Christine Valentine
Department of Land Conservation and Development
635 Capitol St. NE, Suite 150
Salem, OR 97301-2540

Re: Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency and the Integrated Feasibility Report for Channel Improvements and Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Ms. Valentine:

Northwest Environmental Advocates (NWEA) and Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC) appreciate the opportunity to provide comments during the coastal zone review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination as presented in Exhibit F, Volume I of the Final Integrated Feasibility Report for Channel Improvements and Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). We thank the Division of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for extending the deadline and allowing us time for adequate review of the FEIS.

The Corps seeks a coastal concurrence from DLCD for deepening the Columbia and Willamette channels by three feet, concurrent deepening of 6 turning basins (three in each river), and disposing of sediments from the Mouth of the Columbia River in ocean disposal sites for 50 years, based on the project description in the FEIS. However, in its Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination, the Corps does not mention the Willamette, avoids discussion of the 50 year Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) plan, and fails to adequately discuss coastal zone consistency compliance in several areas.

NWEA and NEDC find that the Corps' project as outlined in the FEIS:
· Is inconsistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Oregon Coastal Management Program;
· Ignores resource agency comments and concerns (including DLCD's) that surfaced during the DEIS comment period;
· Includes no mitigation for aquatic impacts;
· Includes no beneficial use of estuary or ocean dredged material;
· Is inconsistent with water quality standards affecting the Coastal Zone; and
· Negatively impacts the current efforts to restore threatened and endangered salmon populations in the Columbia Basin.

These conclusions lead us to believe that the project as outlined in the FEIS will have substantial negative impacts to the natural resources and economy within the Coastal Zone. We request that DLCD object to the coastal zone consistency determination as drafted by the Corps in its FEIS and delay issuing permits until these issues are resolved. Our specific concerns are outlined below.

I. The Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination is not reflective of the project as outlined in the FEIS.

The project describes the use of ocean disposal sites for the 50-year life of the project. No where in the Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination does the Corps mention and request such certification. This is a point which deserves special consideration, as coastal zone consistency would be granted for the life of the project: 50 years.

In addition, the Corps makes absolutely no mention of the Willamette portion of the project in the Consistency Determination, although the project being authorized includes both rivers in the FEIS. Its deepening would violate the Clean Water Act and statewide water quality guidelines. A DLCD approval of this document, despite the Corps' omission of such actions in the Consistency Determination, would be an approval of all actions that are included in the FEIS, including those proposed for the Willamette.

In particular, we are concerned with the Corps' assertion that: "The Corps proposes to use the ODMDS's (Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites) to dispose of sediments dredged from the federally authorized navigation project at the Mouth of the Columbia River and in the future to dispose of sediments from the other Columbia River projects. The North Jetty Site could also be used for those same dredged materials. These could include the Columbia and Lower Willamette River Federal Navigation Channel and future channel deepening projects if authorized." (Appendix H, Vol. I, p. H-21) (Emphasis added) In this statement, the Corps leaves all of its options open for sediment disposal, from any location, to any location. Therefore, DLCD could very easily approve an action for which there is no analysis or determination: the impacts that the Willamette project can have on the health of the coastal zone.

These oversights make it extremely unclear to the reviewer which actions DLCD is actually being asked to certify. The confusion is rooted in the fact that DLCD is being asked to issue a coastal concurrence on three distinct actions: 1) Deepening the Columbia and three turning basins, 2) Deepening the Willamette and three turning basins, and 3) Disposing of over 250 million cubic yards (mcy) of sediments in 15 square miles of ocean sites over the next 50 years.

II. The Corps requests coastal concurrence before sufficient documents are available for DLCD's review.

At present there is no Record of Decision selecting an alternative. Legally, then, no alternative has been selected. Which alternative is DLCD officially being asked to approve? Furthermore, the project may undergo significant changes during the Planning and Engineering phase, scheduled to begin in 2000. Will DLCD have opportunity to make any revision to its coastal zone certification decision if significant changes are made?

Moreover, the states have not issued their Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certifications. The National Marine Fisheries Service has not issued a Biological Opinion, required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, nor has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. DLCD cannot fully evaluate the impacts to the Coastal Zone from this project in the absence of these documents.

III. The Corps does not validate the scientific integrity of its conclusions.

Without the previous mentioned documents, DLCD has only the Corps' FEIS to work with while determining coastal zone consistency. The FEIS is self-contradictory, vague, and presumptuous. During public review of the Draft EIS, substantial concerns were raised about the science behind the Corps' conclusions. Study of the comments submitted by concerned reviewers reveals troubling Corps' responses: it claims to "have no legal obligation under NEPA to 'ensure the scientific integrity of [its] studies.'" Furthermore, the Corps stated that it was "entitled to rely upon [its] own experts' studies, and under no circumstances need it affirmatively defend those studies' 'scientific integrity.'" According to the Corps, even if comments "had produced some evidence that the Corps' experts lack proper qualifications or relied upon flawed scientific methods, …that evidence would not discredit or otherwise render the Corps' studies unreliable or its EIS legally inadequate."

Surely, this does not reflect positively on the Corps' overreaching conclusion that "no significant impact would result from this action." (Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination at page 1) For example, upon consulting its science advisors, the Corps concluded that Portland Harbor Sediments are clean and clear for "unconfined in-water disposal." The Corps has no grounds to assert that the deepening will not reveal any contaminated sediments in the Willamette reach, regardless of what "science" the agency relies on to make such claims. Deepening of the Willamette will impact the current overall toxic contamination of the estuary, as discussed in greater detail below.

According to a recent editorial in The Oregonian, the Corps, along with NMFS and the Bonneville Power Administration, "suggest that …the estuary below [the lower four Snake River dams] are the real killing fields. They argue that habitat …should receive the greatest emphasis in any successful recovery effort." Despite this, the Corps still plans to conduct construction dredging year-round for two years, regardless of timing windows established by federal agencies to protect our resources, particularly endangered species of fish. In comparison, the messages being sent about suitable action in the Lower Four dam situation and the channel deepening project are contrary.

IV. The FEIS does not comply with local comprehensive plans nor Oregon Statewide Planning Goals.

We concur with the specific points raised by the Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) in its draft comments submitted October 15, 1999 regarding Miller Sands and Clatsop County regulations.

The Corps has not submitted complete applications to maintain consistency with the Clatsop County Comprehensive Plan and the Oregon Coastal Program. Despite Clatsop County's Plan which includes mitigation requirements for impacts such as those that would result from this project, the Corps did not include plans to mitigate. The impacts of this project include: entrainment of aquatic organisms, in-water disposal of dredged material (predicted to raise 400 acres of the estuary floor by 20 feet), the creation of more Caspian Tern habitat, and the intent to dredge year round continuously for 2 years, regardless of timing windows established by federal agencies to avoid harming migratory fish. The only mitigation plan included in the FEIS was not mitigation, per se, but only the intent to do a study of disposal impacts. With this intent, the Corps admits that it does not understand the impacts of its existing dredging and disposal activities, let alone those that would precipitate from further channel deepening. This project should not be evaluated for consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program until those impacts are fully understood.

Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 16: Estuarine Resources - "The impacts of actions that might alter an estuarine ecosystem must be fully assessed in advance, either in the comprehensive plan or as specific actions are proposed. (Goal 16 Implementation Requirement 1, LCDC Goals at 21.) "The impact assessment must address the type and extent of impacts on physical and biological resources, recreation, and aesthetic use, and navigation and other uses of the estuary; and potential mitigation measures."

Local governments are charged with the responsibility to classify and inventory the extent of resources for the estuary, and create policies regarding uses of the resource. "The [comprehensive] plan must describe and maintain the diversity of each estuary's important and unique environmental, economic, and social features…" (Goal 16 Comprehensive Plan Requirements) If the Corps refuses to comply with local comprehensive plans, it will harm the estuary value that Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 16 serves to protect.

Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 19: Ocean Resources -- Goal 19 aims "to conserve the long-term values, benefits, and natural resources of the nearshore ocean and the continental shelf." It deals with matters such as dumping of dredge spoils and discharging of waste products into the open sea. Goal 19's main requirements are for state agencies rather than cities and counties. -DLCD

The Corps has not developed baseline information on the sites it has selected for ocean disposal. It has not quantified nor attempted to describe the long-term impacts that ocean disposal could have on the commercial use and environmental health of the near-shore habitat. This is not parallel with the intent of Goal 19 (Ocean Resources). The two new sites are scheduled for use for the next 50 years, with no mitigation proposed. Under the guise of an allegedly imperative channel deepening project, the Corps is hoping to lock in 50 years' worth of ocean dumping grounds: no contingency plan for disposal management, no biological monitoring, and no beneficial use of the dredged sediments is proposed. By our calculations, roughly 262 mcy of dredged material, which the Corps could move from any location within the scope of the FEIS project, would be dumped on ecologically sensitive locations of the ocean floor. We request that DLCD delay concurrence until these impacts are adequately measured and contingency plans are formulated. Should concurrence eventually be granted, we request that it be limited to 5 years.

V. The Corps FEIS does not adequately present alternatives.

The FEIS does not adequately evaluate the alternatives, as it is required to do. Instead, the Corps devotes six pages of its 2,000+ page document to a brief discussion of alternatives. It was easy for the Corps to make the 43' alternative come out on top because it didn't include a comparison of the value of environmental losses. Such losses were not even calculated. The $196 million estimated for the 43' alternative does not include the value of environmental or commercial losses, nor does it reflect the expense of maintaining the deeper channel beyond the first 2 years.

The same argument applies to ocean disposal sites. The DEIS proposed 80 square miles of "thin-layer disposal." The FEIS proposes two new sites. In both documents, only one alternative is discussed, despite NEPA requirements that alternative courses of action be addressed and compared, weighing environmental impacts and mitigation strategies. No mitigation is proposed for ocean disposal. DLCD should not approve a consistency determination that is based on a wholly inadequate FEIS.

VI. The Corps' FEIS is contradictory and vague.

In the Corps' consistency determination (p. 1), it states that "Actions occurring outside the coastal zone, including channel deepening may have an effect on resources utilizing the Columbia River Estuary such as marine mammals and anadromous fish." The same document, however, states that "the EIS prepared for this action addresses direct, indirect and cumulative effects on these species and concludes that no significant impact would result from this action." 'It will, it won't.' This style of contradictory language is repeated throughout the document. DLCD cannot confidently draw any concurrence conclusions from the conflicting statements included in the FEIS.

Under NEPA, the "scope" of an EIS is the "range of actions, alternatives, and impacts" that it must consider. Among these are "connected," "cumulative," and "similar" actions, and "indirect" and "cumulative" impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25. It is in the interest of reviewing agencies and organizations (particularly those concerned with the estuary) to have access to clear traffic, erosion, development, accidental spill, and navigational safety forecasts. The FEIS does not clearly predict such impacts. Therefore, DLCD cannot approve the Corps' current consistency determination.

For example, the Port of Vancouver will specifically benefit from the Sponsor's Preferred Disposal Alternative through its plans to use dredge spoils to fill over 500 acres that include unique farmlands and 90 acres of wetlands as a means of facilitating the Port's plans for substantial industrial development. The FEIS, however, does not disclose nor analyze the environmental impacts of this connected port development, which, instead, is billed as beneficial use of dredge spoils. In fact, DLCD previously commented that: "DLCD supports the 'sponsor's alternative' over the 'least-cost alternative' to protect farmland," stating that "The biggest difference between the two-build alternatives appears to be that the sponsor's preferred alternative maximizes the use of port-owned property and existing sand and gravel pits for upland (i.e. not in-river or ocean) dredged material disposal (DMD) sites." Though this associated project is located outside the coastal zone boundaries, it is a perfect example of the related impacts that channel deepening will trigger, particularly if the Sponsor's Proposed Disposal Alternative is authorized.

In attempting to assess impacts on future port development, (that will further degrade riparian, wetland, and upland habitat,) the Corps makes the following predictions:
· "Actions related to channel deepening would include: …continued development of port facilities to meet future needs; and contributing to the maintenance of current levels of economic and population growth in the region." (Vol. I, P. 6-57)
· "As previously stated, channel deepening in itself would not induce additional ship traffic. Likewise, it would not contribute to development of additional ports or port facilities." (Vol. I, p. 6-51)
· "The proposed channel improvement alternative is not expected to change the type or quantity of goods shipped on the Columbia nor result in a shift in the type or size of vessels on the river. However, the national transportation cost savings attributed to the proposed alternative would allow vessels calling lower Columbia River ports to take advantage of more efficient loading, reduced delays and larger cargo loads from existing and expected larger vessels." (Vol. I, P. 6-42) (emphasis added)
With such inconsistency within its own FEIS, the Corps is clearly not prepared to seek coastal zone concurrence from DLCD on such a large-scale project. DLCD should delay concurrence until answers to port development questions are found.

Wake erosion is another serious concern for riparian habitat in the estuary. The Corps presents a confusing and contradictory smattering of text for reviewers:
· "It is known that ship wakes currently contribute to a percentage of bank erosion on the lower Columbia River. Also, ship size and speed contribute to the height of the wakes, and speed is a greater contributing factor than ship size. …Even if deeper draft vessels and more transits would occur on the Columbia River, there would be no measurable increase due to ship wake erosion."
· Yet, "Deeper draft ships would be expected to generate slightly larger wakes. A ship drawing 43 feet would generate a wake about 10 percent larger than the same ship drawing 40 feet if it could maintain the same speed." (Vol. I, p. 6-3)
· But, intense competition between shipping lines will cause carriers to "seek to utilize economies of scale by moving to faster vessels with more carrying capacity." (Vol. I, p. 3-8) The Corps identifies speed as the greater factor of the two factors, speed and size.
· "In the only study of ship wake erosion in the Columbia River (Abbe, 1990), it was estimated that ship wake could only account for 4 to 24 percent of the total erosion observed at the Puget Island disposal site. Given this estimate of total ship wake erosion, the effects from increased draft on a limited number of ships would be insignificant. The impacts of a few larger wakes could be partially offset by the reduction in the total number of ships transiting the river." (Vol. I, p. 6-3)
How can the Corps claim a reduction in the total number of ships transiting the channel when they continuously tout the growth benefits to the region?
With a greater margin of error (channel depth) ships that can may travel faster because they can afford the greater squat that such a speed increase would incur. "4 to 24 percent" of erosion is caused by ship wake is not insignificant especially because ship wake will only encourage the side-slope adjustment: "a one foot change in riverbed elevation at the shoreline could result in 10 to 50 feet of lateral shoreline erosion on sandy beaches at former nourishment disposal sites." (Vol. I, p. 6-2 Abbe, 1990)

Erosion costs are not included in the $196 cost estimate. "Corps regulations preclude us from including costs associated with erosion to beaches or structures built on fill outside of flood control structures on a federally authorized navigation channel." (Response to NMFS DEIS comments) DLCD should not approve the Corps' consistency determination until an FEIS is produced that takes are hard look at the changes to erosional forces that will result from this proposed project.

VII. The Corps' plan will significantly impact aquatic natural resources.

· Entrainment. The Corps' studies show that adult and juvenile smelt, juvenile salmonids, and juvenile sturgeon are susceptible to entrainment, (being sucked up into the dredging equipment,) especially in areas where the channel is constricted. In many places, the channel is defined as being "bank to bank." In fact, sturgeon can be attracted to dredging operations, because of the stirred up organic matter and benthic invertebrates. The Corps did not reference any study on the impacts of reducing the populations of juveniles on the remaining populations of fish species. There have been no studies done on the impact of entraining other estuarine (and riverine) populations (i.e. shrimp, razor clams, Pacific sandlaces, etc.) on salmonids and other predatory fishes. These populations make up the basis of the food web.
· In-water disposal of dredged material. The Corps plans to dump 7.25 million cubic yards of dredged spoils within a three mile stretch of the estuary, raising the estuary floor 20 feet over 400 acres in the first 20 years of the project. This is unacceptable. Much of the acreage is deep-water habitat used by sturgeon and their primary food source, the benthic invertebrates. There is little data available about the potential impacts of this planned activity, and the Corps has provided no further comment, aside from offering studies to fulfill their mitigation requirements. "Flowlane disposal in the deep areas is a concern and additional studies are planned to evaluate the abundance and periods of use in these areas by all life stages of sturgeon…" (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Recommendations and Corps Responses, p. 1)
· Alteration of estuarine habitat. There seems to be no assessment of the added impacts of such extensive alteration to the estuary on its biological productivity, in addition to the direct harassment of such populations. The Corps states that "Sturgeon occur throughout the river, though they are believed to be more abundant in the deep areas." (USF&WS Coordination Act Recommendations and Corps Responses, p. 1)
· More Caspian tern habitat. Current efforts are underway to find solutions to the problem of Caspian tern predation on juvenile salmonids at Rice Island. However, the Corps asserts that "removing Rice Island from consideration is neither practicable nor necessary." (response to Northwest Power Planning Council) Understandably, the Corps must plan to use every available disposal site over the next fifty years in order to store the 418 million cubic yards of sediment resulting from this project. However, there is no contingency plan included in the FEIS to address the possibility of unsuccessful efforts to decrease Caspian tern predation at the site.
· No timing windows on construction. This speaks for itself. In their Coordination Act Recommendations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service specifically recommends that "All in-water work take place within specified State and Federal resource agency time periods to protect juvenile salmonids, smelt, and sturgeon." (USF&WS Coordination Act Recommendations and Corps Responses, p. 1) The Corps response: "Construction work is currently scheduled to occur year around for two years."
· Estuarine Turbidity Maximum. Changes in the salinity intrusion can cause the estuarine turbidity maximum to shift vertically and horizontally, altering the location and availability of suitable habitat for migrating salmonids. Changes of this scale can have impacts on even non-aquatic species.
We request that DLCD delay its concurrence until the natural resources and the communities that depend on them are adequately protected.

VIII. The FEIS does not take a hard look at the project's impacts on water quality.

DLCD is probably aware that the Corps has agreed to delay the Willamette portion of the project until activities can be coordinated with the sediment remediation plans of Oregon DEQ or the EPA, should the Portland Harbor be listed as a Superfund site. Last spring, NWEA served as the outside organization to take Oregon DEQ's Portland Harbor Sediment Management Plan (PHSMP) to the public. Even if the Corps does delay the Willamette portion, OR DEQ's plan should offer only small assurance as to the safety and protection of the estuary from contamination stemming from the "environmental dredging" that would result from coordinating deepening actions with this plan. We found that the PHSMP did not address the issues of downstream contamination beyond the 6-mile area of the Portland Harbor. The agency has ignored the issue of contamination in the estuary. Further, as quoted above, language in the Corps' FEIS allows disposal of Willamette sediments into ODMDSs.

Even though the Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination makes no mention of the Willamette, it will be included in the Official Record of Decision. We request that DLCD delay coastal zone review until the Willamette portion is removed completely from the FEIS or the determination fully addresses the full scope of the project.

A final concern is that of sediment type and quality in the Columbia River navigation channel. The Corps asserts again and again that the sediment is clear and clean for open water disposal. However, in dredging to 48 feet, (43' plus 5' advance maintenance dredging (AMD)), the Corps will encounter fine clays and other fine sediments that have never been uncovered. These will be clean; however, dissolved contaminants in the water column can adhese to those fine particles when they become resuspended during dredging activities. Destined for the estuary, the sediments will become the newest surface sediments on the estuary floor. The Corps must conduct sediment sampling to the actual depth they will be dredging before DLCD can adequately assess the impacts of this project to the health of the estuary.

Thank you for allowing us to submit these comments on the Corps' Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination. We request that DLCD delay its concurrence until the Corps completes a coastal zone consistency determination that is both accurate and complete, and includes adequate supporting material and references to support its conclusions.

Sincerely,

Nina Bell, J.D.
Executive Director, Northwest Environmental Advocates

Melissa Powers
NEDC

News/Media | Action Alerts | Programs | About Us | Getting Involved
Resources | Contact Us | Kids Page | Northwest Places | Home

133 SW 2^nd Ave., Portland, OR 97204-3526 (503) 295-0490 FAX 295-6634