and fishing boats.  The Coast Guard and the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) indicate that they are not
aware of any instance where this has been a problem.  

Based on data from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, 2006)
for commercial fishing, in 2000 there were 57 vessels that delivered
landings to Winchester Bay (there were no landings in Reedsport) in the
following West Coast fisheries: coastal pelagic, crab, groundfish,
highly migratory species, salmon, shellfish, shrimp, and other species. 
Recreational fishing occurs in the same areas as the commercial fishery
but generally closer to shore.  The top species landed in the
recreational catch were Chinook salmon, coho salmon, yellowtail rockfish
(Sebastes flavidus), lingcod, canary rockfish (S. pinniger), yelloweye
rockfish (S. ruberrimus), greenstriped rockfish (S. elongatus), and
quillback rockfish (S. maliger).  On May 1, 2008, U.S. Secretary of
Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez declared a commercial fishery failure for
the West Coast salmon fishery because of historically low salmon
returns and accordingly, NMFS closed the 2008 salmon fishery in Oregon
south of Cape Falcon.  The primary concern prompting the declaration was
the decline in the Sacramento Chinook population.  

Recreational salmon fishing is done by charter and private boats and
occurs in the same areas as the commercial fishing, but generally closer
to shore.  Bottom fishing is done along the reef areas to the northwest
by private charter boat.  Recreational fishing boats have a potential
for conflicting with dredging operations; however, no conflicts have
been reported to date.  It is unlikely that any significant conflict
will develop in the near future.

The Dungeness crab season is from December 1 to August 15; however, most
of the fishing is done prior to June and usually ends early because of
the increase in unmarketable soft shell crabs in the catch.  As a
result, most crab fishing is done outside of the normal dredging season
and it is unlikely that a conflict would result.  There are no
commercial fish or shellfish aquaculture operations that would currently
be impacted by use of the proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites.  

	Mineral Extraction.  There are no known metallic mineral deposits
within the Umpqua ZSF.  No exploratory oil/gas wells have been drilled
offshore near the mouth of the Umpqua River and no development is
expected in the future.

	Desalination.  There are no desalination plants in the area of the
Umpqua River.

	Wave Energy.  With the increased interest in alternative energy
sources, various wave energy projects have been proposed off the coast
of Oregon.  The Oregon State Governor, in a November 2007 news release
to the Oregon Fishing Industry, stated that he was asking the Federal
Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) to limit the permitting of wave
energy to five to seven locations.  Wave energy projects at those
locations will involve numerous generating buoys moored offshore with
transmission lines running to shore distribution facilities.  One wave
energy project, referred to as the Reedsport Wave Energy Project is
proposed for installation approximately 5 miles north of the Umpqua
River, which is north of the proposed North Umpqua River ODMD Site and
use of the North site would not be expected to interfere with the
project.  Another project, the Douglas County Wave and Tidal Energy
Project, would be located both in the ocean waters near the proposed
North Umpqua ODMD site and on the South jetty structure at the mouth of
the Umpqua River, just north of the proposed South Umpqua River ODMD
Site.  Final dimensions and configuration for the Douglas County project
are not yet known, therefore, it is unknown whether usage conflicts with
the proposed North or South Umpqua River ODMD Sites will result. 
Project proponents for both of these wave energy projects have received
a preliminary permit and filed a notice of intent to file a license
application with FERC.  

	Fish and Shellfish Culture.  There are no fish or shellfish culture
operations in the area of the proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites.  Oysters
are raised within the embayment of the south jetty.

	Shipping and Other Legitimate Uses.  No conflicts with commercial
navigation traffic have been recorded in the long history of hopper
dredging activity.  The likely reason for this is the light commercial
traffic in the Umpqua River channel.

	Marine Reserves.  The State of Oregon has initiated efforts to
establish a network of state marine reserves as part of an overall
strategy to manage its marine waters and submerged lands.  The overall
purpose would be to protect, sustain, or restore the nearshore marine
ecosystem, its habitats, and species.  A marine reserve is an area
within Oregon’s state territorial sea or adjacent intertidal area that
is protected from all extractive activities including the removal or
disturbance of living and non-living marine resources.  Marine reserves
are intended to provide lasting protection.  Dredging and disposal are
identified as disturbances and would be banned from areas designated as
marine reserves.  In November 2008, Oregon’s Ocean Policy Advisory
Council (OPAC) recommended to Governor Ted Kulongoski that two sites,
Otter Rock near Depoe Bay, and Redfish Rocks near Port Orford, move
forward as pilot marine reserves and identified three areas, Cape
Falcon, Cascade Head, and Cape Perpetua, as deserving of further study
and evaluation as sites for potential marine reserves.  None of the
sites identified by the OPAC are in or near the proposed ODMD sites.  

	Special Scientific Importance.  There are no known transects or other
scientific study locations that would be impacted by disposal at the
proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites.

General Discussion of Other Uses.  There has not been a demonstrated
conflict with any of the above listed uses at either of the historically
used Umpqua disposal sites and no usage conflicts are expected at the
two proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites.  There is a low potential for
future conflicts given that the area of the proposed sites has no unique
value, is relatively small, and presents few potential conflicts with
other uses in the vicinity.  Since dredged material disposal sites in
the vicinity have been in use for over 30 years, EPA’s designation of
the two proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites would not be expected to result
in any change to the existing uses of the area, by any individuals or
groups, or any associated economic benefit of those uses.

The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Site as Determined by
Available Data or by Trend Assessment or Baseline Survey (9).  Water and
sediment quality analyses conducted in the study area and experience
with past disposals in this region have not identified any adverse water
quality impacts from ocean disposal of dredged material.  The ecology of
the offshore area, based mainly on fisheries and benthic data, is that
of a mobile sand community.  .  Neither the pelagic or benthic
communities should sustain any long-term impacts due to their mobility
and widespread occurrence off the Oregon Coast.

Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance Species in
the Disposal Site (10).  Nuisance species are any undesirable
organism(s) not previously found at a disposal site.  They are
transported to, or recruited to, a site because the disposal of dredged
materials creates an environment where they can establish.  Materials to
be dredged and transported to the proposed North and South Umpqua River
ODMD sites historically have been classified as uncontaminated marine
sands similar to the sediment present at the sites.  Potential material
dredged from the boat basin access channels may include fine-grained
material.  Limited quantities of fine-grained material from the boat
basin access channels have been placed in the ocean.  Any material
proposed for ocean disposal would be subject to sediment quality
evaluation.  Therefore, it is highly unlikely that nuisance species
could be established at the disposal site since habitat or contaminant
levels are unlikely to change over the long-term.

Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of any Significant
Natural or Cultural Features of Historical Importance (11).  The
cultural resources of the Umpqua River study area is described in detail
in Appendix D.  The cultural resource that has the greatest potential
for impact by use of the proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites is shipwrecks.
 Potential shipwreck areas are evaluated in Appendix D.  Historical
records show that there are not any shipwrecks within the area of the
proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites.

SUMMARY OF COORDINATION UNDER OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTES

Federal Action 

The proposed federal action consists of designation of two ODMD sites at
the mouth of the Umpqua River.  Site designation does not create or
confer rights on any person to use a designated site upon the effective
date of site designation.  Persons or entities who seek to use a site
must first obtain a federal permit, or in the case of the Corps, meet
the substantive permit requirements, in order to actually use a
designated ocean dredged material disposal site.  This process would
include meeting the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations.
EPA recognizes, however, that site designation is intended to have a
practical result.  When sites are designated, it is expected that such
sites will be used by persons or entities meeting the statutory and
regulatory criteria for ocean disposal of dredged material.  Therefore,
actual disposal is an indirect effect of site designation and is
included in the evaluation of effects under the below listed statutes.

Public Involvement

A public meeting was held on December 3, 2008 at the Port of Umpqua. 
Corps and EPA staff presented information about the proposed Umpqua
River North and South ODMD sites and the site designation process. 
Attendees included representatives of the Surfrider Foundation, the
Umpqua Port Commission, the Salmon Harbor Marina, the Port of Umpqua,
and the US Coast Guard.  All attendees were encouraged to submit formal
comments on the draft rule, which was out for public comment at the time
of the meeting.

One comment was received in response to the federal register notice
proposing the designation of the Umpqua River ODMD sites.  An
unidentified “american citizen” commented that nothing should be
dumped in the ocean, but should be dumped on land to avoid “harming
marine life.”  No project specific comments were provided.  Upland
disposal is evaluated in the alternatives analysis portion of this
document and the EPA and Corps determined that generally, upland
disposal is not feasible at the Umpqua River for economic and
environmental reasons.  No other comments were received in response to
the federal register notice.  A comment was received from the
Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw as part of
the Tribal coordination process and is detailed in that section below.

Endangered Species Act

EPA’s determination that the proposed action may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect listed species was documented in the Umpqua
River, Oregon: Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation
Biological Assessment, dated June 5, 2008.  EPA initiated consultation
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA),
16 U.S.C. Sections 1531 to 1544, based on this documentation with both
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) by letter dated June 5, 2008.  The USFWS
concurred with EPA’s determination by letter dated July 29, 2008.  The
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) did not concur on EPA’s NLAA
finding and subsequently prepared a Biological Opinion (BO), issued
March 20, 2009.  

NMFS concluded that EPA’s site designation is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of OC coho salmon or southern DPS green sturgeon
and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify OC coho salmon
designated critical habitat or proposed southern DPS green sturgeon
habitat.  However, NMFS found that the indirect effects of the Site
designation related to the exposure fish could experience from the
disposal of dredged material could have consequences for listed fish. 
Based on NMFS’ estimate of ensuing indirect effects of the Site
designation, NMFS estimated that injury and death of as many as 990
yearling OC coho salmon and an unquantified but small number of small
subadult southern DPS green sturgeon could occur annually.  For Steller
sea lions, blue whales, fin whales, humpback whales, Southern Resident
Killer whales, and SONCC coho salmon, NMFS concurred in the BO with
EPA’s determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely
affect.”  For four species of sea turtles, sperm whales, and sei
whales, NMFS found no effect because NMFS did not anticipate the species
would be present in the action area.  

NMFS acknowledged in the BO that EPA’s action, the Site designation,
does not authorize and will not itself result in disposal of dredged
material.  NMFS stated that any further analysis of the effects of
disposal of dredged material at the disposal site and issuance of an
incidental take statement with reasonable and prudent measures and
non-discretionary terms and conditions to minimize take would be
prepared when a disposal permit is requested by the action agency.  NMFS
did include one discretionary conservation recommendation in the BO
seeking a study of fish interactions with disposed material.  Such
recommendations are advisory in nature.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

EPA’s determination that the proposed action does not have the
potential to cause substantial adverse effects on Essential Fish Habitat
was documented in the Umpqua River, Oregon: Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site Designation Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, dated June
5, 2008.  EPA initiated consultation under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA) 16 U.S.C. Section 1855(b), based
on this documentation with NMFS by letter dated June 5, 2008.

NMFS found that disposal of dredge material, an indirect effect of
EPA’s action to designate the Umpqua River ODMD Sites, will not alter
the habitat value of the EFH.  NMFS also concluded that impacts to
forage base would be highly localized and any potential decrease in
forage abundance is considered insignificant to the total food resources
available to EFH management species.  Finally, NMFS concluded that the
safe passage of the EFH managed species will not be functionally changed
by EPA’s Site designation and the subsequent disposal of dredged
material.  Those findings are documented in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act section of the NMFS Biological Opinion.

NMFS included, as a “conservation recommendation,” implementation of
the measure to study fish behavior included in the ESA section of the
BO.  EPA responded to this recommendation in a separate response.

Marine Mammal Protection Act

EPA determined that the proposed action to designate the proposed Umpqua
ODMD Sites would not result in take or incidental take of any protected
marine mammal under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended
(MMPA), 16 U.S.C. Sections 1361 to 1389.  The Biological Assessment,
which evaluated the possible effects on ESA listed marine mammals
including Stellar Sea Lion and whales, was provided the NMFS Office of
Protected Resources for review on June 5, 2008. NMFS Regional Protected
Resources Division staff responded via e-mail dated January 16, 2009,
stating that Regional Offices do not provide written confirmation of
project compliance with MMPA, but when reviewing projects under ESA,
Regional Offices do recommend coordination with the NMFS Headquarters
Office of Protected Resources in cases where they see a potential for
disturbance or injury of non-listed marine mammals.  The NMFS Regional
Protected Resources Division did review EPA’s proposed site
designation under ESA and did not recommend that we contact the NMFS
Headquarters Office of Protected Resources. NMFS found that all
potential adverse effects to ESA-listed marine mammals are discountable
or insignificant.  Those findings are documented in Appendix A. Marine
Mammal Determinations of the Biological Opinion issued by NMFS on March
20, 2009. Based on the review and this response provided by NMFS
Regional Protected Resources Division, EPA has concluded that the
requirements of the MMPA have been met.

Coastal Zone Management Act

EPA made a consistency determination pursuant to the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. Sections 1451 to 1465, and provided
that determination to Oregon’s Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) by letter dated November 12, 2008.  DLCD responded on
January 16, 2009, providing a conditional concurrence with EPA’s
certification of consistency to the maximum extent practicable with the
enforceable policies of the state's approved CZM program.  DLCD’s
concurrence sought assurance in the SMMP that monitoring measures for
the Rogue River Site would be reasonably likely to identify significant
unanticipated adverse effects on renewable marine resources, biological
diversity of marine life and the functional integrity of the marine
ecosystem at the Site.  In addition, DLCD sought inclusion in the SMMP
of adaptive management measures to avoid significant impairment of the
Site and significant decreases in abundance of commercial or
recreational caught species from direct or indirect effects on important
or essential habitat at the Site.

National Historic Preservation Act

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), 16 U.S.C.
Sections 470 to 470a-2, which requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effect of their actions on districts, sites, buildings,
structures, or objects, included in, or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register.  EPA determined that no historic properties would be
affected the proposed undertaking, the designation of the proposed
Umpqua River ODMD sites.  EPA provided that determination and supporting
evaluation to the State Historic Preservation Officer in the Oregon
Parks and Recreation Department by letter dated August 28, 2008.  The
Tribal Governments listed in the section below were copied on the letter
as consulting parties.  The SHPO responded via letter dated September 8,
2008, stating “while not having sufficient knowledge to predict the
likelihood of cultural resources being within your project area, extreme
caution is recommended during future ground disturbing activities.”  A
follow-up e-mail with the State Archaeologist, Dennis Griffin, dated
October 13, 2008, confirmed that the project could move forward without
any further archaeological investigations.

Tribal Coordination

Coordination letters, dated August 28, 2008, were sent to the Coquille
Indian Tribe, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians, the Confederated
Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes
of the Siletz, and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and
Siuslaw.  Tribal comments were also solicited during the NHPA process.
The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw replied
by letter dated September 12, 2008, stating that there are no known
cultural resource sites in the area and that the Confederated Tribes had
no objections to the proposed project.  However, the letter went on to
request that the Tribes be contacted immediately if any known or
suspected cultural resources are encountered during the project.  No
further comments were received from any Tribe.

SELECTION OF OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES FOR FORMAL DESIGNATION

Based upon the evaluation of the criteria contained in 40 CFR Part 228,
the Corps and EPA have determined that the North and South Umpqua River
ODMD sites are suitable for designation.  The designation of the ODMD
sites  by EPA will be finalized through formal rulemaking adopting this
Environmental Assessment/MPRSA Criteria Evaluation and the appendices to
support this action.

LITERATURE CITED

Abney, R.  August 2006.  Umpqua Federal Channel, Winchester Bay and
Gardiner Channel Sediment Quality Evaluation Report.  U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland District.

Auth, T.D. and R.D. Brodeur.  2006.  Distribution and community
structure of ichthyoplankton off the coast of Oregon, USA, in 2000 and
2002.  Marine Ecology Progress Series 319:199-213.

Auth, T.D., R.D. Brodeur, and K.M. Fisher.  2007.  Diel variation in
vertical distribution of an offshore ichthyoplankton community off the
Oregon Coast.  Fish Bulletin 105:313-326.

Boone, C.G., M.A. Granat, and M.P. Farrell.  1978.  Aquatic Disposal
Field Investigations, Columbia River Disposal Site, Oregon.  Evaluative
Summary.  Technical Report D-77-30, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS.

Brodeur, R.D., D.M. Gadomski, W.G. Pearcy, H.P. Batchelder, and C.B.
Miller.  1985.  Abundance and distribution of ichthyoplankton in the
upwelling zone off Oregon during anomalous El Niño conditions. 
Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 21:365-378.

Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).  1985.  Yaquina Bay Interim Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site Evaluation Study.  Portland District,
Portland OR.

Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).  1988a.  Chetco Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Evaluation, Final Report.  Portland District,
Portland OR.

Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).  1988b.  Rogue Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Evaluation, Final Report.  Portland District,
Portland OR.

Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).  1989.  Umpqua Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Evaluation, Final Report.  Portland District,
Portland OR.

Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).  1990.  Yaquina Bay Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Benthic Infauna Evaluation.  Portland District,
Portland OR.

Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).  1993.  Tongue Point Monitoring
Program 1989-1992 Final Report.  Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland District, Portland OR and National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.

Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).  1999.  Yaquina Bay Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Benthic Infauna Evaluation.  A comparative study
1984-1999.  Portland District, Portland OR.

DMEF (Dredge Material Evaluation Framework).  1998.  Dredge Material
Evaluation Framework for the Lower Columbia River Management Area. 
Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District and Seattle
District; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10; Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality; Washington State Department of
Natural Resources and Department of Ecology.

Durkin, J.T. and S.J. Lipovsky.  1977.  Aquatic Disposal Field
Investigations, Columbia River Disposal Site, Oregon.  Appendix E:
Demersal Fish and Decapod Shellfish Studies.  Technical Report D-77-30,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS.

Emmett, R.L., T.C. Coley, G.T. McCabe, Jr., and R.J. McConnell.  1987. 
Demersal Fishes and Benthic Invertebrates at Four Interim Dredge
Disposal Sites off the Oregon Coast.  Final Report to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Portland District, by the Northwest Fisheries
Science Center, Seattle WA.

EPA and Corps (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers).  1984.  General Approach to Designation Studies for Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Sites.  Washington D.C.

Fuhrer, G.J. and F.A. Rinella.  1982.  Analysis of Elutriates, Native
Water, and Bottom Material in Selected Rivers and Estuaries in Western
Oregon and Washington.  U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 82-922.

Hancock, D.R., P.O. Nelson, C.K. Sollitt, and K.J. Williamson.  1981. 
Coos Bay Offshore Disposal Site Investigation Interim Report, Phase I,
February 1979-March 1980.  Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Portland District.  Oregon State University, Corvallis OR.

Hinton, S.A., R.L. Emmett, and G.T. McCabe Jr.  1992.  Benthic
Invertebrates, Demersal Fishes, and Sediment Characteristics At and
Adjacent to Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site F, Offshore from the
Columbia River, June 1989 and 1990.  National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northwest Fisheries Center, Seattle WA.

Hinton, S.A. and R.L. Emmett.  1994.  Benthic Infauna, Sediment, and
Fish Offshore from the Columbia River, July 1992.  National Marine
Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Center, Seattle WA.

Hinton, S.A. and R.L. Emmett.  1996.  Benthic Infauna and Sediment
Characteristics Offshore from the Columbia River, August 1994.  National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Center, Seattle WA.

Keister, J.E. and W.T. Peterson.  2003.  Zonal and seasonal variations
in zooplankton community structure off the central Oregon Coast,
1998-2000.  Progress in Oceanography 57:341-361.

Kulm, L.D., 1977.  Coastal morphology and geology of the ocean bottom
–the Oregon region, (in) Draus, (ed.) Marine Plant Biomass of the
Pacific Northwest Coast, pp 9-36.

Marine Taxonomic Services, Ltd.  January 2008.  Benthic Infauna and
Demersal Fish Evaluation, Umpqua River Dredged Material Disposal Site. 
Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service).  2006.  Draft Community
Profiles for West Coast and North Pacific Fisheries - Washington,
Oregon, California, and other U.S. States.  Socioeconomics Program,
Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Economics and Social Sciences
Research Program, Alaska Fisheries Science Center.  Available at
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/sd/communityprofiles/index.
cfm.

Pearson, W.H., M.C. Miller, G.D. Williams, N.P. Kohn, and J.R. Skalski. 
February 2006.  Preliminary Assessment of Potential Impacts to Dungeness
Crabs from Disposal of Dredged Materials from the Columbia River.  PNNL
Report 15477 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Richland WA.

Peterson, W.T. and Miller, C.B.  1977.  Seasonal cycle of zooplankton
abundance and species composition along the central Oregon Coast. 
Fishery Bulletin 75:717–724.

Richardson, S.L.  1973.  Abundance and distribution of larval fishes in
waters off Oregon, May-October 1969, with special emphasis on the
northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax.  Fishery Bulletin 71:697-711.

Richardson, S.L. and W.G. Pearcy.  1977.  Coastal and oceanic larvae in
an area of upwelling off Yaquina Bay, Oregon.  Fishery Bulletin
75:125-145.

Richardson, M.D., A.G. Carey Jr., and W.A. Colgate.  1977.  Aquatic
Disposal Field Investigations, Columbia River Disposal Site, Oregon. 
Appendix C: The Effects of Dredged Material Disposal on Benthic
Assemblages.  Technical Report D-77-30, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS.

SEF (Sediment Evaluation Framework).  September 2006.  Northwest
Regional Sediment Evaluation Framework, Interim Final.  Prepared by U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Seattle, Portland, and Walla Walla Districts and
Northwestern Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10;
Washington Departments of Ecology and Natural Resources; Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality; Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality; National Marine Fisheries Service; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.

Sullivan, B. and D. Hancock.  1977.  Zooplankton and Dredging, Research
Perspectives and Critical Review.  Water Resources Bulletin B(13).

Vavrinec, J., W.H. Pearson, N.P. Kohn, J.R. Skalski, C. Lee, K.D. Hall,
B.A. Romano, M.C. Miller, and T.P. Khangaonkar.  January 2007. 
Laboratory Assessment of Potential Impacts to Dungeness Crabs from
Disposal of Dredged Material from the Columbia River.  Prepared for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, by the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, Richland WA.

 EPA’s Interim Designations were superseded by later statutory changes
to the MPRSA.  

 Upland disposal of dredged material may be necessary if the material is
characterized under the requirements of the Interim Final Northwest
Regional Sediment Evaluation Framework (SEF) and found not suitable for
open-water disposal (Corps of Engineers, 2006).

 PAGE   

Umpqua River ODMDS Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria
Evaluation	page   PAGE  ii 

Umpqua River ODMDS Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria
Evaluation	page   PAGE  48 

