Washington Side Channels Environmental Assessment 2020

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging

Baker Bay, Pacific County, Washington and Clatsop County, Oregon; Chinook Channel, Pacific County, Washington and Clatsop County, Oregon; Elochoman Slough, Wahkiakum County, Washington; and Lake River, Clark County, Washington

Environmental Assessment Draft

March 2021

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1 2.1 Purpose and Need ...... 1 2.2 Authority ...... 1 2.3 Earlier NEPA Actions and Relevance to Current Proposed Action ...... 2 2.3.1 Baker Bay ...... 2 2.3.2 Chinook Channel ...... 2 2.3.3 Elochoman Slough ...... 3 2.3.4 Lake River...... 3 2.3.5 Columbia River ...... 3 2.4 Activities Incorporated by Reference from Earlier NEPA Actions ...... 4 2.5 Location of the Proposed Action ...... 5 2.6 Required Consultations and Certifications ...... 7 3 ALTERNATIVES ...... 8 3.1 No Action Alternative ...... 8 3.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ...... 8 3.2.1 General Dredging Methods ...... 9 3.2.2 Site-Specific Maintenance Dredging and Placement ...... 16 3.3 Alternatives Not Considered for Further Detailed Evaluation ...... 22 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 23 4.1 Aesthetics (Visual Quality) ...... 23 4.1.1 Affected Environment ...... 23 4.1.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 24 4.2 Air Quality ...... 24 4.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 24 4.2.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 25 4.3 Vegetation ...... 25 4.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 25 4.3.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 26 4.4 Wetlands ...... 26 4.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 26 4.4.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 27 4.5 Invasive Species ...... 27 4.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 27 4.5.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 28 4.6 Fish and Wildlife ...... 29 4.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 29 4.6.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 30 4.7 Threatened/Endangered Species and Critical Habitat ...... 30 4.7.1 Affected Environment ...... 30 4.7.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 35 4.8 Archaeological and Historic Properties ...... 37 4.8.1 Affected Environment ...... 37 4.8.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 39 4.9 Floodplains ...... 40 4.9.1 Affected Environment ...... 40 ______Page i Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

4.9.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 40 4.10 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste ...... 40 4.10.1 Affected Environment ...... 40 4.10.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 41 4.11 Hydrology ...... 42 4.11.1 Affected Environment ...... 42 4.11.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 43 4.12 Land use ...... 44 4.12.1 Affected Environment ...... 44 4.12.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 44 4.13 Navigation ...... 44 4.13.1 Affected Environment ...... 44 4.13.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 45 4.14 Noise ...... 45 4.14.1 Affected Environment ...... 45 4.14.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 46 4.15 Public Infrastructure ...... 46 4.15.1 Affected Environment ...... 46 4.15.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 46 4.16 Socioeconomics ...... 47 4.16.1 Affected Environment ...... 47 4.16.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 48 4.17 Environmental justice ...... 49 4.17.1 Affected Environment ...... 49 4.17.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 50 4.18 Soils and Sediment Quality ...... 50 4.18.1 Affected Environment ...... 50 4.18.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 52 4.19 Tribal Interests ...... 52 4.19.1 Affected Environment ...... 52 4.19.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 53 4.20 Water Quality ...... 53 4.20.1 Affected Environment ...... 53 4.20.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 54 4.21 Climate Change ...... 55 4.21.1 Affected Environment ...... 55 4.21.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives ...... 56 5 AGENCIES CONSULTED AND INTERESTED PARTIES ...... 57 5.1 Federal Agencies ...... 57 5.2 Native American Tribes ...... 57 5.3 County Governments ...... 57 5.4 City and Town Governments ...... 57 5.5 State Agencies ...... 58 5.6 Elected Officials ...... 58 5.7 Interest Groups ...... 58 6 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES LAWS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS ...... 59 6.1 Compliance with Environmental & Cultural Resource Laws ...... 59 6.1.1 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa-470mm 59

Page ii

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

6.1.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, 16 U.S.C. §§ 668 ...... 59 6.1.3 Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq...... 60 6.1.4 Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq...... 60 6.1.5 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, 6 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq...... 60 6.1.6 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act – Superfund (CERCLA) of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq...... 61 6.1.7 Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq...... 61 6.1.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1994, 7 U.S.C. §§ 4201 et seq...... 62 6.1.9 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of 1958, 16 U.S.C. §§ 661 et seq. .. 62 6.1.10 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) of 1976, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq...... 62 6.1.11 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361 et seq. 63 6.1.12 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq...... 63 6.1.13 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 et seq...... 63 6.1.14 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, 54 U.S.C. §§ 300101 et seq. 64 6.1.15 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, 25 U.S.C. §§ 3001 et seq...... 66 6.1.16 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6912 et seq. 66 6.1.17 Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §§ 401–418 ...... 66 6.1.18 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300(f) et seq...... 66 6.1.19 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271–1287 ...... 66 6.2 Compliance with Environmental and Cultural Resource Executive Orders ...... 66 6.2.1 Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 13 May 1971 ...... 66 6.2.2 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 24 May 1977 ...... 67 6.2.3 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 24 May 1977...... 67 6.2.4 Executive Order 12114, Environmental effects abroad of major Federal actions, 04 January 1979 ...... 67 6.2.5 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice, 11 February 1994 ...... 67 6.2.6 Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 6 November 2000 ...... 67 6.2.7 Executive Order 13186, Migratory Birds, 10 January 2001 ...... 68 6.2.8 Executive Order 13287, Preserve America, 3 March 2003 ...... 68 6.2.9 Executive Order 13751, Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species, 5 December 2016 ...... 68 7 TREATY RESPONSIBILITIES ...... 68 7.1 Tribal Trust and Treaty Responsibilities ...... 68 7.2 Foreign Nations ...... 68 Executive Order 12114 Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 4 January 1979, and 33 CFR §230.25 Environmental review and consultation requirements, requires procedures in the event that a Major Federal Action may impact a foreign nation, and for which environmental studies may be necessary to determine the extent and significance of the impact. The proposed action would not impact foreign nations because the project is wholly within the United States of America with no impacts that would affect a foreign nation or require further environmental study. ... 68 8 REFERENCES ...... 69 ______Page iii Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Figures Figure 2-1. Existing Network of Dredged-Material Placement Sites ...... 4 Figure 2-2. Overview map of proposed navigation-channel maintenance-dredging sites ...... 6 Figure 3-1. Clamshell dredge ...... 10 Figure 3-2. Backhoe Dredging ...... 11 Figure 3-3. Typical Hopper Dredge ...... 12 Figure 3-4. Schematic of Typical Pipeline Dredge ...... 12 Figure 3-5. Baker Bay Authorized Dredging Area ...... 18 Figure 3-6. Chinook Channel Authorized Dredging Area ...... 20 Figure 3-7. Elochoman Slough Authorized Dredging Area ...... 21 Figure 3-8. Lake River Authorized Dredging Area ...... 22 Figure 4-1.Typical Stage of the Columbia River at Vancouver, Washington...... 42

Tables Table 2-1. Location of the Proposed Action ...... 7 Table 2-2. Consultations or certifications needed before implementing the Proposed Action ..... 7 Table 3-1. BMPs to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to the Environment ...... 13 Table 3-2. Summary of Proposed Maintenance Dredging Actions at Side Channels ...... 16 Table 4-1. Visual Resources in the Affected Area ...... 23 Table 4-2. Common aquatic invasive species in the Pacific Northwest ...... 27 Table 4-3. Special-Status Fish and Wildlife Species in Affected Area ...... 29 Table 4-4. ESA-Listed Species under NMFS Jurisdiction Potentially Present in Affected Area .31 Table 4-5. Essential Fish Habitat Present in the Affected Area ...... 32 Table 4-6. ESA Listed Species under USFWS Jurisdiction Potentially Present in Affected Area ...... 33 Table 4-7. Summary of Potential Effects to Listed Species Under NMFS Jurisdiction ...... 36 Table 4-8. Estimated dredge-cut depth ranges for first dredging events ...... 43 Table 4-9. Completion of 404(b)(1) Analysis for Side Channel Projects ...... 53 Table 4-10. 303(d)-Listed Water Bodies in the Affected Area ...... 54

Page iv

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

1 INTRODUCTION

This environmental assessment (EA) addresses the environmental impacts of maintenance dredging by the Corps and/or its contractor at four federal navigation channels located at side channels off of the main stem of the Lower Columbia River. The maintenance dredging locations include the federal navigation channels at: • Baker Bay, River Mile (RM) 3.2. Latitude 46.291891, Longitude -124.046446. Clatsop County, Oregon and Pacific County, Washington. • Chinook Channel, RM 5.0. Latitude 46.226492, Longitude -123.954940. Clatsop County, Oregon and Pacific County, Washington. • Elochoman Slough, RM 38. Latitude 46.206043, Longitude -123.389493. Wahkiakum County, Washington. • Lake River, RM 87. Latitude 45.842824, Longitude -122.781422. Clark County, Washington.

The material dredged from these channels would be transported and placed in areas of the Columbia River between RM 3 and RM 105.5 where water is 20 feet deep or greater, known as the “flowlane.” Additionally, dredged materials would be placed in two currently used unconfined placement sites: BB-3 (in the Columbia River flowlane near RM 3) and Area D (in the Columbia River flowlane, north of the FNC near RM 7) (Figure 2-1).

2 PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the maintenance dredging at the four congressionally authorized navigation channels is to facilitate navigation. The need for the proposed action is to address shoaling in the federal navigation channels at Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, and Lake River by removing shoals that restrict the safe and reliable passage of barge and boat vessels, in accordance with authorities outlined in the Rivers and Harbors Acts below. The maintenance of these federal navigation channels is non-discretionary and will be ongoing into the future unless the projects are deauthorized by congress.

2.2 Authority

Congress has authorized construction and maintenance of the four navigation channels at various times. • Baker Bay West Channel was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 2 March 1945. • Chinook Channel was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 20 June 1938. • Elochoman Slough was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 26 August 1937. • Lake River was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 3 July 1930.

______Page 1 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

The authorized depth requirements for each of these channels is specified in Table 3-2. Congress provides funding to perform maintenance dredging at these channels, most recently in the following fiscal-year budgets: • Baker Bay – 2021 • Chinook – 2020 • Elochoman Slough – 1990 • Lake River – 1980

In-water placement of dredged material is governed by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Corps does not issue itself a Section 404 permit to authorize placement of dredged material in the water; however, the Corps does apply the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines and other substantive requirements under CWA.

2.3 Earlier NEPA Actions and Relevance to Current Proposed Action

The Corps has prepared the following NEPA documents in support of the construction, maintenance, and operations of the Federal Navigation Channels:

2.3.1 Baker Bay

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2013. Memorandum for Record. Record of Environmental Considerations and Compliances for Operations and Maintenance Dredging of the Baker Bay Federal Navigation Channel of Pacific County, Washington and Clatsop County, Oregon. 20 September 2013.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992a. Operations and Maintenance Dredging of the Baker Bay West Channel, Ilwaco, Washington, Pacific County and Clatsop County, Oregon. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. 17 August 1992.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1983. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, Columbia River at Baker Bay, Ilwaco Washington, Channel Improvement. 10 August 1983.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, O&M Dredging, Baker Bay, Ilwaco, Washington, Pacifica County. 9 October 1985.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Columbia and Lower Willamette River, Maintenance and Completion of the 40-foot Navigation Channel Downstream of Vancouver, Washington and Portland, Oregon. September 1975.

2.3.2 Chinook Channel

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2014a. Memorandum for Record. Record of Environmental Consideration for the Operations and Maintenance of the Chinook Federal Navigation Channel, Pacific County, Washington and Clatsop County, Oregon. 9 June 2014.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, O&M Dredging, Chinook Channel, Baker Bay, Washington. 13 January 1995.

Page 2

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1988. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, O&M Dredging, Chinook Channel. 20 January 1988.

2.3.3 Elochoman Slough

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989a. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, Elochoman Slough Maintenance Dredging, Wahkiakum County, Washington. 7 September 1989.

2.3.4 Lake River

2.3.5 Columbia River

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2015. Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging and Dredged Material Placement Network Update: Rice Island Shoreline Placement and Howard Island In-Water Dredged Material Rehandling Site (Sump). Environmental Assessment and FONSI. Published September 8, 2015.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2014b. Final Environmental Assessment. Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging and Dredged Material Placement Network Update, River Miles 3 to 106.5, Washington and Oregon.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Columbia River Channel Improvement Project Supplemental Evaluation. Portland District, Portland, OR.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Columbia River Channel Improvements Project, Final Supplemental Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Record of Decision January 2004. Portland District, Portland, OR.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989b. Environmental Assessment. Columbia River Maintenance Dredging RM 106 to 140 Oregon – Washington. FONSI published 12 June 1989.

______Page 3 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

2.4 Activities Incorporated by Reference from Earlier NEPA Actions

The Corps routinely places material dredged from the federal navigation channels (including the four channels that are the subject of this EA) into the Columbia River flowlane from RM 3 through RM 105.5. The Corps also places these materials in the “Network,” an array of 26 specific sites strategically located throughout the Columbia River, consisting of upland, shoreline, and rehandle (sump) sites (Figure 2-1). Of the currently used placement sites, the proposed action in this EA involves only in-water placement areas in the Columbia River flowlane from RM 3 to RM 105.5, including two in-water sites named BB-3 and Area D.

Figure 2-1. Existing Network of Dredged-Material Placement Sites Transportation of dredged material and subsequent placement in the Network and in the flowlane from Columbia RM 3 to RM 105.5 was analyzed in the following EAs: • Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging and Dredged Material Placement Network Update, River Miles 3 to 106.5, Washington and Oregon. Final Environmental Assessment (USACE 2014a). This EA evaluated the placement areas of the Network and the in-water placement sites in the Columbia River that were proposed for use at that time (that is, the current placement sites, except for Rice Island shoreline placement and Howard Island Rehandling). Available in the Corps’ Digital Library: https://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16021coll7/id/4924.

Page 4

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

• Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging and Dredged Material Placement Network Update: Rice Island Shoreline Placement and Howard Island In-Water Dredged Material Rehandling Site (Sump). Environmental Assessment and FONSI (USACE 2015). This EA evaluated the effects of adding the Rice Island and Howard Island sites to the Network. Available in the Corps’ Digital Library at http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021coll7/id/2391. The proposed action remains within the scope of the placement activities evaluated in the NEPA documentation. Additionally, the proposed action would not result in new effects to the natural and human environment that were not evaluated in the EAs. Therefore, the evaluation of dredged-material placement is incorporated by reference from these NEPA documents and will not be discussed further in detail in this EA.

2.5 Location of the Proposed Action

Figure 2-2 shows an overview map of the four side channels, and Table 2-1 shows details about the project locations.

______Page 5 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Figure 2-2. Overview map of proposed navigation-channel maintenance-dredging sites

Page 6

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Table 2-1. Location of the Proposed Action Channel Columbia Latitude, Township/Range/Section County, State Name RM Longitude Clatsop, OR & 46.291891, - Baker Bay 3.2 T9N/R11W/S 4, 9, 16 Pacific, WA 124.046446 Chinook Clatsop, OR & 46.226492, - 5.0 T9N/R10W/S 8, 17 Channel Pacific, WA 123.954940 Elochoman Wahkiakum, 46.206043, - 38.0 T8N/R5W/S 2 Slough WA 123.389493 T4N/R1W/S 11, 14, 38, 45.842824, - Lake River 87.5 Clark, WA 39, 44, 48, 57 122.781422

2.6 Required Consultations and Certifications

Table 2-2 lists the consultations or certifications that are required before dredging or placement of material may occur. Table 2-2. Consultations or certifications needed before implementing the Proposed Action Agency Consultation/Certifications Status Oregon Department of CWA 401 Water Quality Columbia River Operations Environmental Quality Certificate and Maintenance, Water (ODEQ) Quality Certificate issued May 19, 2014, Ref #NWPOP-CLA- F005-001-FR. Valid until May 19, 2024. Washington State CWA 401 Water Quality Water Quality Certificate, Department of Ecology Certificate #19402, First Amendment. (WSDOE) Received 11/03/2020. Valid until December 31, 2025. National Marine Fisheries ESA Biological Opinion Baker and Chinook - Service (NMFS) (BiOp) Biological Opinion completed July 11, 2012 (NMFS Ref #: 2011/02095). Elochoman and Lake – BA submitted 10/16/2020. BiOp anticipated April 2021 US Fish and Wildlife ESA Biological Opinion Baker and Chinook - Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion completed June 6, 2014 (USFWS Reference # 01EOFW00- 2014-F-0112). Extension

______Page 7 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Agency Consultation/Certifications Status (through March 1, 2021) issued May 1, 2019. Elochoman and Lake – No Effect, consultation not required. Washington State National Historic Baker – APE Letter sent Department of Archeology Preservation Act Section January 4, 2021 and Historic Preservation 106 Letter of Concurrence Chinook – APE letter sent (DAHP), Oregon State January 4, 2021 Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Tribes Elochoman – Letter of Concurrence 5/13/2020 Lake – Letter of Concurrence 7/6/2020 US Army Corps of CWA Section 404, 404b1 Baker and Chinook – in Engineers analysis progress Elochoman – Completed 3/24/2020. Lake – Completed 02/09/2021. Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination Baker, Chinook, Elochoman – Act – Washington State completed 8/4/2020. Department of Ecology Lake – N/A

3 ALTERNATIVES

3.1 No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, maintenance dredging would not occur at the federal navigation channels at Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, and Lake River. Dredged material removed from these navigation channels would therefore not be placed within any of the existing placement areas. Material would continue to accumulate in the channels, and shoaling would continue to interfere with safe vessel passage. Commercial fishing vessels, commercial barges, and recreational vessels are currently not able to use the channels during all tidal or river level elevations, and this condition would continue under the no action alternative. Eventually, the channels would become inaccessible and unsafe to vessels requiring the authorized depths, causing adverse impacts to the regional economy of the side channel areas and the communities that depend on them.

3.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)

Under the preferred alternative, maintenance dredging would occur at the federal navigation

Page 8

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

channels at Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, and Lake River to authorized channel dimensions (Figure 2-2). Dredging would be performed by the Corps and/or its contractors. Placement of these dredged materials would occur in the Columbia River flowlane from RM 3 to RM 105.5, including in-water sites BB-3 and Area D.

3.2.1 General Dredging Methods

Maintenance dredging may be performed by using two general types of equipment: mechanical dredges and hydraulic dredges. Mechanical dredging refers to dredging with a clamshell or backhoe. Hydraulic dredging is typically conducted using either a hopper dredge or a pipeline dredge. Different types of dredging equipment may be used for different channel and shoaling configurations. The Corps anticipates using any of these types of dredging equipment to maintain each of the four navigation channels. Advanced maintenance dredging is the practice of excavating shoals to a depth and/or width greater than the authorized navigation channel dimensions for the purpose of maintaining the authorized dimensions for a longer period of time between maintenance dredging events and ensure the least overall cost of maintaining the project in accordance with Engineering Regulation 1130-2-520 Navigation and Dredging Operations and Maintenance Policies. The amount of advanced maintenance is based on rapid infill rate, severe winter weather, and operational efficiency of the dredge plant being used. Some naturally deep portions of these channels are rarely dredged. Advanced maintenance dredging is only practiced where the shoaling encroaches above the authorized depth and the area surrounding the shoal is shallower. Without advanced maintenance, shoaling would start infilling above the authorized channel depth as soon as the dredging event was completed. At each of the four side channels in this EA, the areas surrounding the shoal are more than 2 feet shallower than the authorized channel depth. Historical dredging frequency with advanced maintenance is as follows: annually for Baker Bay, two out of every five years for Chinook, and less frequently for Elochoman Slough and Lake River. In each case, shoaling had accumulated at least 2 feet shallower than authorized depth prior to dredging. There is a contracting and mobilization cost for each dredging event. Without advanced maintenance, dredging of smaller volumes would need to occur more frequently which results in more contracting and mobilization costs. There is also be a greater risk of channel restrictions if the dredge cannot respond rapidly due to weather windows, environmental compliance in-water work windows, and limited dredge plant availability. For these reasons, advanced maintenance dredging is practiced up to 2 feet below authorized depth and up to 100 feet outside the authorized channel width at each of these channels. Advanced maintenance width dredging may occur on one or both sides of the channel, depending on shoaling patterns and the stability of side-slope material. 3.2.1.1 Clamshell Dredges Clamshell dredges are frequently used to maintain small navigation channels. Figure 3-1 shows clamshell dredges using a bucket operating from a crane or a derrick that is mounted on a barge or stationed on the shore. Sediments removed by clamshells are usually put on a barge and moved to upland or in-water placement sites. Because clamshell dredges are not self- propelled, they are not typically used in high-traffic areas; rather, they are used in tighter spaces such as around docks and piers. Clamshell dredges may be used in restricted areas and in shallow areas where draft restrictions may limit other dredges. Additionally, these dredges are often used in areas where debris could damage other dredges. Clamshell dredges are often equipped with special buckets to dredge silts or contaminated materials.

______Page 9 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Figure 3-1. Clamshell dredge 3.2.1.2 Backhoe dredging Backhoe dredges (Figure 3-2) use a bucket on the end of a backhoe arm. Although the backhoe is typically mounted on a barge, it may also operate from shore. Backhoes can be used in both shallow- and deep-draft channels. Sediments removed by backhoe are usually placed on a barge for placement at an upland or in-water site. Backhoe dredges are often used to remove clays, rock, hard-packed materials, and fine-grained sediments, but also may be used to remove sands in certain locations. Like clamshell dredges, backhoes are often used in restricted areas near docks and in shallow-draft areas.

Page 10

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Figure 3-2. Backhoe Dredging 3.2.1.3 Hopper Dredges Hopper dredges are typically self-propelled vessels that provide flexibility for dredging operations because of their maneuverability. They are most often used on small-volume sand-wave shoals in rivers, on large shoals in estuaries, and in the high-current areas at the mouths of rivers. Figure 3-3 shows a hopper dredge using dragheads (1) at the end of trailer arms (2) located on both sides of the dredge. The dragheads are lowered to the channel bottom where the pump (3) transports material through the dragarm and into the hopper (holding area) of the dredge (4). To prevent entrainment of fish during hopper dredging, Corps procedures call for the dragheads to be buried in the riverbed during operations or raised no more than 3 feet off the channel bottom.

______Page 11 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Figure 3-3. Typical Hopper Dredge 3.2.1.4 Pipeline Dredges Pipeline dredges are most often used on large-volume, continuous shoals. Figure 3-4 shows that a pipeline dredge uses a “cutterhead” on the end of an arm that is buried 3 to 6 feet deep in the river bottom and swings in an arc in front of the dredge. Spuds extend from the back of the dredge to the river bottom to anchor the dredge in place while the cutterhead and suction arm operate. Dredged material is suctioned through the cutterhead and continues being pumped through the pipes directly to upland or in-water placement areas. To prevent entrainment of fish during pipeline dredging, Corps procedures call for the cutterheads to be buried in the riverbed during operations or raised no more than 3 feet off the channel bottom.

Figure 3-4. Schematic of Typical Pipeline Dredge 3.2.1.5 Best Management Practices The proposed action would incorporate numerous Best Management Practices (BMPs) to

Page 12

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft minimize impacts to water quality, aquatic species, ESA-listed fish, and sediments during dredging and placement. Additionally, the proposed action includes measures for avoiding and handling hazardous materials spills. Despite precautions, during any operations and maintenance actions conducted for the program, there is potential for contaminants to enter the water accidentally. Should a spill occur, the Corps would follow a Spill Response Plan, a single consolidated document to meet multiple spill-response planning requirements, as identified under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Standard; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Contingency Plan; Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act; Title III’s Emergency Planning and Community Right To Know Act; Oil Pollution Act; CWA; and state, area, regional, and National Contingency Plans (NCPs) for spill response. Implementation of the NCP requires a nationwide network of regional response plans, including the Corps’ Spill Response Plan. The spill response plans are requirements for dredge contractors to develop and submit for approval by Portland District. Operations project managers, dredge incident commanders, and emergency-system first responders would use this plan as their primary guidance for responding to oil and hazardous substance spill emergencies in the Portland District. Table 3-1 shows the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Spill Control measures that are currently in place for the CR O&M program and are included as part of the proposed action. Table 3-1. BMPs to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to the Environment Measure Justification Duration Management Determination Hopper Dredging Reverse purging of intake lines This restriction shall not be done with minimizes or dragheads more than 3 ft off Maintain until new eliminates Continuous the bottom. If water is pumped information becomes entrainment of during dredging through the dragheads to available that would juvenile salmon operations. clean the hopper, the warrant change. during normal dragheads must be -9 ft for the dredging operations. shallow-draft side channels. The top 20 ft of the water column is Dredging in shallow-water considered salmon areas (less than 20 ft) outside migratory habitat. Continuous Maintain until new of the Columbia River main Dredging or disposal during dredging information becomes stem should occur only during in these areas could and disposal available that would the recommended ESA adversely impact operations. warrant change. in-water work periods for the salmonids, delay Columbia River. migration or reduce or eliminate food sources. Pipeline Dredging

______Page 13 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Measure Justification Duration Management Determination This restriction Maintain dragheads and/or minimizes or Maintain until new cutterheads such that they do eliminates Continuous information becomes not exceed an elevation of -9 ft entrainment of during dredging available that would for the shallow-draft side juvenile salmon operations. warrant change. channels. during normal dredging operations. This restriction minimizes impacts to Typically, dredging in shallow listed fish by limiting water areas (less than 20 ft) Continuous Maintain until new work in migratory only occurs during the during dredging information becomes habitat to the time recommended ESA in-water and placement available that would period when listed work periods for the Columbia operations. warrant change. fish would fewest River. and least vulnerable to disturbance. Clamshell and Backhoe Dredging Where feasible, dredging Continuous Maintain until new Minimizes or would use a close-lipped during dredging information becomes eliminates turbidity “environmental” bucket, and placement available that would during dredging. operating slowly. operations. warrant change. Implement bucket control techniques, such as: 1. Do not overfill the bucket. Continuous Maintain until new Minimizes or 2. Slow movement of bucket during dredging information becomes eliminates turbidity (closing and hoisting and and placement available that would during dredging. discharging) operations. warrant change. 3. Ensure that materials don’t back fall into the wetted perimeter General Provisions for All Dredging Maintain until new Contains toxic Continuous Floating containment and information becomes substances in case during absorbent booms kept on site. available that would of accidental spill. dredging. warrant change. Until water-quality Cease operations and take Prevents future and Monitor water quality during meets corrective measures in the further spread of operations. standards event of water-quality contaminant. specified in problems. permit.

Page 14

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Measure Justification Duration Management Determination If material is released, it shall be immediately removed, and the area restored to a condition approximating the The contractor shall not adjacent undisturbed area. The provision is release any trash, garbage, oil, Contaminated ground shall enacted for the Life of contract grease, chemicals, or other be excavated and protection of water or action. contaminants into the removed, and the area resources. waterway. restored as directed. Any in-water releases shall be immediately reported to appropriate agencies as detailed in contract specifications. If material is released, it The contractor, where shall be immediately possible, will use, or propose removed, and the area for use, materials that may be restored to a condition considered environmentally approximating the friendly in that waste from adjacent undisturbed area. such materials is not regulated The provision Contaminated ground shall as a hazardous waste or is not describes the Life of contract be excavated and considered harmful to the accepted disposal of or action. removed, and the area environment. If hazardous hazardous wastes. restored as directed. Any wastes are generated, in-water releases shall be disposal shall be done in immediately reported to accordance with 40 CFR parts appropriate agencies as 260-272 and 49 CFR parts detailed in contract 100-177. specifications. Monitor dissolved oxygen levels during dredging in Prevents dissolved Dredging may not occur accordance with the current oxygen levels from DO is less than 6.5 mg/L. WQCs and the NMFS 2012 dropped to levels At least daily More frequent monitoring if BiOp to ensure that dissolved that are harmful to DO is below 8 mg/L. oxygen levels do not drop aquatic life. below acceptable levels. Inspect all equipment for invasive species prior to The provision is entering into the waterbody. Prior to enacted for the Maintain for all work in Clean equipment by removing entering into prevention of waterways. plants, mud, debris, and the waterbody. invasive species. organisms from the exterior and interior.

______Page 15 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

3.2.2 Site-Specific Maintenance Dredging and Placement

Table 3-2 provides a summary of the proposed action at each navigation channel, including the authorized channel depth, typical dredge volumes, estimated frequency and timing of dredging, and location of dredged-material placement areas. Table 3-2. Summary of Proposed Maintenance Dredging Actions at Side Channels Typical Volume Authorized In-Water Dredged Per Estimated Placement Site Name Channel Event2 Work 1 Frequency Area Dimensions Window (CY) 16 ft deep 200 ft wide - first Baker Bay 85,000 to Aug 1 - Dec CR flow lane, 0.5 mi 150 ft wide Annually 150,000 153 BB-3, Area D RM 3 – last 2.5 mi 3 mi long

Chinook 10 ft deep 85,000 to 2 out of 5 Aug 1 - Dec CR flow lane, Channel 150 ft wide 160,000 years 15 Area D RM 5 7,500 ft long

Elochoman 10 ft deep 1 out of 5 Aug 1 - Dec Slough 100 ft wide 7,000 to 20,000 CR flow lane years 15 RM 38 ~2,200 ft long 6 ft deep Lake River 1 out of 5 Aug 1 - Dec 100 ft wide 5,000 to 34,000 CR flow lane RM 87 years 15 3 mi long 1 All channels may include an additional 2 feet depth and 100 feet width outside of the authorized dimensions for advanced maintenance dredging. 2 Includes advanced maintenance dredging 3 Exceptions to in-water work window in CR FNC O&M BiOp (NMFS 2012). The typical volume of dredged material per event is based on the assumption that dredging frequency would occur as estimated in Table 3-2. However, because of the recent deferred maintenance at Lake River, the Corps would need to remove additional material during the first maintenance-dredging event at this location. If Congress were to defer federal funding for maintenance of these channels again in the future, then the Corps would dredge less frequently, but would remove more material with each dredging event. The total dredging volumes over time would remain unchanged. The Corps or its contractors would determine dredging equipment used for each maintenance event is determined on a case-by-case basis, according to equipment availability and least cost. Any of four types of dredging methods described in Section 3.2.1 above may be used at each of the four side channels. Based on the vessel sizes of the current hopper dredge fleet, it is less likely that a hopper dredge would be used at Elochoman Slough and Lake River.

Page 16

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

3.2.2.1 Baker Bay Baker Bay FNC begins at Columbia RM 3, just upstream of the mouth of the Columbia River (Figure 3-5). It extends along the western edge of Baker Bay for 3 miles to the entrance of the Ilwaco, Washington boat basin. The channel is mostly situated in Pacific County, Washington but the entrance is located in Clatsop County, Oregon. The channel is 200 feet wide for the first 0.5 mile, then 150 feet wide for the remaining distance to (but not including) the Port of Ilwaco. This channel was last dredged in 2020. The proposed action would maintain the channel to a depth of 16 feet MLLW with 2 feet of advanced maintenance dredging. Dredging is typically needed every year, and the volume of material to be removed varies from 85,000 to 150,000 CY per maintenance event (Table 3-2). Channel maintenance would occur during the in-water work window, generally August 1 to December 15, with some exceptions listed in the terms and conditions of the O&M BiOp (Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the Reinitiation of Columbia River Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Mouth of the Columbia River to Bonneville Dam, Oregon and Washington) (NMFS 2012).

______Page 17 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Figure 3-5. Baker Bay Authorized Dredging Area Based on recent river-depth surveys, the Corps would need to remove approximately 100,000 CY of material to maintain the channel to the authorized depth, plus 2 feet of advanced

Page 18

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

maintenance depth. This is the best estimate of the initial dredging volume based on existing conditions. Actual dredging volumes would vary because of changes in shoaling or dredging priorities within the maximum channel depth and advanced maintenance footprint. Typical volumes appear in Table 3-2. Each dredging event is expected to last 15 to 45 days, depending on quantity removed and type of equipment used. Dredged material would be placed in the Columbia River flowlane, BB-3, or Area D. 3.2.2.2 Chinook Channel The Chinook FNC begins at the Columbia River FNC near RM 5 (Figure 3-6). The channel begins in Oregon, extending from the Columbia River FNC northeast across the Washington border and across an arm of Baker Bay for approximately 9,000 feet. From there, it hooks southeast, coming to an end at Chinook harbor. The authorized dimensions are 10 feet deep, 150 feet wide, and approximately 10,000 feet long, with an advanced-maintenance depth of 2 feet. Channel maintenance dredging of up to approximately 100,000 CY is typically required every 2 out of 5 years (Table 3-2). This channel was last dredged in 2020. Based on recent river-depth surveys, approximately 85,000 to 160,000 CY of material would need to be removed to maintain the channel to the authorized depth, plus 2 feet of advanced-maintenance depth. This is the best estimate of the initial dredging volume based on existing conditions. Actual dredging volumes would vary because of changes in shoaling or dredging priorities within the maximum channel and advanced maintenance footprint. Each dredging event is expected to last 20 to 50 days, depending on quantity to be removed and type of equipment used. Dredged material would be placed in the Columbia River flowlane or in Area D.

______Page 19 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Figure 3-6. Chinook Channel Authorized Dredging Area

3.2.2.3 Elochoman Slough Elochoman Slough FNC is located at Columbia RM 38 in Wahkiakum County, Washington (Figure 3-7). Its authorized dimensions are 10 feet deep by 100 feet wide by about 2,200 feet long. Elochoman Slough FNC was initially constructed in 1939 and was maintained by the Corps in 1964 and 1989. The channel was most recently dredged by Wahkiakum Port District No. 1 in 2019. Table 3-2 shows typical dredge volumes.

Page 20

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Figure 3-7. Elochoman Slough Authorized Dredging Area Based on recent river-depth surveys, approximately 7,000 to 20,000 CY of material would need to be removed to maintain the channel to the authorized depth, plus 2 feet of advanced maintenance depth. This is the best estimate of the initial dredging volume based on existing conditions. Actual dredging volumes would vary because of changes in shoaling or dredging priorities within the maximum channel and advanced maintenance footprint. Each dredging event is expected to last 3 to 5 days, depending on quantity removed and type of equipment used. Dredged materials would be placed in the Columbia River flowlane. 3.2.2.4 Lake River Lake River FNC is located at Columbia RM 87 in Clark County, Washington (Figure 3-8). The authorized channel dimensions are 6 feet deep by 100 feet wide by 3 miles long. Lake River FNC was initially constructed in 1932 and most recently maintained by the Corps in 1980. Typical dredging volumes appear in Table 3-2.

______Page 21 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Figure 3-8. Lake River Authorized Dredging Area Based on recent river depth surveys, approximately 5,000 to 34,000 CY of material would need to be removed to maintain the channel to the authorized depth, plus 2 feet of advanced maintenance depth. This is the best estimate of the initial dredging volume based on existing conditions. Actual dredging volumes would vary because of changes in shoaling or dredging priorities within the maximum channel depth and the advanced-maintenance footprint. Each dredging event is expected to last 4 to 15 days. Dredged materials would be placed in the flowlane.

3.3 Alternatives Not Considered for Further Detailed Evaluation

The only two alternatives considered were the proposed action and the no action alternatives.

Page 22

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 Aesthetics (Visual Quality)

4.1.1 Affected Environment

Under NEPA, the federal government must use all practicable means to ensure that all Americans have access to safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 USC 4331(b)(2)). The physiographic setting of the Columbia River and side channels is varied within the affected area; the two primary geographic settings are estuarine and riverine. Undeveloped, rural, and urban environments interface with the physiographic settings upon which they are situated. The undeveloped environment along the Columbia River has been indirectly and directly modified since regional industrialization began in the 1800s. As situated at any point within the river, the scenery may be comprised of completely natural elements, a mixture of natural and constructed features, and primarily constructed features. Depending on location, natural elements of the viewshed may consist of well-established riparian vegetation, naturally occurring sandy shorelines and islands, tidal mudflats, basaltic cliffs hemming in the river, low-lying plains, and shallow vegetated bays. Natural elements of the viewshed are interspersed with agricultural fields (fences), human settlement (houses, docks, dike fields), industrial complexes (mills, dredged-material placement sites), transportation corridors (roads, railways), and human-created sandy shorelines. These elements are surrounded by or partially blocked from view by riparian vegetation or vegetated dikes. The constructed setting occurs most frequently in places with a sizable population that supports industry. These stretches of the river are often sparsely vegetated and lined with concrete, riprap, houses and businesses, industrial complexes, and transportation features (such as railroads, roads, docks, and piers). Table 4-1 shows some visual resources that occur in the affected area near the four side channels. Table 4-1. Visual Resources in the Affected Area

Project Name Visual Resource Lewis and Clark National Park Baker Bay and Chinook Cape Disappointment State Park Channel Fort Columbia Historical State Park Chinook State Wildlife Area Julia Butler Hansen National Elochoman Slough Wildlife Refuge Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Lake River Shillapoo State Wildlife Area Vancouver Lake

______Page 23 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

4.1.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.1.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, the four navigation channels would not be dredged, nor would placement of material occur. Thus, the existing visual quality of the area would not change. 4.1.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) During dredging, transportation, and placement, barges, pipelines, and other equipment would be visible from the land, the Columbia River, and the side channels, temporarily, only for the duration of dredging and placement. While the proposed action would be visible from the visual-resources areas from Table 4-1, this impact would be short term and consistent with the existing condition, because the navigation channels are used regularly by other dredges and by commercial and recreational vessels. The areas of dredging would be located well below the water line, so the cloudy appearance of suspended sediments in the Columbia River would not be visible to viewers. The affected area would appear the same after construction as they did before. While the proposed action would temporarily reduce the visual quality within the viewshed, it would not permanently affect the visual quality of the project area. Overall, visual impacts would be insignificant.

4.2 Air Quality

4.2.1 Affected Environment

The Clean Air Act (CAA) established a comprehensive program for improving and maintaining air quality throughout the United States. The focus of the CAA is to reduce ambient concentrations of air pollutants and toxins that degrade air quality; the reduction of air pollution in turn improves the human and biological environment. The intent of the act is achieved through the permitting of stationary sources, restriction of toxic-substance emissions from stationary and mobile sources, and the establishment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as set by EPA. The CAA prohibits federal agencies from funding, authorizing, or approving plans, programs, or projects that do not meet or conform to the NAAQS requirements. EPA sets the national air-quality standards for six “criteria” pollutants as emitted by any stationary, mobile, marine, and/or land-based source. These standards establish threshold levels for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter (2.5 and 10), and sulfur dioxide. EPA has transferred primary implementation and enforcement of the CAA authority for federal air-quality standards to state, local, or tribal regulatory agencies. The delegated agency is responsible for establishing State Implementation Plan (SIP) specific to their region. The contents of a typical SIP fall into several categories: (1) state-adopted control measures, which consist of either rules/regulations or source-specific requirements (e.g., orders and consent decrees); (2) state-submitted comprehensive air-quality plans (for example, attainment plans, maintenance plans, rate of progress plans, and transportation-control plans) that demonstrate how these state regulatory and source-specific controls, in conjunction with federal programs, maintain air quality in compliance with federal air quality standards; (3) state- submitted "non regulatory" requirements, such as emission inventories, small-business compliance assistance programs; statutes demonstrating legal authority, monitoring networks, etc.); and (4) additional requirements promulgated by EPA (in the absence of a commensurate

Page 24

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

state provision) to satisfy a mandatory requirement. If the NAAQS is exceeded, the region is designated as a non-attainment area and is mandated to implement measures to improve the region air quality by way of a stricter SIP. Most of the affected area is rural and removed from direct sources of air pollution. The cities of Longview, Kalama, and Vancouver in Washington and the cities of Portland and St. Helens in Oregon are the primary contributors to air pollution along the lower Columbia River. For this region, EPA has delegated CAA authority to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) for most air-pollution contributors. Within each of the four dredging areas, the lower Columbia River currently meets the NAAQS. In 1996 Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington were listed as not meeting NAAQS; EPA designated these areas as non-attaining. As a result, both Portland and Vancouver implemented a stricter SIP, and in 2011, the region was removed from the nonattainment list. The region is currently meeting NAAQS; the maintenance SIP provides the region strategy for staying in attainment, with a focus on reducing emissions from vehicles, paints, household products, and industry. All dredging equipment and operations are currently in compliance with federal and state air-emission and performance laws and standards.

4.2.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.2.2.1 No Action Alternative The no action alternative would not change the project’s ability to meet air-quality standards. Under the no action alternative, the status quo air-quality would not change, and there would be no additional release or reduction of chemical constituents that contribute to air pollution. 4.2.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The proposed action would cause a temporary and localized reduction in air quality during dredging and transport of materials. Main sources of air pollutants would be emissions from the dredge. The EPA Diesel Emissions Quantifier tool was used to estimate the emissions associated with dredging and transportation. To estimate the level of diesel emissions, we assumed dredge equipment would be used for 1200 hours (i.e. 10 hour days x 120 work days) and transportation would occur for 500 hours (i.e. 10 hour days x 50 days of work). This resulted in estimated emissions of 676 pounds of nitrogen oxide (NOx), 12 pounds of particulate matter greater than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), 24 pounds of hydrocarbons (HC), 120 pounds of carbon monoxide, and 89,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually. These emissions would be minimal and temporary, and because emissions would end once dredging is complete, the proposed action would meet air-quality standards. For these reasons, effects would be insignificant.

4.3 Vegetation

4.3.1 Affected Environment

The Columbia River system supports a wide range of aquatic and terrestrial plant communities. The channels and banks of the Columbia River are deeply incised river valleys, with banks typically vegetated, consisting of basalt, silt, and clay deposits. The river thalweg is primarily comprised of fine- and medium-grained sand. Current thalweg depths are typically around 50 ft,

______Page 25 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

with deeper spots occurring along outside river bends. Native estuarine vegetation within the Lower Columbia River area typically consists of fringing intertidal marshes and intertidal island marshes. From RM 11 to RM 35, over 14,000 acres of land adjacent to the river have been diked, primarily for agriculture. Riparian habitats commonly found in this part of the Columbia River are forests of cottonwoods and alders. Riverine vegetation habitat upstream of RM 35 consists of fragmented, reduced riparian habitat. Approximately 162,000 acres of land have been converted for agricultural and industrial purposes. Where not modified or developed, a narrow band of vegetation lines the banks of the Columbia River. Cottonwood and Oregon ash stands are likely to populate undeveloped areas. Several refuges and wildlife management areas located within the Columbia River basin provide natural and constructed wetland and riparian forests, which serve as habitat for a variety of wildlife species. The four navigation channels have very little to no vegetation. The substrate in these locations is generally too sandy, and river velocities are too high to support rooted plants. Furthermore, disturbance from frequent vessel traffic prevents vegetation from becoming established in these locations. The placement sites in the Columbia River are similarly devoid of vegetation, because all are located in areas where water is more than 20 feet deep and light penetration is low.

4.3.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.3.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four federal navigation channels, and there would be no placement of dredged material from those channels. Impacts to vegetation would not occur under this alternative. 4.3.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The proposed action includes maintenance dredging of the four side channels and in-water placement from RM 3 to RM 105.5. There is no work on land. Dredging would disturb little to no vegetation, because only negligible vegetation at most is present in the proposed dredge areas, due to sandy substrate, high water velocity, and frequent vessel traffic. There is no aquatic vegetation present in the proposed in-water placement areas, because at the water depth of 20 feet, light penetration is too low to support plant growth. Therefore, dredging the four navigation channels and placement of dredged material in the water would have no effect, or at most, insignificant effects to vegetation.

4.4 Wetlands

4.4.1 Affected Environment

Executive Order 11990 directs federal agencies to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Under Executive Order 11990, The term "wetlands" means those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. In planning their actions, federal agencies are required to consider alternatives to impacting wetland sites and must limit potential damage if they cannot avoid effects to wetlands.

Page 26

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Wetlands do not currently occur in the affected area.

4.4.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.4.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, dredging would not occur at the four navigation channels, and placement of dredged material from those channels would not occur. Sediments would continue to accumulate and form shoals. Further sediment accumulation may result in areas potentially developing wetland characteristics under this alternative. 4.4.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The proposed action would have no effect on wetlands, since none occur in the affected area.

4.5 Invasive Species

4.5.1 Affected Environment

Executive Order 13751 “Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species” defines invasive species as “with regard to a particular ecosystem, a non-native organism (including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human, animal, or plant health.” Federal agencies must prevent the introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive species, as well as eradicate and control existing populations of invasive species. WDFW, along with regional invasive-species management groups, has identified the top-priority invasive species to eradicate or prevent from establishing in new areas. Once established, invasive species have the potential for widespread native ecological disruption by displacement of native plants and animals, reduction in habitat and species biodiversity, competition with native organisms for limited resources, and degradation of habitats. Established populations become increasingly more difficult and expensive to control. Further, invasive species have the potential to negatively affect the economic viability of a region. “High priority” invasive species are defined as those most likely to generate substantial ecological and economic damage within the Lower Columbia River system. Some species are already established within the system; some species have been discovered but have not yet formed established populations, while other species do not currently occur within the system. Table 4-2 lists invasive aquatic species that are common in the northwestern United States. In compliance with Executive Order 13751, the Corps does not use any of the species on the list for erosion control, pest management, or any other purpose. To avoid and minimize the spread of invasive species, the Corps would include invasive species control measures as described in Table 3-1. If detected, the Corps or its contractor would implement invasive species control measures. Additionally, the Corps’ (and its contractors’) vessels have strict protocols for bilge-water exchange, as specified by vessel general permits issued by EPA. Table 4-2. Common aquatic invasive species in the Pacific Northwest

Species Name Status in Affected Area Plants

______Page 27 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Species Name Status in Affected Area Caulerpa seaweed (Caulerpa taxifolia) Eradicated Common reed (Phragmites australis) Present Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Present Parrot’s feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) Present Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Present Spartina (Spartina patens) Present: not established Water chestnut (Trapa natans) Not present Animals American Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) Present Reported sightings, not Chinese Mitten Crab (Eriocheir sinensis) confirmed Common Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentina) Present Crayfish (Orconectes neglectus, O. rusticus, Procambarus Present clarkii) Green crab (Carcinus maenas) Present New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) Present Nutria (Myocastor coypus) Present Red-Eared Slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) Present Zebra/quagga mussel (Dreissena polymorpha, D. Not present rostriformis bugensis) Asian carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis, H. molitrix, Present Mylopharyngodon piceus) Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) Present: not established Northern snakehead (Channa spp.) Not present Oriental Weatherfish (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) Present

4.5.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.5.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four federal navigation channels, and there would be no placement of dredged material from those channels. Impacts to invasive species would not occur. 4.5.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) In general, dredging may provide avenues for invasive aquatic species to be redistributed in the lower Columbia River. However, the Corps implements BMP’s that minimize the likelihood of invasive species movement from project to project. The proposed action is not expected to increase the rate or intensity of invasive-species dispersal. Because of the various measures that the Corps would use to avoid spread of invasive species (Section 4.5.1), the proposed action is would have insignificant effects.

Page 28

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

4.6 Fish and Wildlife

4.6.1 Affected Environment

The Lower Columbia River system supports a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species. Wildlife species inhabit or periodically use the four side channel dredging sites, surrounding land, in-water placement areas in the Columbia River, and adjacent waters. Fish species found in the affected area include: smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, bullhead, carp, catfish, channel crappie, crawfish, eulachon, yellow perch, northern pike minnow, Chinook salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, American shad, steelhead trout, white sturgeon, green sturgeon, suckerfish, coastal cutthroat trout, Pacific lamprey, and walleye. Marine mammals, such as Steller sea lion and California sea lion, frequent the vicinity of the Baker Bay and Chinook Channel navigation channels and occasionally travel within the Columbia River as far upstream as Bonneville Dam (Columbia RM 145). Killer whales and humpback whales enter the mouth of the Columbia River infrequently in search of prey; however, they have not been documented within the federal navigation channels themselves. While no work is proposed on land, terrestrial species occupy lands adjacent to the proposed action. These species include (but are not limited to) streaked horned larks, terns, cormorants, gulls, pelicans, migratory songbirds, eagles, osprey, crows, owls, deer, elk, coyote, nutria, waterfowl, and shorebirds. The WDFW Priority Habitats and Species database (WDFW 2020) identities several special-status fish, wildlife, and habitats occurring in the affected area (Table 4-3). Table 4-3. Special-Status Fish and Wildlife Species in Affected Area Project Name Priority Species or Habitat Fish: Chinook, chum, coho, steelhead, sockeye, pink salmon, green sturgeon, white sturgeon, Baker Bay and Chinook Wildlife: Bald eagle nest, streaked horned lark, seabird Channel concentrations, shorebird concentrations, waterfowl wintering concentration area, Roosevelt elk Habitat: estuarine and marine wetlands Fish: Chinook, steelhead, chum, rainbow trout, resident coastal cutthroat, coho Wildlife: Roosevelt deer winter range, regular concentration; Elochoman Slough Columbian white-tailed deer population; cavity-nesting ducks, regular concentrations; heavy concentrations of wintering waterfowl; bald eagle nests, heron rookery, purple martin Habitats: Sitka spruce willow shrub, wetlands, riverine habitat Fish: Chinook, steelhead, coho, chum, sockeye, pink salmon, cutthroat trout, green sturgeon, white sturgeon Lake River Wildlife: waterfowl concentrations, sandhill crane, purple martin Habitats: Wetlands, riverine habitat

______Page 29 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

4.6.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.6.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four federal navigation channels. There would be no changes in impacts to aquatic or terrestrial species, sediment would continue to accumulate at the four dredge sites, and shallow-water habitat would continue to develop in or near the channels. Shallow-water habitats are beneficial to many fish wildlife species, as they form the basis of the food web. In the no action alternative, these shallow-water areas would remain undisturbed, continue to develop vegetation, and increase in size; however, impacts on wildlife would be insignificant or beneficial. 4.6.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The proposed dredging and transportation of dredge materials is expected to cause temporary disturbance to fish and wildlife. Impacts to fish and wildlife would be limited to temporary visual and noise disturbance and temporarily elevated levels of turbidity during the proposed action. These disturbances are expected to dissipate quickly once work is completed. Some suitable habitat for bald eagle nests occurs in the vicinity of each of the four side channels; however, none of the buffer zones intersect the dredging areas. In addition, the dredge season only occurs during the final two weeks of the bald eagle nesting season, from August 1 to August 15, during the least vulnerable part of the nesting season when most chicks would already have fledged from the nest site. Thus, the while the proposed action may cause temporary visual and noise disturbance to bald eagles, this disturbance is unlikely to rise to a level that would cause nest failure. Fish could be temporarily exposed to noise and visual disturbance above ambient levels. Fish could respond by avoiding the work area; however, if fish remain in the work area, they could become entrained in dredging equipment or be buried during placement. Fish could also be temporarily exposed to elevated levels of turbidity during dredging and in-water placement of dredged material. Marine mammals could potentially occur in the affected area. It is possible that the dredging and placement of material could increase the level of noise and visual disturbance compared to ambient levels. Marine mammals are strong swimmers and are anticipated to avoid the affected area, making it very unlikely that the disturbance would rise to the level of harm or harassment. Over the long term, dredging could lead to changes in fish and wildlife habitat. Dredging would prevent the continued formation shallow-water habitat – an important part of the fish wildlife food web. This effect would be localized and limited to the dredge footprints and immediately surrounding areas. Effects to the food web could last several years, until the area returns to pre-project conditions. However, due to the limited spatial extent of the action and the low quality of the affected fish and wildlife habitat in the dredge areas, these effects would be insignificant.

4.7 Threatened/Endangered Species and Critical Habitat

4.7.1 Affected Environment

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a federal law protecting threatened and endangered species (16 United States Code [USC] 1531, et seq. and implementing regulations at 50 CFR Part 402). The ESA provides for the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered

Page 30

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies are required to consult with USFWS and/or NMFS to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined as geographic locations critical to the existence of a threatened or endangered species. The outcome of a consultation under Section 7 may include a BiOp with an Incidental Take statement, a Letter of Concurrence, and/or documentation of a no effect finding. Section 3 of the ESA defines “take” as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) of 1976 (Reauthorized in 2006), was established to conserve and manage fishery resources found off the coast, as well as anadromous species and continental shelf fisheries of the United States. This act is implemented by exercising (a) sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing all fish within the exclusive economic zone established by Presidential Proclamation 5030, dated 10 March 1983, and (b) exclusive fishery management authority beyond the exclusive economic zone over such anadromous species, continental shelf fishery resources, and fishery resources in special areas. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (50 CFR 600.10). Adverse effects to EFH include the “direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality or quantity of EFH” (50 CFR 600.810). 4.7.1.1 ESA-Listed Species and EFH under NMFS Jurisdiction Table 4-4 shows the federally listed threatened and endangered species or managed fisheries under the jurisdiction of the NMFS that may occur in the affected area, and Table 4-5 shows the EFH present in the affected area. Table 4-4. ESA-Listed Species under NMFS Jurisdiction Potentially Present in Affected Area Critical Habitat Federal Register Species Status in Affected Listing Notice Area Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ESUs T 8/15/11: 76 FR Lower Columbia River Threatened Yes 50448 Yes T 8/15/11; 76 FR Upper Willamette River Threatened 50448 Yes E 8/15/11; 76 FR Upper Columbia River spring-run Endangered 50448 Threatened Yes T 8/15/11; 76 FR Snake River spring/summer run 50448 Threatened Yes T 8/15/11; 76 FR Snake River fall-run 50448 Chum salmon (O. keta) ESU T 8/15/11; 76 FR Columbia River Threatened Yes 50448

______Page 31 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Critical Habitat Federal Register Species Status in Affected Listing Notice Area Coho salmon (O. kisutch) ESU T 8/15/11; 76 FR Lower Columbia River Threatened Yes 50448 Sockeye salmon (O. nerka) ESU E 8/15/11; 76 FR Snake River Endangered Yes 50448 Steelhead trout (O. mykiss) DPSs Threatened Yes T 8/15/11; 76 FR Lower Columbia River 50448 Threatened Yes T 8/15/11; 76 FR Upper Willamette River 50448 Threatened Yes T 8/15/11; 76 FR Middle Columbia River 50448 Threatened Yes T 8/15/11; 76 FR Upper Columbia River 50448 Threatened Yes T 8/15/11; 76 FR Snake River Basin 50448 Other Species Southern DPS green sturgeon Yes T 4/07/06; 71 FR Threatened (Acipenser medirostris) 17757 Southern DPS eulachon Yes T 3/18/10; 75 FR Threatened (Thaleichtys pacificus) 13012 Humpback whale (Megaptera Endangered Yes E 12/02/70; 35 FR novaeangliae) 18319 Endangered Yes; Southern Resident killer whale E 11/18/2005; 70 Proposed (Orcinus orca) FR 69903 Revision

Table 4-5. Essential Fish Habitat Present in the Affected Area

Fishery Management Plan with EFH EFH affected EFH conservation plan Pacific Coast Salmon Yes Yes Pacific Coast Groundfish Yes Yes Coastal Pelagic Species Yes Yes

4.7.1.1.1 Baker Bay and Chinook Channel The Corps has previously consulted with NMFS on the O&M dredging of federal navigation channels in the Lower Columbia River and side channels, addressing effects to the ESA-listed species and EFH shown in Table 4-4 and Table 4-5. This consultation included the effects of dredging the Baker Bay and Chinook navigation channels and placing the dredged material in the Columbia River flowlane from RM 3 to RM 105.5, including BB-3 and Area D. In response, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion: Reinitiation of Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish

Page 32

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Habitat Consultation for the Columbia River Navigation Channel and Operations and Maintenance, Mouth of the Columbia River to Bonneville Dam, Oregon and Washington (HUCs 1708000605, 1708000307, 1708000108). NMFS No. 2011/02095. Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington, 11 July 2012 (2012 BiOp). The 2012 BiOp concluded that the proposed action at Baker Bay and Chinook Channel would not jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed species or cause adverse modifications to their critical habitats, because the Corps will follow Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) for timing of work, water-quality sampling and monitoring, operational constraints, and construction requirements for dredged-material placement. The 2012 BiOp also included conservation recommendations to offset potential adverse effects to EFH. 4.7.1.1.2 Elochoman Slough and Lake River The Elochoman Slough and Lake River sites contain suitable habitat for all of the listed species from Table 4-4, except for the humpback whale and Southern Resident killer whale. The sites also contain EFH for Pacific coast salmon. On October 16, 2020, the Corps submitted a Biological Assessment to NMFS, determining that the proposed action may affect and is likely to adversely affect salmon and steelhead, salmon and steelhead critical habitat, green sturgeon, and green sturgeon critical habitat. Additionally, the Corps determined that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, eulachon and eulachon critical habitat. Lastly, the Corps made a determination of “adverse effect” to EFH. The Corps anticipates that NMFS will complete consultation on these projects by issuing a Biological Opinion in April 2021. 4.7.1.2 ESA-Listed Species under USFWS Jurisdiction Table 4-6 shows the federally listed threatened and endangered species and critical habitats under the jurisdiction of USFWS that may occur in the affected area. Table 4-6. ESA Listed Species under USFWS Jurisdiction Potentially Present in Affected Area Species Status Critical Federal Register Habitat Listing Notice in Affected Area Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria Endangered No 65 FR 46643 46654; 31 July albatrus) 2000 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus Threatened Yes 57 FR 45328 45337; 1 marmoratus) October 1992 Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius Threatened Yes 58 FR 12864 12874; 5 March nivosus nivosus) 1993 Columbian White-tailed Deer Endangered No 32 FR 4001; 11 March 1967 (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis Threatened Yes 55 FR 26114 26194; 26 June caurina) 1990 Oregon Silverspot Butterfly Threatened Yes 45 FR 44935; 15 (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) October1980 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Threatened Yes 63 FR 31693 31710; 10 June 1998

______Page 33 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila Threatened Yes 78 FR 61506; 3 October alpestris strigata) 2013 Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzuz Threatened No 79 FR 59991; 3 October americanus) 2014 Water Howellia (Howellia aquatilis) Threatened No 58 FR 19795 19800; 16 April 1993

4.7.1.2.1 Baker Bay and Chinook Channel The Corps has previously consulted with USFWS on O&M dredging of federal navigation channels in the Columbia River, including Baker Bay and Chinook. In response, USFWS issued the following: • United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Biological and Conference Opinions for the Columbia River Channel Improvement Project. Tracking number 02-1743, 02- 4943. Oregon State Office. Portland, Oregon. 20 May 2002. • United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Letter of Concurrence for Operations and Maintenance of the Columbia River Federal Navigation Project. Reference number 13420-2010-I-0165. Oregon State Office. Portland, Oregon. 29 September 2010. • United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Biological Opinion for Continued Operations and Maintenance Dredging Program for the Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel in Oregon and Washington (2014 – 2018). Reference number 01EOFW00-2014-F-0112. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. Portland Oregon. 6 June 2014 (covers adverse effects to streaked horned lark and its critical habitat). • United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Extension of the Biological Opinion on the Continued Operations and Maintenance Dredging Program for the Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel in Oregon and Washington, 2014 — 2018. Extended through March 1, 2021. • United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Extension of 2014 to 2018 Biological Opinion for the Continued Operation and Maintenance Dredging Program for the Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel (01EOFW00-2020-F-0540). Second extension. 12 August 2020. Extended through March 1, 2023.

The 29 September 2010 ESA consultation (USFWS reference #13420-2010-I-0165) previously addressed the effects of O&M dredging of federal navigation channels in the Columbia River (including the proposed action). The scope of the proposed action is still consistent with the action as analyzed in the consultation for effects to all listed species potentially occurring in the affected area, except for yellow billed cuckoo and streaked horned lark, which were both listed after the issuance of the BiOp. The Corps has determined that the proposed action would have “no effect” on the yellow-billed cuckoo because suitable habitat does not occur in the affected area. Thus, it was not necessary to consult with USFWS on yellow-billed cuckoo. On 4 March 2014, the Corps reinitiated ESA consultation with USFWS to address effects to streaked horned larks and designated critical habitat located within the affected area (USACE 2014c). Subsequently, USFWS issued a BiOp with an incidental take statement, dated 6 June 2014. USFWS has twice extended this BiOp. The current extension is valid until March 1, 2023. The Corps continues to work with NMFS, USFWS, and the Caspian Tern Adaptive Management

Page 34

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Team to modify dredged material placement in a manner that would further encourage development of streaked horned lark habitat without attracting more Caspian terns to important streaked horned lark critical habitat areas. 4.7.1.2.2 Elochoman Slough and Lake River The Corps determined that the proposed action at Elochoman Slough and Lake River would have no effect on any USFWS-jurisdictional listed species or critical habitat shown in Table 4-6, for the following reasons. Short-tailed albatross occurs outside of the range of the current action. Because there is no work on land, the action would not affect terrestrial species (marbled murrelet, western snowy plover, Columbia white-tailed deer, northern spotted owl, Oregon silverspot butterfly, streaked horned lark, and western yellow-billed cuckoo). Suitable habitat (bogs and ponds) for water howellia does not occur in the affected area. Bull trout are absent from the affected area. For these reasons, Section 7 consultation with USFWS is not necessary for the proposed action.

4.7.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.7.2.1 No Action Alternative 4.7.2.1.1 NMFS ESA-Listed Species Under the no action alternative, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four federal navigation channels, and therefore there would be no placement of dredged material from those channels. The no action alternative would result in continued accumulation of sediment and development of shallow-water habitat at the four side channels. The development of shallow-water habitat would be a direct benefit to listed salmon and steelhead and their critical habitat, particularly by providing resting and foraging areas for out-migrating juveniles. The baseline for marine mammals would not change. 4.7.2.1.2 USFWS ESA-Listed Species Under the no action alternative, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four federal navigation channels and placement of dredged material from those channels would not occur. The no action would have no effect on USFWS-jurisdictional listed species, including bull trout. 4.7.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) 4.7.2.2.1 NMFS ESA-Listed Species Dredging at the four navigation channels may have adverse effects to NMFS ESA-listed species and their habitats. The duration of effects to listed species under NMFS jurisdiction may range from a few hours, during dredging, to a few years. Under the proposed action, the primary adverse effects to listed fish, critical habitat, and EFH are the potential for entrainment of juvenile salmon or their prey, destruction of juvenile salmon rearing and feeding habitat, and loss of prey base. Additionally, the proposed action would likely cause temporarily increased turbidity in the water column. However, these effects would be minimal, given the small amount of impact relative to the remaining 88,000 acres of shallow-water habitat in the estuary. Additionally, most of the side channels are not dredged every year, allowing the habitat to recover. The August through December in-water work period proposed by the Corps helps minimize effects to shallow-water habitat by allowing for some level of recovery before the higher densities of fish occupy the habitat in the spring (NMFS

______Page 35 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

2012). In these ways, the proposed action reduces the duration and severity of the disturbance. Baker Bay and Chinook Channel The NMFS 2012 BiOp for the O&M dredging of federal navigation channels in the Columbia River provides a detailed effects analysis of the proposed action at Baker Bay and Chinook Channel and is hereby incorporated by reference. The NMFS 2012 BiOp concluded that the O&M dredging of federal navigation channels in the Columbia River is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their designated critical habitats. In an email dated February 5, 2019, NMFS confirmed that Lower Columbia River coho critical habitat (which was designated after issuance of the 2012 BiOp) would not be affected in a manner that differs from the effects described in the 2012 BiOp (NMFS 2019). Because the proposed action at Baker Bay and Chinook Channel is within the scope of the action analyzed in the BiOp and would not result in new impacts that were not previously considered, effects to EFH and ESA-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction are expected to be insignificant. Elochoman Slough and Lake River Table 4-7 summarizes the potential effects to ESA-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction, as described in the BA for Elochoman Slough and Lake River, submitted in October 2020, and anticipated in a 2021 BiOp. Table 4-7. Summary of Potential Effects to Listed Species Under NMFS Jurisdiction Effect Species/Critical Habitat Potential Effects determination 1 Localized entrainment or burial of juveniles during dredging and placement Salmon and Steelhead Displacement of juveniles LAA Loss of juvenile rearing and feeding habitat Loss of prey base Salmon, Steelhead Critical Temporary, short-term increase in turbidity LAA Habitat above ambient levels Entrainment, burial, or dredging of incubating Eulachon NLAA eggs (low risk) Temporary disruption of egg-incubation Eulachon Critical Habitat NLAA substrate Green Sturgeon Temporary displacement LAA Green Sturgeon Critical Temporary turbidity NLAA Habitat Marine mammals None NE Marine Mammal Critical None NE Habitat 1 LAA = Likely to adversely affect, NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect, NE = No Effect Because the proposed action would avoid jeopardy to listed species, would not adversely modify critical habitat, and would comply with the terms and the conditions of the BiOp, effects are expected to be insignificant.

Page 36

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

4.7.2.2.2 USFWS ESA-Listed Species Baker Bay and Chinook Channel On September 29, 2010, USFWS provided a Letter of Concurrence, agreeing with the Corps’ determination that operations and maintenance dredging of the Columbia River Federal navigation channels (including Baker Bay and Chinook Channel) “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” bull trout, marbled murrelet, and Columbian white-tailed deer (USFWS 2010). Additionally, the Corps determined that the action would have “no effect” on western snowy plover, northern spotted owl, short tailed albatross, Oregon silverspot butterfly, and water howellia. The effects of the proposed action were addressed in the USFWS Letter of Concurrence and are hereby incorporated by reference. In 2014, USFWS issued a BiOp stating that the program “may affect and is likely to adversely affect” streaked horned lark, but because the program takes measures to maintain breeding habitat and to minimize adverse effects, the action would not jeopardize the continued existence of streaked horned lark or cause adverse modification of critical habitat. The terms and conditions and reasonable and prudent measures are included in the 2014 BiOp and are hereby incorporated by reference. In summary, the Corps must minimize impacts and incidental take of streaked horned larks by performing actions such as monitoring placement projects and reducing the likelihood that placement sites will act as habitat sinks for breeding. The 2014 BiOp expired in 2018, but has been extended twice, with the most recent extension expiring on March 1, 2023. Because the Corps would follow all of the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Conservation Measures outlined in the 2014 BiOp and most recent extension, overall effects to ESA-listed species under USFWS jurisdiction are expected to be insignificant. Elochoman Slough and Lake River The Corps determined that the proposed action at Elochoman Slough and Lake River would have no effect on any listed species or critical habitat under the jurisdiction of USFWS and will prepare a No Effect Memo for the project file, documenting this determination of no effect. The actions at Elochoman Slough and Lake River would have no effect on this resource.

4.8 Archaeological and Historic Properties

4.8.1 Affected Environment

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, sets forth national policy and procedures regarding historic properties, defined as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on such properties and to allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) the opportunity to comment on those undertakings, following regulations issued by the ACHP (36 CFR Part 800). The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) applies when a project may involve archaeological resources located on federal or tribal land. ARPA requires that a permit be obtained before excavation of an archaeological resource on such land can take place. A detailed description of cultural resources within the various project areas are provided in the 1999 EIS (USACE 1999), the 2003 SEIS (USACE 2004), and Minor and Musil (1998). For the dredging locations in Washington, the Corps’ professional cultural resource staff reviewed the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Database ______Page 37 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

(WISAARD), and for the dredging locations within the State of Oregon, the Oregon Archaeological Records Remote Access (OARRA) database was reviewed. There are no cultural resource surveys directly covering the side-channel dredging locations. A previously done hydrographic survey did not record any anomalies within any of the dredging or placement locations. In addition to the WISAARD and OARRA databases, the General Land Office (GLO) maps and NOAA’s Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS) were also reviewed. The GLO maps did not show any potential cultural features within the dredging locations. The AWOIS database did not indicate that there were any known shipwrecks or other obstructions in the dredging locations. 4.8.1.1 Baker Bay For the Baker Bay project, OARRA and WISAARD were reviewed for the project. Much of the Baker Bay channel is within the Cape Disappointment Historic District, which encompasses an area beginning 0.5 miles south of Ilwaco and extending to the Oregon and Washington border. Cultural resources within the district include the Cape Disappointment Lighthouse, the North Head Lighthouse, and Fort Canby. Other cultural resources near the Baker Bay dredging project include Jetty A and the Baker Bay pile dikes associated with West Sand Island. Jetty A is potentially eligible for the NRHP, but a formal evaluation has not been completed. The Baker Bay pile dikes are eligible for the NRHP. The Great Republic shipwreck is located to the east of the Baker Bay channel entrance. 4.8.1.2 Chinook Channel The nearest surveys for the Chinook channel dredging project are on East Sand Island. There have been two previous surveys conducted on the island, with four cultural resources being identified. The East Sand Island Pile Dike and Jetty System (35CL112) is eligible for the NRHP, while the anti-submarine mine cable huts (35CL113), a tank platform with a concrete foundation and a historic refuse scatter (35CL107), and the observation tower ruins (35CL106) are either not eligible for the NRHP or remain unevaluated. 4.8.1.3 Elochoman Slough For the Elochoman Slough dredging location, there are no known cultural resource surveys within or near the project location. There is only one known site in the vicinity of this dredging location, but it is also located in the uplands. 4.8.1.4 Lake River For the Lake River dredging location, there are six cultural resource surveys conducted in close vicinity to the project location. Four of them were related to a remediation and redevelopment project, one for a site stabilization project in 2013, and one related to archaeological data recovery in 2014. The initial survey for the remediation and redevelopment project was completed in 2009. This survey identified one historic-period site (09/1777-1), which consists of a series of historic pilings located on the riverbank that extend into the river. The site was recommended not eligible but was not officially recorded. In 2013, in-water coring operations were monitored for cultural resources. The effort included 20 in-water vibracore samples to characterize sediments and contamination. Five of the cores were located within the navigation channel. The monitoring identified one core with a single precontact flake located near the shoreline and outside of the current navigation channel. A second core, containing two historic glass fragments, was located near or within the navigation channel and was determined to be a secondary deposit. In 2014, additional work along the riverbank recorded one multicomponent site (45CL1087), which consists of historic refuse and lithic scatter located along the same

Page 38

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft stretch of shoreline as 09/1777-1 but does not extend as far into the river. 4.8.1.5 Lake River The Lake River dredging location falls within the boundaries of the Vancouver Lake Archaeological District (VLAD) as marked in the WISAARD database. This district was determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in 1982. In total, seven known archeological sites are located along the riverbanks in the vicinity of the dredging location. Site included as contributing to the VLAD include four precontact sites (45CL1, 45CL4, 45CL45, and 45CL108) and one historic refuse scatter with some precontact materials (45CL1087). Site 45CL112 is also a historic refuse scatter with some precontact materials, but it has been determined as a non-contributing element to the district. The navigation channel is not a contributing element of the district.

4.8.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.8.2.1 No Action Alternative Given that there would be no ground disturbance associated with the no action alternative, there would be no effect on archeological or other historic resources. Since these locations have been dredged multiple times in the past, there is little likelihood that archeological deposits are present; therefore, the continued accumulation of sediment under the no action alternative would not impact potentially unknown resources. 4.8.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) For the purposes of compliance with the NHPA, the Corps determined that the area of potential effect for this undertaking includes the four side channel dredging locations and the in-water placement sites for the proposed action. After the four navigation channels were authorized and constructed, maintenance dredging occurred at regular intervals, until recently when maintenance was deferred due to lack of federal funding. Although there are historic period sites near the Chinook and Baker Bay dredging locations, they are located in the uplands or consist of pile dikes along the shoreline. As all work will occur in water, the upland sites will not be impacted. While the pile dikes are in water, they are outside the navigation channel, so no cultural resources within the Chinook and Baker Bay project areas will be impacted by this undertaking. The site near Elochoman Slough is also located in the upland and would not be impacted by this undertaking. Although there are four precontact sites, two multicomponent sites, and one historic site near the Lake River dredging location, the historic period site consists of pilings along the shoreline, and the others are located along the shoreline. These sites would not be impacted by this undertaking, given that the undertaking is entirely in water. The Vancouver Lake Archaeological District covers the entire area, but the navigation channel is not a contributing element, and thus, this undertaking would not impact this district. In assessing the use of in-water placement sites, there were no identified shipwreck sites in the affected area. Furthermore, the Columbia River is dynamic, and thus, the placement locations in both Oregon and Washington are located in areas of shifting sand-wave shoals. As such, the placement of the material would be spread throughout the locations and would eventually transport downstream, resulting in no long-term impact. Placement would only occur in areas of 20 feet or more in depth and would be subject to the same dynamic forces evaluated for the ______Page 39 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

maintenance dredging. Given the dynamic nature of sediment in the Columbia River, and assuming that all known archeological sites are avoided, in-water placement of dredged materials would have insignificant effects on cultural resources.

4.9 Floodplains

4.9.1 Affected Environment

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, directs all federal agencies take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands, and facilities; (2) providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land-resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. Baker Bay, Chinook, and Elochoman Slough are in the FEMA 100-year flood plain (Pacific County 2016, Wahkiakum County 2020, and Lake River is in the FEMA floodway fringe (Clark County 2020).

4.9.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.9.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, no impacts to existing floodplain conditions would occur. Maintenance dredging would not occur at the four federal navigation channels, and there would be no placement of dredged material from those channels into the flowlane. The no action alternative would not physically modify floodplains, nor would it have any effect on the rate of development in floodplains. However, sediment would continue to accumulate in the side channels, potentially causing a local increase in flood risk. 4.9.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The proposed action does not include work on land and would therefore not physically alter land-based portions of floodplains. The proposed action maintains existing channels, rather than creating new channels or increasing channel capacity; therefore, the action would not change the likelihood or rate of floodplain development in any way. Removal of accumulated sediments from the side channels could decrease the potential for flooding locally. Placement of dredged material in the flowlane would not raise flood elevations because the volumes placed are negligible compared to the bedload of the Columbia River and because the placement does introduce new material in the stream; flowlane placement only moves material within the same river system. For these reasons, the proposed action would have insignificant effects to floodplains.

4.10 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste

4.10.1 Affected Environment

Many laws and statutes govern the generation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous materials, substances, and waste, and the investigation and mitigation of waste releases, air and water quality, human health, and land use.

Page 40

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes and materials are the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). The purpose of CERCLA, also known as “the Superfund program,” is to identify and clean up abandoned contaminated sites so that public health and welfare are not compromised. RCRA provides for “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous waste generated by operating entities. The proposed action is not within the boundaries of a designated Superfund site as identified by the EPA or the states of Washington or Oregon for a response action under CERCLA, nor are the project sites on the National Priority List (USEPA 2020a, WSDOE 2020a, ODEQ 2021). The Pacific Wood Treating Facility cleanup site is located in Ridgefield, WA, adjacent to the Lake River FNC. The Port of Ridgefield and Washington Department of Ecology conducted cleanup of contaminated areas in Lake River in 2014, including dredging from 1 to 3 feet and capping the area with gravel and cobbles near the bank, and clean sand (to achieve enhanced natural recover) within the federal channel. The Port and Ecology will continue monitoring the cleanup site through 2025, or beyond that if site does not attain cleanup levels. The proposed action is not anticipated to disturb the capped area. Sediment sampling in the four side channels (described in detail in Section 4.19) did not detect any hazardous materials, and deemed the sediments suitable for unconfined aquatic placement and exposure. In all side channels, dredging will be designed using information contained in the Suitability Determination Memorandum. The likelihood of undiscovered hazardous waste sites in the project area is very low. If hazardous materials are discovered during testing, the substances would be avoided and then removed during later dredging. Hazardous materials encountered during dredging would not be placed back in the water but would be disposed of in an approved upland disposal site. If unanticipated hazardous materials are encountered during construction, the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies would be notified.

4.10.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.10.2.1 No Action Alternative Other than the Pacific Wood Treating Facility cleanup site, there are no known hazardous waste sites within the affected area. There would be no new impacts to the human environment from hazardous materials under the no action alternative. 4.10.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The Corps’ sediment team has reviewed the Pacific Wood Treating Facility cleanup that is being overseen by WSDOE. After analyzing the project documents, the Corps has concluded that the proposed action will not redistribute, re-suspend, or otherwise disturb sediments where releases of hazardous substances are located. Other than the Pacific Wood Treating Facility cleanup site, the affected area contains no known hazardous waste sites. Hazardous materials, such as fuels, oils, and lubricants are likely to be present on the dredge or in other equipment during construction; however, the Corps and its contractors do not store any hazardous waste in reportable quantities on dredge vessels. The Corps and its contractors would use numerous BMPs (Table 3-1) to avoid, minimize, control, or contain spills, consistent with state and federal laws. Thus, the proposed action would have no new effects on the environment from hazardous materials, and effects would be insignificant. ______Page 41 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

4.11 Hydrology

4.11.1 Affected Environment

The Columbia River drains over 259,000 square miles and has an annual discharge of over 210,000 cfs, as measured at the Mouth of Columbia River. Columbia River discharges are dependent on dam operations, precipitation, and ocean tides. Columbia River flows are maintained by regulating spill from dams and reservoirs located upstream of the affected area. As a result, the hydrological condition in the Columbia River is much different from the natural, pre-regulated condition. For example, the 2-year flood peak at The Dalles, Oregon (RM 192) has decreased from 580,000 (cfs) under natural conditions to 360,000 cfs under the current condition. During the May through June high-flow period, the upstream reservoirs store water. Water stored during the spring freshet is released during low-flow periods to generate hydropower Low flows, typically in the 100,000 cfs range, begin in late summer or fall, after a long dry period, and end with the onset winter rains. Precipitation events also have a high seasonal influence on flow. Particularity heavy precipitation events lead to freshets in winter and spring, with a late spring freshet in May through June driven by snow melt. Peak stage in the lower Columbia River generally occurs in January and June, and minimum river levels occur August through October (Figure 4-1).

Figure 4-1.Typical Stage of the Columbia River at Vancouver, Washington. Tides influence Columbia River hydrology as far upstream as Bonneville Dam (RM 145). The tidal range at the mouth of Columbia River is approximately 8 ft and is about 2.5 ft at the Port of Vancouver (RM 103). High tides entering the Columbia River from the Pacific Ocean take about 5.5 hours to progress upstream from Astoria (RM 15) to the confluence of the Willamette River

Page 42

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

(RM 100). The tidal effect is greatest downstream of RM 33 (near Skamokawa, Washington) and during low-flow periods. In the lower reaches, tides exert such a strong influence that instantaneous flow may range from twice the mean daily value to negative values (upstream flow). Flow reversal may occur as far upstream as RM 90 (near St. Helens, Oregon) during low-flow periods.

4.11.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.11.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four side channels, and there would be no placement of dredged material from those channels. Existing hydrologic and sediment transport trends would continue. Sediments would continue to accumulate and form shoals at the four navigation channels. 4.11.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The proposed action includes maintenance dredging of the four channels and in-water placement in the Columbia River from RM 3 to RM 105.5. Because of the deferred maintenance in recent years at Lake River, a deeper initial dredge cut would be needed to re-establish the desired channel depths during the first dredging event at this location. Estimated initial dredge-cut depths are the difference between existing shoal-condition depths and the and advanced maintenance depth of 2 feet (Table 4-8). Table 4-8. Estimated dredge-cut depth ranges for first dredging events Existing Shoal First Dredge-Cut Channel Name Condition Depth Range Depth Range Baker Bay 11 to17 ft CRD 1 to 7 ft Chinook Channel 1 to 8 ft CRD 4 to11 ft Elochoman Slough 6 to 9 ft CRD 3 to 6 ft Lake River 2 to3 ft CRD 5 to 6 ft

Because of the deferred maintenance, sediment has also accumulated on the river bottom adjacent to the Lake River navigation channel. Maintenance dredge cuts along the channel edges may cause changes to these river-bottom areas, such as erosion and side-slope adjustment. Such changes are expected to equilibrate within 1 to 3 years after the dredging event. Conditions would be similar to previous maintenance dredging events, and there would be no increased erosion from future recurring maintenance dredging events. Maintenance dredging would have localized and minor effects to hydraulics and sediment transport in the areas that have deferred maintenance. Some minor and temporary changes to side-slope downcutting and increased velocity may occur near the confluence of Lake River and the Columbia River when the initial maintenance dredging is completed. However, changes to existing patterns of erosion, deposition, and flow are not expected. Effects to hydrology would be insignificant.

______Page 43 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

4.12 Land use

4.12.1 Affected Environment

Land ownership in the lower Columbia River consists of holdings by private, corporate, and governmental entities (local, state, and federal). Primary categorization of holdings is forest and farmlands in the lower Columbia River, interspersed with urban and industrial areas clustered near RM 100. There are five deep-draft and three smaller ports situated along the lower Columbia River. These eight ports own, operate and lease holdings for marine-based commerce and industry along the river. Various governmental entities own, operate, and lease holdings for numerous uses along the river. The four side channels are located entirely in water, and thus, the counties have not designated any land-use zoning for these areas. Adjacent land uses are: • Baker Bay – incorporated and conservation (Cape Disappointment State Park) (Pacific County 2019) • Chinook – mixed use, industrial, rural lands (Pacific County 2019). • Elochoman – no zoning and commercial/industrial (Wahkiakum County 2020). • Lake River – rural/commercial (Port of Ridgefield) parks/open space (Ridgefield NWR) (Clark County 2020).

4.12.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.12.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four side channels, and there would be no placement of dredged material from those channels. The no action alternative would not result in any changes in land use, zoning, or land ownership. 4.12.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The proposed action maintains channels within their authorized footprints, rather than increasing channel capacity; therefore, the Corps’ action would neither alter land use nor influence growth in development or population. Thus, the proposed action would have no effect on land use, land ownership, or zoning.

4.13 Navigation

4.13.1 Affected Environment

Most of the shoaling formations in the four federal navigation channels consist of steady, low- energy accretionary depositional shoals formed by sediment settling out of the water column. After the four navigation channels were authorized and constructed, maintenance dredging occurred at regular intervals at Baker Bay and Chinook FNCs. However, at Elochoman Slough and Lake River, maintenance has been deferred due to lack of federal funding. As a result of deferred maintenance, material has continued to accumulate in the channels, posing a risk to safe transit of vessels. Baker Bay is dredged annually, as funding allows, with between 85,000 to 150,000 CY of material removed annually. The channel was last dredged in 2020 by a clamshell dredge. Deferred maintenance of the Baker Bay pile dikes and continued erosion of West Sand Island

Page 44

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

contribute to the instability of the navigation channel and annual shoaling. Chinook Channel is dredged every 2 out of 5 years, as funding is available, with between 100,000 to 160,000 CY of material removed per dredging event. Chinook was last dredged in 2020 by a clamshell dredge. The most recent federal maintenance dredging occurred at Elochoman Slough in 1989. As a result of deferred maintenance, material continued to accumulate in the channel until Wahkiakum Port District No. 1 performed maintenance dredging in 2019. Lake River was last dredged in 1980. As a result of deferred maintenance, material has continued to accrete at the entrance of the channel, resulting in a controlling depth of 2 feet and a severe restriction to access for Port traffic and the Clark County Search and Rescue Vessel. Dredging methods are described in detail in Section 3.2.

4.13.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.13.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four side channels, and there would be no placement of dredged material from those channels. Sediments would continue to shoal in the navigation channels, posing a hazard to transiting vessels and eventually becoming unusable. Vessel ingress and egress would be limited to high tide (at Baker Bay, Chinook and Elochoman Slough) or when high water levels would allow access (at Lake River). Eventually, access would be severely limited, and recreational and commercial users would have to moor or launch their vessels elsewhere. The loss of access would result in economic hardship to the communities that depend on the navigation channel for their economic stability and livelihood. At Baker Bay, the US Coast Guard would no longer be able to access the Mouth of the Columbia River for search and rescue calls, which would increase the likelihood of hazards to life and safety. 4.13.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The proposed action would decrease the hazard to vessels transiting in the four side channels, sustain the economic viability of the communities that are supported by these channels, reduce the life and safety impacts associated with search and rescue calls, and prevent the channels from becoming unusable. The proposed action would promote safe and reliable navigation in the four side channels. Effects of the action would be beneficial to navigation.

4.14 Noise

4.14.1 Affected Environment

4.14.1.1 Airborne Noise Current levels of ambient airborne noise in the affected area vary by location. In urban and suburban areas, background airborne noise levels likely range from 50 to 65 dBA. Rural areas and quieter suburban areas may typically experience background noise levels of 45 to 50 dBA (WSDOT 2020). Sources of airborne noise in the affected area include vessel traffic, automotive vehicle traffic, dredging and placement of material, train traffic, residential noise, and industrial activities at the Port of Ilwaco, Port of Chinook, Elochoman Marina, and Port of Ridgefield. The Corps did not measure airborne noise levels at the four side channels, but given the ______Page 45 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

surrounding land uses, levels are presumed to be in the range of 50 to 70 dBA. Noise receptors (that is, individuals likely to be exposed to elevated sounds) in the affected area include wildlife (including threatened and endangered species), landowners, recreationalists, and workers. 4.14.1.2 In-Water Noise Existing sources of in-water noise in the affected area include water-flow noise, wave action, wind, vessel traffic, in-water construction, dredging, and placement of dredged material (Carlson 2001, Zurk et al. 2011, David Evans 2011). Based on the available data, background noise levels are estimated to range from 120 to 136 dB most of the time in the absence of vessel traffic, increasing sporadically to about 157 to 190 dB while non-dredging vessels are passing, and to 190 dB during dredging and placement (USACE 2019a). In-water noise receptors in the affected area include fish and marine mammals.

4.14.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.14.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four side channels, and there would be no placement of dredged material from those channels. The no action would not result in any changes in existing levels of noise. 4.14.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The proposed action would cause a temporary and localized increase in noise during dredging and placement. Additionally, the side channels are in and adjacent to areas that already experience baseline levels of vessel-, dredging- and industry-related noise, meaning that the proposed action would only increase noise incrementally above ambient levels. These impacts would be minor and temporary in nature, and impacts would cease once dredging and placement is completed. For this reason, effects would be insignificant.

4.15 Public Infrastructure

4.15.1 Affected Environment

Public infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed action along the Columbia River includes dams, levees, marinas, roads, ports and harbors.

4.15.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.15.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four side channels, and there would be no placement of dredged material from those channels. The no action would not result in any changes to public infrastructure. 4.15.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The proposed action would likely improve the safe access to infrastructure such as public docks and marinas. Effects to this resource would be insignificant.

Page 46

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

4.16 Socioeconomics

4.16.1 Affected Environment

The proposed dredging is located in Pacific, Wahkiakum, and Clark Counties, Washington and in Clatsop, County, Oregon. In-water placement would occur in the same counties, as well as in Cowlitz County, Washington and Columbia and Multnomah Counties, Oregon. None of the dredging or placement sites is populated; however, approximately 1.3 million people live in the vicinity along the lower Columbia River. The river runs through the Pacific Northwest’s second largest population center, the Portland/Vancouver metro area. Racial minorities are underrepresented in the affected area when compared to the national statistics. A wide range of property uses are observed along the Columbia River, such as agriculture, commerce, ecosystem restoration, industry, recreation, and residential development. Some properties rely on the river for critical components of agriculture and commerce. The Columbia River is the gateway for global imports to the Columbia-Snake River navigation system. The federal deep-draft navigation channel is important to the regional, national, and global economy. In 2011, the deep-draft navigation channel supported an annual $30 billion import/export industry, transporting approximately 55 million metric tons of goods (USDOT 2011). Approximately $16 billion worth of U.S. products was exported to the world markets. Currently, approximately $14 billion worth of products are imported and exported from the Columbia River and Snake River systems annually. More than 12,000 commercial vessels and 100,000 recreational/charter vessels navigate through the deep-draft navigation channel each year. According to the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, more than 40,000 jobs along the lower Columbia River are directly dependent on seaport activity. The Columbia River and its tributaries support treaty, non-treaty commercial, and recreational fisheries. These fisheries are highly regulated by state, federal, and tribal entities. A wide range of fish and aquatic species are harvested from the Columbia River. Overall, there are over 120 species of fish and aquatic species that are harvested from this region. The Columbia River supports a $410 million fish industry (salmon, crab, groundfish, etc.). The Columbia River is a major recreational area for a variety of shoreline, on-water, and in-water activities. Recreational use of the Columbia River occurs year round; river-based tourism and recreation are the driving economic force for many of the towns situated along the Columbia River. Fishing, hunting, swimming, water sports, and sightseeing are among the most popular activities recreational activities along the Columbia River. Given the wide range of recreational opportunities and large geographic range of the Columbia River, it is difficult to quantify the value of recreation for this region. Approximately 6% of the Columbia River water is diverted for agricultural use. Additionally, municipal and industrial users draw water from the Columbia River. Dams on the Columbia River (upstream of the proposed affected area) generate inexpensive hydroelectric power, creating approximately 60% of the Pacific Northwest electricity. Primary uses of the four side channels are: • Baker Bay – US Coast Guard, commercial fishing, recreational boating, boat charters, and sportfishing • Chinook – Commercial fishing, recreational boating and sportfishing • Elochoman Slough - commercial and recreational fishing and tourism

______Page 47 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

• Lake River - commercial access to Port of Ridgefield and other marinas on Lake River, recreational boating and fishing, and Clark County Search and Rescue.

Commercial and recreational channel users also support the local businesses (such as restaurants, hotels, bars, shops, boat-repair facilities, seafood processing plants, and service and fueling stations) that are located on land near the channels.

4.16.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.16.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four side channels. Material would continue to accumulate in the channels, and shoaling would continue to interfere with safe vessel passage. Commercial fishing vessels, commercial barges, and recreational vessels are currently not able to use the channels during all tidal or river-level elevations, and this condition would continue under the no action alternative. Eventually, the channels would become accessible and unsafe to vessels requiring the authorized depths, causing adverse impacts to the regional economy of the side channel areas and the communities that depend on them. Based on an economic study conducted in 2018, the Ports at Baker Bay (Port of Ilwaco) and Chinook support a total of 1,328 jobs, $61.8 million in annual wages, $82.5 million in business revenues, $5.8 million in state and local taxes, and $37.4 million in local purchases. Elochoman Slough supports the Wahkiakum Port District No. 1 Elochoman Marina, which includes an active boat basin with 250 slips (all but 10 are permanent) and up to fifteen seasonal vessels. The Elochoman Marina is a center of recreational and economic activity for Wahkiakum County. Lake River supports the Port of Ridgefield and the Clark County Fire & Rescue boat, which is the only response boat between Lake River and Astoria (a stretchy of 75 river miles). A small gillnet fleet (about 10 boats) operates seasonally, and there is a small private marina serving local businesses. In 2015, boat launch areas in 2015 saw 7,600 launches with $65,000 in ticket sales. If these channels are not maintained, and users were to stop visiting these ports, then the revenue would be lost and/or displaced to another port community. That would result in additional losses within those communities, as businesses in the vicinity of the Port would also be impacted. 4.16.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) Dredging these four channels would improve navigation for commercial and recreational vessels, resulting in economic benefits to commercial fisheries, the shipping industry, local businesses, and local governments that depend on these channel users. Over the long term, dredging at these navigation channels is expected to improve the economy at the individual sites as follows: • Baker Bay: At Ilwaco, Washington the proposed action would continue to support tourism, commercial fishing, fish processing, boat repair, charter fishing, recreational fishing, and other-port dependent industries. • Chinook Channel: At Chinook, Washington, the proposed action would continue to support tourism, commercial fishing, fish processing, charter fishing, recreational fishing,

Page 48

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

and other port-dependent industries. • Elochoman Slough: At the Elochoman Marina, the proposed action would continue to support tourism, commercial fishing, recreational fishing, and other port- and water-dependent industries. • Lake River: At Ridgefield, Washington and vicinity, the proposed action would continue to support tourism, commercial and recreational fishing, and other port- and water-dependent industries.

At any of the sites, construction would result in short-term, minor effects to socioeconomics. In addition to supporting commercial fishing and related industries, the four channels are also used by recreationalists such as boaters, anglers, windsurfers, and others, mostly in a day-use capacity. During dredging and placement, these activities could be restricted or off limits, resulting in a minor adverse social or economic impact. However, these impacts would be temporary. Fishing and other recreational activities would be able to resume after the work is completed. Overall, effects to socioeconomics would be insignificant.

4.17 Environmental justice

4.17.1 Affected Environment

Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to minimize health impacts on subsistence, low-income, or minority communities, ensuring that no persons or group of people bear a disproportionate burden of negative environmental impacts resulting from the execution of U.S. domestic and foreign policies. Because the side channels are uninhabited, no subsistence, low income, or minority communities occur there. To characterize effects to the areas surrounding the side channels, the Corps used an online tool called the USEPA Environmental Justice screen (EJScreen, USEPA 2018). EJScreen provides an index that combines nearby environmental and demographic indicators to estimate an existing risk to environmental-justice populations within the affected area compared to state and national levels. The EJ Index looks at eleven variables: particulate matter (PM 2.5), ozone, diesel PM, air toxics cancer risk, respiratory hazard indicator, traffic proximity and volume, presence of lead paint indicators, superfund site proximity, proximity to sites that have a Risk Management Plan, hazardous waste proximity, and presence of wastewater discharge indicators. Results of the EJScreen showed: • The Baker Bay area was in the 50th to 75th percentile for ten of the eleven indicators, meaning that risks to population in the Ilwaco (Baker Bay) area were the same or slightly higher than for Washington and the U.S. as a whole. One index, lead paint indicator, was at about 25th percentile, indicating less risk to populations near Ilwaco compared to state and national levels. • Adjacent to Chinook channel, all indices rated 50th to 80th percentile, meaning the risks were the same or higher than state and national levels. • The Elochoman area was in the 50th to 70th percentile for ten of the eleven indices, meaning that risks were the same or higher than state and national levels. One index, wastewater discharge indicator, was at about 25th percentile, meaning that risks were lower at Elochoman than for the state and nation. • Near Lake River, all indices were well below state and national levels, except for traffic

______Page 49 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

proximity, which was at about 50th percentile.

4.17.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.17.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four side channels, and there would be no placement of dredged material from those channels. Deferring channel maintenance would not change any of the EJ Index variables, nor would it affect EJ populations disproportionately. Thus, there would be no impacts to environmental justice populations. 4.17.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) During construction, the proposed action may have temporary, short-term impacts to users of the area for the duration of construction. Temporary lack of access to these activities would affect all populations equally, with no disproportionate effect to minorities or other environmental-justice populations. Because the affected environment is largely uninhabited, there would be no change in population, economics, or other indicator of social well-being. In surrounding areas, the maintenance dredging would not result in any meaningful change to the EJ Index variables (PM 2.5, ozone, diesel PM, air toxics cancer risk, respiratory hazard indicator, traffic proximity and volume, lead paint indicator, superfund site proximity, proximity to sites that have a Risk Management Plan, hazardous waste proximity, and wastewater discharge indicator). Consequently, effects to environmental justice populations would be insignificant.

4.18 Soils and Sediment Quality

4.18.1 Affected Environment

The Corps performs regular analyses in the FNCs to determine whether sediments are suitable for in-water unconfined placement, according to the requirements of the CWA and the MPRSA. The Corps characterizes sediments present within proposed dredge areas in accordance with the regional and national dredged material testing manual protocols, Ocean Testing Manual, Inland Testing Manual, 2018 Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest (SEF) (Northwest Regional Sediment Evaluation Team (RSET) 2018), and previously under the 1998 Dredge Material Evaluation Framework (DMEF). The Corps will continue to sample and evaluate the four side channels periodically in the future in accordance with the SEF. Dredged material would only be placed in water after the Portland Sediment Evaluation Team (PSET) determines that sediments are suitable for unconfined aquatic placement and unconfined aquatic exposure, in accordance with the SEF. Sediments that are tested and deemed to be contaminated (that is, not suitable for unconfined in-water disposal) would not be placed in water but would instead be placed in upland sites. A brief description of the most recent sediment-quality sampling results from the affected area appears below. The complete sediment-quality reports are available upon request. Baker Bay was last sampled on July 31, 2020 under the 2018 SEF (USACE 2020a). The sampling effort was divided into two areas: the outer channel (lowest 2 miles of Baker Bay FNC) and the inner channel (mile 2 to 3.1). The inner channel was 55% fine sediments and 45% sand with a total organic carbon content of 0.76%. The outer channel was 99% sand and 1% fines with a total organic carbon content of 4%.

Page 50

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

In a suitability determination memorandum dated December 2, 2020, the PSET determined that chemical concentrations in the dredge prism samples are below the marine SEF screening levels. As such, the dredge prism material is suitable for unconfined, aquatic placement without additional testing, per 2018 SEF guidance. The PSET assigned the inner channel a “low” rank and the outer channel a “very low” rank. As such, the PSET assumes that the post-dredge surfaces are suitable for unconfined, aquatic exposure without further testing per the 2018 SEF guidance. These results are valid for the inner channel until July 2027 and for the outer channel until July 2030 (USEPA 2020b). Chinook Channel was last sampled on July 30, 2020 under the 2018 SEF (USACE 2020b). The sampling effort was divided into two areas: the outer channel (mile 0+00 to 1+25 of Chinook FNC) and the inner channel (mile 1+25 to 2+00). The inner channel was 79% fine sediments and 21% sand with a total organic carbon content of 1.98%. The outer channel was 83% sand and 17% fines with a total organic carbon content of 0.52%. In a suitability determination memorandum dated January 5, 2021, the PSET determined that chemical concentrations in the dredge prism samples are below the marine SEF screening levels. As such, the dredge prism material is suitable for unconfined aquatic placement without additional testing, per 2018 SEF guidance. The PSET assigned the inner channel a “low” rank and the outer channel a “very low” rank. As such, the PSET assumes that the post-dredge surfaces are suitable for unconfined aquatic exposure without further testing per the 2018 SEF guidance. These results are valid for the inner channel until July 2027 and for the outer channel until July 2030 (USEPA 2021a). Elochoman Slough was last sampled in August 2015 under the 2009 SEF (USACE 2009). Grain sizes were approximately 30% sand and 70% fines. The dredged material characterization was conducted by the Wahkiakum Port District No. 1 for Corps permit NWP- 2003-602. Grain sizes in the federal side channel dredge prism were approximately 30% sand and 70% fines, with a total organic content of 0.72%. Grain sizes in the post-dredge surface were approximately 50% sands and 50% fine sediments with a total organic content of 0.57%. The PSET assigned a “low” rank to the federal side channel and determined that sediments are suitable for unconfined aquatic placement without further testing through August 2022 (PSET 2016). Lake River was last sampled in November 2018 (USACE 2019b) under the 2018 SEF. Only trace amounts of gravel appeared in the samples nearest the Columbia River, but otherwise, grain sizes varied widely between sand and fine sediments. Of ten samples, eight were mostly composed of sand (ranging from 59.2 to 95.5%). The remaining two samples were chiefly silt and clay (72.6 and 79% fines by composition). The PSET determined that the dredge prism sediments from the Lake River FNC are suitable for unconfined, aquatic placement without biological testing per the 2018 SEF. Additionally, the PSET determined that the post-dredge surface is suitable for unconfined, aquatic exposure and did not require management of the post-dredge surface. The PSET assigned a “very low” rank to the sediments at the confluence with Columbia River and a “moderate” rank to the remainder of the side channel in Lake River. These results are valid until November 2023 (WSDOE 2019). The Pacific Wood Treating Facility cleanup site is located in Ridgefield, WA, adjacent to the Lake River FNC. The Port of Ridgefield and Washington Department of Ecology conducted cleanup of contaminated areas in Lake River in 2014, including dredging from 1 to 3 feet and capping the area with gravel and cobbles near the bank, and clean sand (to achieve enhanced natural recover) within the federal channel. The Port and Ecology will continue monitoring the

______Page 51 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

cleanup site through 2025, or beyond that if site does not attain cleanup levels. The proposed action is not anticipated to disturb the capped area.

4.18.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.18.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four side channels, and there would be no placement of dredged material from those channels. There would be no impacts to soils or sediments under this alternative. 4.18.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The Corps performed sediment sampling at Baker Bay and Chinook Channel in 2020, Elochoman Slough in 2015, and Lake River in 2018. None of the parameters tested exceeded the SEF screening levels, and the sediments are deemed suitable for unconfined aquatic placement and exposure. Thus, dredging and placement of suitable native river sediments in water would not degrade the aquatic or sediment quality of the lower Columbia, nor would it mobilize harmful or hazardous materials in the water column. All channels would continue to be sampled and evaluated periodically in the future in accordance with the SEF. By placing only suitable sediments in water, the Corps would greatly minimize effects to water quality. Thus, the proposed action would have insignificant effects on sediment and water quality.

4.19 Tribal Interests

4.19.1 Affected Environment

The area potentially affected by the project has been the homeland for multiple tribes since time immemorial. The lower Columbia River has historically supported the tribes’ sense of place and identity and as a result, an action that could change the river’s conditions could affect tribal interests. Tribal interests include trust lands, natural resources, trust funds, or other assets held but the Federal government in trust to Indian tribes or individuals. For example, treaty-reserved rights include the right to fishing, hunting, and gathering on and off reservations. Tribal interests are different than cultural resources that are subject to historic preservation laws because they can include natural resources that are not protected by the historic preservation laws. As a result, effects to all cultural resources are discussed in Section 4.8, Archaeological and Historical Properties. To identify tribal interests, Government-to-Government consultation was conducted with the following Federally recognized tribes: the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Shoalwater Bay Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the Nez Perce Tribe. Government-to-Government consultation letters were sent to the tribes to introduce them to the project, see if they had any concerns with the project, and determine whether they wished to have further information. Letters were sent to the tribes for the Elochoman Slough project on January 10, 2020 and for the Lake River project on January 23, 2020. Letters for Baker Bay Channel and Chinook Channel were sent on 22 January 2021. The tribes will continue to be updated about the project. No tribes responded to the letters with a request for additional information or a request for additional consultation.

Page 52

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

4.19.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.19.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four side channels, and there would be no placement of dredged material from those channels. As such, there would be no adverse effects to tribal interests. 4.19.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The proposed action includes dredging of the four channels and placement of dredge material in previously identified and used placement areas. The Corps is not aware of any tribal interests in action area that will be affected by the proposed project. These actions have been completed in the past and there will be no changes to the proposed action. Based on available information, the proposed action would have no effect on tribal interests.

4.20 Water Quality

4.20.1 Affected Environment

The Clean Water Act (CWA) governs the release of pollutants into waterways. Three sections of the CWA apply to the proposed action: Sections 401, 404, and 303(d). When an action involves a discharge to waters of the U.S., Section 401 requires a Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the state in which the discharge will occur. The Corps has already obtained WQCs for the proposed action from both Oregon (reference number NWPOP-CLA- F05-001-FR, expires May 19, 2024, amendment added for Howard Island Sump on September 3, 2015) and Washington (WDOE WQC order #19402, First Amendment. Received November 3, 2020, valid through December 31, 2025). Section 404 prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters without a permit from the Corps. In accordance with 33 C.F.R. §§ 335-337, the Corps does not issue itself a CWA permit to authorize Corps discharges of dredged material or fill material into U.S. waters, but does apply the 404(b)(1) guidelines and other substantive requirements of the CWA and other environmental laws. Only when there is no practicable alternative would any discharge of fill material occur. The Corps has either completed or will soon complete 404(b)(1) analysis for each of the four dredging projects (Table 4-9). Table 4-9. Completion of 404(b)(1) Analysis for Side Channel Projects Project Name 404(b)(1) Analysis Completion Details Baker Bay and In progress. Anticipated completion March 26, 2021. Chinook Channel Elochoman Slough March 24, 2020. Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging and Dredged Material Placement: Elochoman Slough, Wahkiakum County, Washington. Lake River February 9, 2021. Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging and Dredged Material Placement: Lake River, Clark County, Washington.

______Page 53 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Under Section 303(d), states must create a list of water bodies that do not meet applicable water-quality standards. The list includes priority rankings for each water body. If water body meets or exceeds a certain level of impairment, the states must establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) that would correct the impairment such that the water body attains the water-quality standard. Table 4-10 shows the 303(d)-listed water bodies that occur in the affected area (WSDOE 2020b). Table 4-10. 303(d)-Listed Water Bodies in the Affected Area Water body 303(d) Listing Columbia River 1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene; 2,3,7,8- Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin; 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin Toxic Equivalent; 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol; 2,4-Dichlorophenol; 2- Methylnaphthalene; 4,4'- Dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethane; 4,4'- Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene; 4,4'- Chlorodiphenyl Trichloroethane; Alpha-BHC; Anthracene; Arsenic; Beta-BHC; Bis(2- chloroisopropyl)ether; Chlordane; Dibenzofuran; Dieldrin; Dioxin; Dissolved Oxygen; Endosulfan I; Endosulfan II; Endosulfan Sulfate; Endrin; Endrin Aldehyde; Fecal Coliform; Fluoranthene; Fluorene; Gamma-bhc (Lindane); Heptachlor; Heptachlor Epoxide; Hexachlorobenzene; Hexachlorobutadiene; Hexachloroethane; Invasive Exotic Species; Low Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons; Mercury, Nitrobenzene; Polychlorinated biphenyl; pH; Phenanthrene; Phenol; Pyrene; Temperature; Total Chlordane; and Total Dissolved Gas. Baker Bay Same as Columbia River, plus bacteria at Port of Ilwaco and PCB near Fort Canby Chinook Channel Same as Columbia River Elochoman Slough Temperature, dioxin, PCBs, dissolved oxygen Lake River Temperature, bacteria

4.20.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.20.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, maintenance dredging would not occur at the four federal navigation channels, and there would be no placement of dredged material from those channels. There would be no impacts to water quality under the no action alternative. 4.20.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) All construction equipment would follow a spill prevention and response plan; therefore, the use of construction equipment is not likely to adversely impact water quality. The proposed action would likely result in temporary and localized reduction in water quality during the course of dredging and placement, which would temporarily elevate levels of suspended sediments. These impacts would be minor and temporary in nature and would cease shortly after dredging and placement are complete. The current WQCs contain measures to ensure that turbidity is monitored and minimized during dredging and placement. After the action is complete, natural hydraulic processes would redistribute sediments downstream from the placement areas and from areas near the dredge footprint. To ensure that dissolved oxygen

Page 54

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft does not drop below acceptable levels, the Corps would monitor dissolved oxygen during dredging, in accordance with the current WQCs, the NMFS 2012 BiOp (for Baker and Chinook), and a second BiOp (for Elochoman and Lake River), anticipated in early 2021. The Corps performed sediment sampling at all four side channels as described in Section 4.19. Sediments were deemed suitable for unconfined, aquatic disposal and exposure. Thus, dredging and placement of material in water would not add to the contamination burden of the lower Columbia, nor would it mobilize hazardous materials in the water column. By dredging and placing only clean sediments, the Corps would greatly minimize effects to water quality. Construction and equipment use during the proposed action would not measurably affect water quality beyond levels disclosed in the current WQCs. Because the proposed action would adhere to the WQC and implement BMPs to protect water quality described in Table 3-1, effects would be insignificant due to mitigation.

4.21 Climate Change

4.21.1 Affected Environment

Climate is governed by incoming solar radiation and greenhouse effects that influence short- term, seasonal, and long-term weather patterns. The greenhouse effect is the result of certain naturally occurring atmospheric gases absorbing long-wave radiation emitted from the earth. Absorption of this long-wave radiation in the atmosphere, as opposed to allowing it to be emitted back into space, warms the earth. Greenhouse gases include (in the order of importance to the greenhouse effect): water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Anthropogenic activities such as the burning of fossil fuels (adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere) and clearing of forests (removing a natural sink for carbon dioxide), have intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing climate change. Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are the most substantial source of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have risen almost 100 parts per million (ppm) since pre-industrial value of 280 ppm (OCCRI 2010). Natural factors, which include solar variation and volcanic activity, also contribute to climate change. However, strong scientific evidence suggests that these factors alone do not fully explain the observed accelerated climate change within the past few decades. Climate change is likely to play an increasingly important role in determining the fate of wildlife and the conservation value of habitats in the Columbia River. Climate change could exacerbate long-term problems related to temperature, stream flow, habitat access, predation, and marine productivity (CIG 2004, ISAB 2007). According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the average regional air temperatures have increased by an average of 1.5°F over the last century, and by up to 4°F in some areas. Warming is likely to continue during the next century as average temperatures are anticipated to increase another 3°F to 10°F (USGCRP 2009). These changes would not be spatially homogeneous across the Columbia River. Areas with elevations high enough to maintain temperatures well below freezing for most of the winter and early spring would be less strongly affected. Low-lying areas that historically have received scant precipitation contribute little to total stream flow and are likely to be more strongly affected. Overall, about one-third of the current cold-water fish habitat in the Pacific Northwest is likely to exceed key water-temperature thresholds by the end of this century (USGCRP 2009). Precipitation trends during the next century are not certain, but precipitation is likely to increase ______Page 55 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

during October through March and decrease during summer, and more of the winter precipitation is likely to fall as rain rather than snow (ISAB 2007, USGCRP 2009). A warmer climate would cause earlier melting and runoff of snow, so that stream flows in late spring, summer, and fall would be lower, and water temperatures would be warmer compared to current conditions (ISAB 2007, USGCRP 2009). Higher winter stream flows increase the risk that winter floods in sensitive watersheds would damage salmon and steelhead spawning redds and wash away incubating eggs (USGCRP 2009). Earlier peak stream flows would also flush some young salmon and steelhead from rivers to estuaries before they are physically adapted to migrate, increasing stress and the risk of predation (USGCRP 2009). Lower stream flows and warmer water temperatures during summer would degrade summer rearing conditions, in part by increasing the prevalence and virulence of fish diseases and parasitism (USGCRP 2009). Other adverse effects are likely to include altered migration patterns, accelerated embryo development, premature emergence of fry, variation in quality and quantity of tributary rearing habitat, and increased risk of competition and from warm-water, non-native species (ISAB 2007). The earth’s oceans are also warming, with considerable inter-annual and inter-decadal variability superimposed on the longer-term trend. Historically, warm periods in the coastal Pacific Ocean have coincided with relatively low abundances of salmon and steelhead, while cooler ocean periods have coincided with relatively high abundances (USGCRP 2009). Ocean conditions adverse to salmon and steelhead may be more likely under a warming climate. According to the EPA (2015), global average sea level rose throughout the 20th century, and the rate of change has accelerated in recent years. When averaged over all the world’s oceans, absolute sea level increased at an average rate of 0.06 inches per year from 1880 to 2013. Since 1993, average sea level has risen at a rate of 0.11 to 0.14 inches per year—roughly twice as fast as the long term trend.

4.21.2 Evaluation of the Effects of the Alternatives

4.21.2.1 No Action Alternative The no action alternative would not result in effects to climate change. 4.21.2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) Climate change will likely alter precipitation, the extent of snowpack, rain-on-snow events, and seasonal river flow. These changes could alter the timing and size of shoals developing in the four channels, which, in turn could change the timing and frequency of dredging and placement. The Corps assumes that any effects climate change might have across the project area during this timeframe would be negligible. The proposed action would generate a small amount of greenhouse gases from fossil-fuel-burning engines on the dredge, in support vessels, and from other equipment. The proposed action would also result in more automobile trips, because workers would need to commute to various docks to access their workplaces on the dredges. Estimates of new greenhouse gases to be generated are included in section 4.2 above. The amount of new greenhouse gas generated is negligible compared to the no action and compared to ambient levels. Therefore, effects from the proposed action would be insignificant.

Page 56

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

5 AGENCIES CONSULTED AND INTERESTED PARTIES

Early and continuing coordination with the general public, Native American tribes, elected officials, and appropriate public agencies is essential for determining the scope of environmental documentation, potential impacts, level of analysis, and measures to avoid and minimize impacts. Agency coordination for this project was accomplished through a variety of formal and informal methods. This draft EA will be issued for a 15-day public review period, from March 17 to 31, 2021. The Corps is requesting comments from federal and state agencies, as well as from various interested parties. A summary of public comments will appear in the final EA including responses. The Corps has posted this draft EA on the Public Notice website https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Media/Public-Notices/ and has provided a notice requesting comments on the draft EA from the following agencies and groups:

5.1 Federal Agencies

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Coast Guard Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

5.2 Native American Tribes

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Cowlitz Indian Tribe Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Nez Perce Tribe Shoalwater Bay Tribe Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Nation Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

5.3 County Governments

Columbia County, Oregon Clatsop County, Oregon Multnomah County, Oregon Pacific County, Washington Wahkiakum County, Washington Cowlitz County, Washington Clark County, Washington

5.4 City and Town Governments

City of Warrenton, Oregon ______Page 57 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

City of Astoria, Oregon City of Cathlamet, Washington City of Ilwaco, Washington City of Chinook, Washington, City of Ridgefield Washington

5.5 State Agencies

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Oregon Department of State Lands Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Oregon Marine Board State of Oregon Governor’s Transportation Office State of Oregon Governor’s Natural Resources Office Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Washington State Department of Ecology Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Natural Resources State of Washington Governor’s Office WA Governor's Transportation and Economic Development Policy Advisors WA Governor's Natural Resources / Environment Policy Advisors

5.6 Elected Officials

U.S. House Representative to Congress, State of Washington, District 3 U.S. House Representatives to Congress, State of Oregon, Districts 1 and 3 U.S. Senators for Oregon and Washington Oregon State Senate, Districts 16 and 22 Oregon State House, Districts 31, 32, and 44 Washington State Senate, District 18 ,19, 20, and 49 Washington State House, Districts 18, 19, 20, and 49

5.7 Interest Groups

American Rivers Columbia Land Trust Columbia River Bar Pilots Columbia River Business Alliance Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association Columbia River Keeper Institute for Fisheries Science Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership Oregon Natural Resources Council Oregon Charter Boat Association

Page 58

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Oregon Wild Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) Pacific States Marine Fish Commission Pacific Northwest Waterways Association Pacific Ports Portland Audubon Society Salmon for All Save Our Wild Salmon Washington Public Ports Association Wahkiakum Port District #1 and #2

6 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES LAWS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS

The following sections demonstrate compliance with all relevant environmental and cultural laws for the proposed action outside of the NEPA compliance.

6.1 Compliance with Environmental & Cultural Resource Laws

6.1.1 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa- 470mm

The proposed action does not require a permit for the removal or excavation of a known archaeological site. Therefore, this Act is not applicable to this action.

6.1.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, 16 U.S.C. §§ 668

This Act provides for the protection of bald and golden eagles by prohibiting the taking, possession, and commerce of such birds, except under certain specified conditions with a permit. The USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (May 2007), WDFW PHS data on line (WDFW 2020), and Corps’ eGIS Information Portal were aids in evaluating project impacts to eagles and known nest locations. While golden eagles do not occur in the affected area, bald eagles are increasingly more commonly observed in the vicinity. There are currently no documented active or alternate eagle nests within 660 ft of the side-channel dredging sites. The proposed project does not involve forestry practices, use of aircraft or other motorized equipment, blasting, or other work that can result in loud or intermittent noises within 660 ft of any known active or alternate eagle nest. The nesting period in the Pacific Region is between 1 January and 15 August (as specified in the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines). The proposed dredging period is 1 August to 15 August, and therefore the period of overlap between potential nesting and the Corps’ proposed action is only 15 days, making it very unlikely for dredging to impact any bald eagles. If any nests are observed during this two-week period in the future, the Corps would avoid dredging at that location until after 15 August. By using these protective measures, the proposed action would not disturb bald or golden eagles and therefore complies with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

______Page 59 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

6.1.3 Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.

The proposed action would not create or result in any exceedances of State and Federal emission standards. Furthermore, the proposed action would not involve asbestos, a regulated industry, use of an incinerator, open burning, or hazardous materials. All vehicular and mechanical equipment used to complete the proposed action would be required to meet State emissions standards. Noise generation would be minimal because the action is localized, low- level, and temporary. Additional information for Air Quality is discussed in Section 4.2. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with this Act.

6.1.4 Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.

The following sections of the CWA apply to the action: 401 and 404. Section 401 requires certification from the state that a discharge to waters of the U.S. in that state would not violate the states’ water quality standards. Navigation channel O&M in the LCR is certified under WDOE WQC order #19402, First Amendment. Received November 3, 2020, valid through December 31, 2025; Oregon DEQ issued a WQC for this action on May 19, 2014, valid until May 19, 2024. The Corps will seek renewals from WDOE and ODEQ as needed into the future. Therefore, the action is in compliance with Section 401. Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In accordance with 33 C.F.R. §§ 335-337, the Corps does not issue itself a CWA permit to authorize Corps discharges of dredged material or fill material into U.S. waters, but does apply the 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR Part 230) and other substantive requirements of the CWA and other environmental laws. Only when there is no practicable alternative would the Corps discharge any discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Because dredged material storage sites within the Network are nearing capacity, and after taking into account cost, existing technology, and logistics, the Corps determined that the placement sites chosen as the preferred alternative are the most appropriate for meeting the needs of the dredge program, while minimizing adverse impacts on water quality. The Corps is preparing 404(b)(1) evaluations to provide more detail about how the proposed action meets the 404(b)(1) guidelines. • Baker Bay and Chinook Channel – In progress. Anticipated completion date March 26, 2021. • Elochoman Slough - March 24, 2020. Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging and Dredged Material Placement: Elochoman Slough, Wahkiakum County, Washington • Lake River – February 9, 2021. Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging and Dredged Material Placement: Elochoman Slough, Clark County, Washington The Final EA and FONSI will meet the criteria of the Statement of Findings requirement under 33 C.F.R. §337.6.

6.1.5 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, 6 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.

Lake River FNC is not located within the coastal zone for the state of Oregon or Washington, nor will it result in effects to coastal resources under the scope of the CZMA. Therefore, this Act is not applicable to the proposed action at Lake River.

Page 60

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, and Elochoman Slough are in the coastal zone for the state of Washington, defined as the counties that front on salt water (WSDOE 2020c). This Act is applicable to the proposed action. On June 4, 2020, the Corps submitted a CZMA Consistency Determination to Ecology for the proposed action at these three channels. Because Ecology did not respond within 60 days, compliance is assumed. Thus, the action complies with this Act. Baker Bay and Chinook Channel are also in the coastal zone for the State of Oregon (Oregon Coastal Atlas 2020). The State of Oregon defines this zone as extending from the Oregon coastline seaward 3 nautical miles and inland to the crest of the Coast Range (except to the downstream end of Puget Island on the Columbia River, to Scottsburg on the Umpqua River, and to Agness on the Rogue River). This Act is applicable to the proposed action. The Corps is in the process of coordinating with DLCD and a decision is expected before release of the final EA. Thus, the action will comply with this Act.

6.1.6 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act – Superfund (CERCLA) of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq.

The proposed action is not located within the boundaries of a designated Superfund site as identified by the EPA, the State of Oregon, or the State of Washington, and is not part of the National Priority List (USEPA 2020a). Therefore, the Act is not applicable to the proposed action.

6.1.7 Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq.

6.1.7.1 Baker Bay and Chinook Channel As described in Section 4.7.1.1, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on July 11, 2012, which included the effects of the proposed action. After issuance of the BiOp, NMFS designated critical habitat for Lower Columbia River coho (in 2013). In an email dated February 5, 2019, NMFS concluded that the proposed action would have no additional effects to designated critical habitat for Lower Columbia River coho not already addressed in the 2012 BiOp for other salmonid species’ designated critical habitat. The proposed action remains the same as is described in the 2012 BiOp. Thus, the effects determinations in the 2012 Biological Opinion remain unchanged, the NMFS ESA consultation is complete, and the actions at Baker Bay and Chinook channels comply with ESA for NMFS-jurisdictional species. The Corps received a Letter of Concurrence from the USFWS on 29 September 2010 for non-streaked horned lark species, as described in Section 4.7.1.2. The Corps completed Section 7 consultation with USFWS for effects to streaked horned larks, culminating a 2014 Biological Opinion with an incidental take statement. The Biological Opinion concluded that continued O&M dredging of the federal navigation channels in the Columbia River would not jeopardize the continued existence of streaked horned lark, nor will it adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat for the species. USFWS has twice extended this BiOp. The current extension is valid until March 1, 2023. The Corps will seek renewals from USFWS as needed into the future. Thus, the actions at Baker Bay and Chinook Channel comply with ESA for USFWS jurisdictional species. 6.1.7.2 Elochoman Slough and Lake River The Corps consulted with NMFS under Section 7 of ESA for the Elochoman Slough and Lake River channels, submitting a Biological Assessment on October 16, 2020. The Corps anticipates

______Page 61 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

that NMFS will issue a Biological Opinion by April 2021, before the Corps issues the final EA and FONSI. No part of the proposed action would begin until NMFS issues the BiOp. Therefore, the proposed actions at Elochoman Slough and Lake River would comply with ESA for NMFS-jurisdictional species. The Corps determined that the actions at Elochoman Slough and Lake River would have No Effect on USFWS-jurisdictional species, as described in Section 4.7.1.2. As such, Section 7 consultation is not required. The Corps documented the finding of no effect in an internal memo. Therefore, the proposed actions at Elochoman Slough and Lake River comply with ESA for USFWS-jurisdictional species.

6.1.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1994, 7 U.S.C. §§ 4201 et seq.

The proposed action does not involve farmland. Therefore, this Act is not applicable to the proposed action.

6.1.9 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of 1958, 16 U.S.C. §§ 661 et seq.

The FWCA directs federal agencies to prevent the loss and damage to fish and wildlife resources. Specifically, wildlife resources shall be given equal consideration in light of water- resource development programs. Consultation with NMFS and/or USFWS is required when activities result in the control of, diversion, or modification to any natural habitat or associated water body, altering habitat quality and/or quantity for fish and wildlife. The Corps invited NMFS to engage under FWCA for the proposed action in an email dated January 27, 2021. NMFS declined to participate on February 24, 2021 due to a lack of staffing resources. The Corps invited the USFWS to engage under FWCA for the proposed action in an email dated January 11, 2021. USFWS (represented by both the Washington and Oregon offices) declined the invitation to participate under FWCA on February 24, 2021 stating that information and conservation recommendations submitted for the Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement provided coverage for the lower Columbia River below Bonneville Dam. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with the FWCA.

6.1.10 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) of 1976, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is designed to actively conserve and manage fishery resources found off the coasts of the United States and to support international fishery agreements for the conservation and management of highly migratory species. This Act established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for fisheries regulated under a federal fisheries management plan. Federal agencies must consult with NMFS on all federal actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency that may affect EFH. 6.1.10.1 Baker Bay and Chinook Channel The NMFS 2012 Biological Opinion provided two conservation recommendations to avoid and reduce adverse effects to EFH at Baker Bay and Chinook Channel, detailed in Section 4.7.1.1

Page 62

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

of this EA. The Corps intends to implement those recommendations under the proposed action. Therefore, the actions at Baker Bay and Chinook Channel comply with MSA. 6.1.10.2 Elochoman Slough and Lake River The Corps consulted with NMFS under MSA for the Elochoman Slough and Lake River channels by providing an EFH analysis in the Biological Assessment submitted on October 16, 2020. The Corps intends to implement any MSA conservation recommendations contained in the Biological Opinion, anticipated by April 2021. Therefore, the proposed actions at Elochoman Slough and Lake River will comply with MSA.

6.1.11 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361 et seq.

MMPA established a federal responsibility to conserve marine mammals within waters of the United States. With certain specified exceptions, the Act establishes a moratorium on the taking and importation of marine mammals or marine-mammal products and establishes procedures for waiving the moratorium and transferring management responsibility to the states. Marine mammals could potentially occur in the affected area. It is possible that dredging, transportation, and placement of material could disturb humpback whales, killer whales, Steller sea lions, California sea lions, and other pinnipeds. However, it is unlikely that the effects would rise to the level of harm or harassment, because marine mammals are anticipated to avoid the equipment performing the work, and because noise levels are unlikely to reach thresholds that would harass or injure marine mammals. No adverse impacts are expected to marine mammals from the proposed action; thus, the Corps is not required to apply for an MMPA Letter of Authorization or Incidental Harassment Authorization. Therefore, the project complies with this Act.

6.1.12 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq.

This Act, also known as the Ocean Dumping Act, prohibits the dumping of materials into the ocean that would degrade or endanger human health or the marine environment. As part of the overall, ongoing O&M dredging of federal navigation channels in the Columbia River, dredged material may be placed into an ocean placement site known as the Deep Water Site; however, the proposed action as described in this EA would not include ocean placement of dredged material; therefore, this act is not applicable to the proposed action.

6.1.13 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 et seq.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful to intentionally pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not. Under the MBTA, “migratory birds” essentially include all birds native to the U.S., and the Act pertains to any time of the year, not just the migration period. As part of the proposed action, the dredge program contractors will practice BMPs for the protection of migratory birds, parts, nests, eggs, or products. The proposed action could displace birds by causing flushing, alteration of flight patterns, or

______Page 63 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

other behavioral changes; however, it is not expected that effects would rise to the level of “taking” any migratory bird. Dissuasion of birds from particular placement sites has been evaluated. Adverse effects to streaked horned larks were evaluated in the 2014 USFWS BiOp and 2020 BiOp extension, valid through 2023. The anticipated effects of the proposed action on streaked horned larks falls within the scope of actions covered under the 2014 Biological Opinion and 2020 extension; therefore, the effects determination for streaked horned larks remains unchanged relative to the proposed activities. The proposed action would not result in intentional take of birds, therefore, the proposed action complies with MBTA.

6.1.14 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, 54 U.S.C. §§ 300101 et seq.

Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the potential effects of their projects and undertakings on historic properties eligible for, or listed on, the NRHP. Historic properties include archaeological sites or historic structures or the remnants of sites or structures that are eligible for the NRHP. To determine the potential effect of the project on known or unknown historic properties, the following items are analyzed: the nature of the proposed activity and its effect on the landscape, the likelihood that historic properties are present within a project area, whether the ground has already been disturbed by previous land-use activities before the proposed undertaking and the extent of the disturbance, and listings of known archeological or historic site locations (including site databases, areas previously surveyed, or listings of sites on the NRHP) that occur within the area of potential effect. If the proposed action would result in ground disturbance on a property that has not been previously surveyed, a survey must be conducted to determine if historic properties are present. Once appropriate surveys have been conducted, the Corps would determine if the proposed action would adversely affect historic properties. The Corps would send this determination to the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), and tribes for concurrence. If the project would not adversely impact historic properties or cultural resources eligible for the NRHP, and the SHPO and tribes concur, then the cultural resource compliance is complete. If the historic properties would be adversely affected, the Corps would need to implement a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the SHPO and DAHP, with input from interested consulting parties, to determine mitigation. Mitigation does not need to be complete prior to project construction but does need to be complete in the time frame listed in the MOA, usually 5 years. 6.1.14.1 Baker Bay Initial consultation with the SHPO, DAHP, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Nez Perce Tribe, and Shoalwater Bay Tribe has occurred for the Baker Bay project. The APE letters were sent on January 4, 2021. The Corps received a response from DAHP on January 11, 2021, SHPO on February 11, 2021, and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon on January 26, 2021. All concurred with the APE. No other agency or tribe has responded to the APE letters. As all dredge material will be placed in water, no archaeological survey is needed. In-water historic properties research will be conducted for Area-D and BB-3. Once background research has been completed, the Corps will determine whether historic

Page 64

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

properties are present in the project area and whether they will be adversely affected. The Corps submitted letters to SHPO, DAHP, and tribes with a determination of effects that no historic properties will be affected on March 12, 2021. DAHP responded on March 12, 2021 with a concurrence of the finding. The other entities have 30-days to respond to the letters. 6.1.14.2 Chinook Channel Initial consultation with the SHPO, DAHP, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Nez Perce Tribe, and Shoalwater Bay Tribe has occurred for the Chinook channel. The APE letters were sent on January 4, 2021. The Corps received a response from DAHP on January 11, 2021 and from the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon on January 26, 2021. Both concurred with the APE. No other agency or tribe has responded to the APE letters. As all dredged-material placement will be in water, no archaeological pedestrian survey is needed for the Chinook channel. Background research was conducted of known in-water historic properties, such as shipwrecks, and there are no known submerged resources. The Corps submitted letters to SHPO, DAHP, and tribes with a determination of effects that no historic properties will be affected on March 11, 2021. DAHP responded on March 11, 2021 with a concurrence of the finding. The other entities have 30-days to respond to the letters. 6.1.14.3 Elochoman Slough and Lake River The Corps professional cultural resources staff has reviewed the Elochoman Slough and Lake River projects and determined that the proposed dredging and placement locations selected for current project would have no effect on historic properties. After these two navigation channels were authorized and constructed, maintenance dredging occurred at regular intervals, until recently when maintenance was deferred due to lack of federal funding. Because these channels have been dredged multiple times in the past, there is a low likelihood that the proposed action would significantly impact intact archeological deposits. Similarly, the placement of dredged materials in dynamic in-water environments has little likelihood to significantly impact cultural resources. In considering the placement network more generally, placement will avoid known shipwrecks and other cultural resources; thus, there is little likelihood of specific or cumulative impact on historic properties. Per the requirements of the NHPA, the Corps has consulted with the DAHP, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, and Cowlitz Indian Tribe on our findings for the maintenance dredging and placement proposed for Elochoman Slough and Lake River. In a letter dated April 14, 2020, DAHP concurred with the Corps’ determination of no effect to historical properties for the Elochoman Slough location. In an email dated April 28, 2020, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation also concurred with the Corps’ determination. The other consulting parties did not reply; therefore, concurrence is assumed. In a letter dated June 8, 2020, DAHP concurred with the Corps’ determination of no effect to historical properties for the Lake River location. The other consulting parties did not reply; therefore, concurrence is assumed. The proposed action complies with NHPA.

______Page 65 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

6.1.15 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, 25 U.S.C. §§ 3001 et seq.

The proposed action complies with this Act, because it does not involve Native American human remains or objects of cultural patrimony. In the event that any potential human remains are encountered as a result of this action, the Corps will follow the process for inadvertent discoveries found in the NAGPRA regulations 43 CFR § 10.4.

6.1.16 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6912 et seq.

The proposed action has no potential RCRA concerns because it does not involve solid or hazardous waste. Additional information on review for potential hazardous waste is included in Section 4.10. In the unlikely event that any wastes are generated from dredge operations by the Corps or its contractors, wastes would be disposed of properly according to state laws. Therefore, the proposed action complies with this Act.

6.1.17 Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §§ 401–418

The proposed dredging would occur at four federal navigation channels, and the proposed placement would occur in or near the Columbia River federal navigation channel. All five waterways are under the jurisdiction of Section 10 of the RHA as described in Section 2.2. Inherent in the authority granted under RHA to construct the channels is the authority and the responsibility to maintain them. The proposed action would not interfere with navigation, but instead would improve the safety and reliability of navigation. Therefore, the proposed action complies with this Act.

6.1.18 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300(f) et seq.

The proposed action would not endanger underground aquifers and would not result in any effects on the public drinking-water supply. Therefore, the proposed action complies with this Act.

6.1.19 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271–1287

The proposed action has no potential to impact a designated Wild and Scenic River, because it is not located within or near a designated Wild and Scenic River, nor would the proposed action result in effects to outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values. Therefore, the Act is not applicable to the proposed action.

6.2 Compliance with Environmental and Cultural Resource Executive Orders

6.2.1 Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 13 May 1971

The project would not demolish, significantly alter, or sell/transfer properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, this Executive Order is not applicable to the proposed action.

Page 66

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

6.2.2 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 24 May 1977

The proposed action would not result in a modification to the current floodplain conditions, nor would it encourage further development of the floodplain. Additional information on floodplains is included in Section 4.9. Therefore, the proposed action complies with the Order.

6.2.3 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 24 May 1977

The proposed action would not affect wetlands, as described in Section 4.4.2. Therefore, the proposed action complies with this Order.

6.2.4 Executive Order 12114, Environmental effects abroad of major Federal actions, 04 January 1979

The proposed action is not a major federal action, nor would it have any significant effects to the environment of nations abroad. Therefore, the Order is not applicable to the proposed action.

6.2.5 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice, 11 February 1994

No subsistence, low-income, or minority communities occur in the project area, because the affected area is uninhabited. While the proposed action may have temporary, short-term impacts to users of the area for the duration of construction, these impacts would affect all users equally, with no disproportionate effects to environmental justice populations. There would be no changes environmental justice indicators or indices. Additional information on Environmental Justice is found in Section 4.17. Therefore, the proposed action complies with the Order.

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

According to Executive Order 13175, federal agencies shall establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have tribal implications, and they shall strengthen the United States government-to-government relationships with Indian tribes. 6.2.6.1 Baker Bay and Chinook Channel For Baker Bay and Chinook Channel, government-to-government coordination for cultural and natural resources was coordinated via letter on January 22, 2021 with the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs and Shoalwater Bay Tribe. Thus, this action complies with EO 13175. 6.2.6.2 Elochoman Slough and Lake River Government-to-government coordination for cultural and natural resources was coordinated via letter correspondence on January 10, 2020 for Elochoman Slough and July 23, 2020 for Lake River with the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, and Confederated

______Page 67 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Tribes of the Warm Springs. Thus, this action complies with EO 13175.

6.2.7 Executive Order 13186, Migratory Birds, 10 January 2001

The proposed action does not involve activities that would result in take of migratory birds or disturbance of their habitat. Therefore, the Order is not applicable to the proposed action.

6.2.8 Executive Order 13287, Preserve America, 3 March 2003

The proposed action will have no impact on this Order. The current undertaking does not propose any changes to eligible or potentially eligible historic structures within the area of potential effect.

6.2.9 Executive Order 13751, Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species, 5 December 2016

Federal agencies are required to prevent the introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive species, as well as to eradicate and control populations of invasive species that have already established. The proposed action would use BMPs to prevent and control the spread of invasive species as described in Table 3-1. Therefore, the proposed action complies with this Order.

7 TREATY RESPONSIBILITIES

7.1 Tribal Trust and Treaty Responsibilities

Government-to-government consultation was conducted with the following Federally recognized Tribes: Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Nez Perce Tribe, and Shoalwater Bay Tribe. Initial government-to-government letters were sent to the tribes letting them know specifics of each channel project and asking if they had any concerns or information that they would like the Corps to know about. No tribes responded or asked for consultation. The Corps will continue to consult with the tribes on the projects.

7.2 Foreign Nations

Executive Order 12114 Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 4 January 1979, and 33 CFR §230.25 Environmental review and consultation requirements, requires procedures in the event that a Major Federal Action may impact a foreign nation, and for which environmental studies may be necessary to determine the extent and significance of the impact. The proposed action would not impact foreign nations because the project is wholly within the United States of America with no impacts that would affect a foreign nation or require further environmental study.

Page 68

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

8 REFERENCES

Carlson, T.J., Plostey, G., Johnson, R.L., Mueller, R.P., Weiland, M.A., and Johnson, P.N., 2001. Observations of behavior and distribution of fish in relation to the Columbia River Navigation Channel Maintenance. PNNL 13595. October 2001.

CIG (Climate Impacts Group). 2004. Overview of climate change impacts in the U.S. Pacific Northwest (July 29, 2004, updated August 17, 2004). Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle.

Clark County. 2020. Clark County Maps Online. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan. Available on line at: https://gis.clark.wa.gov/mapsonline/index.cfm?site=ZoningCompPlan. Accessed December 7, 2020.

Clark County. 2020. Clark County Maps Online. Environmental. Available on line at: https://gis.clark.wa.gov/mapsonline/?site=Environmental&qlyr=Flood%20Zone%20Designation. Accessed December 8, 2020.

David Evans and Associates. 2011. Columbia River Crossing test-pile project hydroacoustic monitoring final report. July 1, 2011.

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife. ISAB Climate Change Report, ISAB 2007-2, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon.

Minor, R. and R. Musil. 1998. Cultural Resource Reconnaissance for the Columbia River Channel Deepening Feasibility Study, Oregon and Washington. Heritage Research Associates, Inc. Eugene, OR.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2012. Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the Reinitiation of Columbia River Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Mouth of the Columbia River to Bonneville Dam, Oregon and Washington. HUCs 1708000605, 1708000307, 1708000108). NMFS No. 2011/02095. Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington, 11 July 2012.

Oregon Coastal Atlas. 2020. Coastal Zone Locator. Available on line at: https://www.coastalatlas.net/czfinder/. Accessed November 25, 2020.

ODEQ. 2021. Environmental Cleanup Site Information Database. Available on line at https://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/ecsi/ecsiquery.asp?listtype=lis&listtitle=Environmental+Cleanup+ Site%20Information+Database. Accessed February 9, 2021.

Pacific County. 2016. Flood Hazard Zones Map. Pacific County Shoreline Master Program. Available on line at https://www.co.pacific.wa.us/dcd/images/SMP/2016.02.12%20PacificCo_FEMA_small.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2020.

______Page 69 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Pacific County. 2019. Pacific County Zoning District 2019 Atlas. Available on line at: https://www.co.pacific.wa.us/gis/DesktopGIS/zoning/map/m10000.html. Accessed December 7, 2020.

PSET (Portland Sediment Evaluation Team). 2016. PSET Level 2 Suitability Determination Memorandum for maintenance dredging of the Wahkiakum Port District No. 1 Elochoman marina and access channel (Corps permit NWP-2003-602. Issued April 12, 2016.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989a. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, Elochoman Slough Maintenance Dredging, Wahkiakum County, Washington. 7 September 1989. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989b. Environmental Assessment and FONSI. Columbia River Maintenance Dredging RM 106 to 140 Oregon – Washington. 12 June 1989. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992b. Finding of No Significant Impact, Operations and Maintenance Dredging, Baker Bay West Channel, Ilwaco, Washington, Pacific County and Clatsop County, Oregon. 17 August 1992. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, O&M Dredging, Chinook Channel, Baker Bay, Washington. 13 January 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. Integrated Feasibility Report for Channel Improvements and Environmental Impact Statement, Columbia and Lower Willamette River Federal Navigation Channel. Portland District, Portland OR.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Columbia River Channel Improvement Project Supplemental Evaluation. Portland District, Portland, OR.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. Sediment evaluation framework for the Pacific Northwest. Available online at http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Portals/24/docs/environment/sediment/2009_SEF_Pacific_NW. pdf .

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Proposed Nearshore Disposal Locations at the Mouth of the Columbia River Federal Navigation Project, Oregon and Washington. Finding of No Significant Impact. July 2012. Portland District, Portland, OR.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2013. Memorandum for Record. Record of Environmental

Page 70

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Considerations and Compliances for Operations and Maintenance Dredging of the Baker Bay Federal Navigation Channel of Pacific County, Washington and Clatsop County, Oregon. 20 September 2013. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2014c. Biological Assessment for the Continued Operations and Maintenance Dredging Program for the Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel. Portland District Office. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2019a. Evaluating Effects of Dredging-Induced Underwater Sound on Aquatic Species: A Literature Review. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/EL TR-19-18. September 2019.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2019b. Sediment Characterization of Lake River Federal Side Channel, Lake River, Clark County, Washington. Prepared by ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc. for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District. Vicksburg, Mississippi. February 2019.

USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2011. U.S. Water Transportation Statistical Snapshot. USDOT Maritime Transportation, Washington, DC.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2015. Climate Change Indicators in the U.S. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. Climate Change Indicators in the U.S. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators. Accessed December 29, 2020.

USEPA. 2018. EJSCREEN: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen. Accessed December 16, 2020.

USEPA. 2020a. Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) Live Map. Available on line at: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-you-live#map. Accessed November 25, 2020.

______Page 71 Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

USEPA. 2020b. Memorandum for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Portland District, Operations Division, Channels and Harbors, Waterways Maintenance Section, Baker Bay West Channel (Ilwaco) Federal Navigation Project, Columbia River, river mile 3.2. Subject: Portland Sediment Evaluation Team (PSET) Level 2A dredged material suitability determination for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District’s (Corps) operations and maintenance (O&M) dredging for the Baker Bay West Channel Federal Navigation Project near the town of Ilwaco, Pacific County, Washington. Prepared by Brigitte Lohrman, USEPA Region 10, PSET Co-Lead. December 2, 2020.

USEPA. 2021a. Memorandum for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Portland District, Operations Division, Channels and Harbors, Waterways Maintenance Section (CENWP-ODN-W, Groth), Chinook Channel Federal Navigation Project, Columbia River, river mile 5.0. Prepared by Brigitte Lohrman, USEPA Region 10, PSET Co-Lead. January 5, 2021.

USEPA. 2021b. Diesel Emissions Quantifier. Accessed February 24, 2021. https://cfpub.epa.gov/quantifier/index.cfm?action=main.home

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Biological and Conference Opinions for the Columbia River Channel Improvement Project. Tracking number 02-1743, 02-4943. Oregon State Office. Portland, Oregon. 20 May 2002.

USFWS. 2010. Letter of Concurrence for Operations and Maintenance of the Columbia River Federal Navigation Project. Reference number 13420-2010-I-0165. Oregon State Office. Portland, Oregon. 29 September 2010.

USFWS. 2014. Biological Opinion for Continued Operations and Maintenance Dredging Program for the Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel in Oregon and Washington (2014 – 2018). Reference number 01EOFW00-2014-F-0112. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. Portland, Oregon. 6 June 2014.

USFWS. 2019. Extension of the Biological Opinion on the Continued Operations and Maintenance Dredging Program for the Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel in Oregon and Washington, 2014 — 2018. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. Portland, Oregon.

USFWS. 2020. Extension of 2014 to 2018 Biological Opinion for the Continued Operation and Maintenance Dredging Program for the Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel (01EOFW00-2020-F-0540). Second extension. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. Portland, Oregon. 12 August 2020.

USGCRP (U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program), 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States. Washington DC. Global Climate Change Research Program. 2009.

Wahkiakum County. 2020. GIS Map Library - Wahkiakum County Web Map. Available on line at https://www.co.wahkiakum.wa.us/288/GIS-Map-Library. Accessed December 7, 2020. WDFW. 2020. WDFW Open Data. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) on the Web. Available online at https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/phs/. Last updated November 9, 2020. Accessed December 2, 2020.

Page 72

Federal Navigation Channel Operations and Maintenance Dredging Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Elochoman Slough, Lake River Environmental Assessment Draft

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2020. Priority Habitats and Species on the Web. Accessed December 7, 2020. https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/phs/

WSDOE. 2019. Memorandum for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Portland District, Operations Division, Channels and Harbors, Waterways Maintenance Section (CENWP-ODN-W, Stokke), Lake River Federal Navigation Channel (River Mile 0+00 to 2+34). Subject: Portland Sediment Evaluation Team (PSET) Level 2A dredged material suitability determination for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District’s (Corps) operations and maintenance (O&M) dredging of the Lake River Federal Navigation Channel (FNC) in Ridgefield, Clark County, Washington. Shoreland and Environmental Assistance Program. Prepared by Laura Inouye (PSET, ECY), James Holm (PSET Lead, Corps) and Dominic Yballe (PSET, Corps). July 26, 2019.

WSDOE. 2020a. Washington State Water Quality Atlas. Available on line at https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/waterqualityatlas/map.aspx. Accessed December 4, 2020.

WSDOE. 2020b. Washington State Cleanup Sites. Available on line at https://ecology.wa.gov/Spills-Cleanup/Contamination-cleanup/Cleanup-sites. Accessed December 7, 2020.

WSDOE. 2020c. Washington Coastal Zone Management. Available on line at: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Shoreline-coastal-management/Coastal-zone- management. Accessed November 25, 2020/

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2020. Biological assessment preparation manual & templates. Available on line at: https://wsdot.wa.gov/environment/technical/fish-wildlife/esa-efh/BA-preparation-manual.

Zurk, L., M. Siderius, S. Schecklman, E. Sorensen, and K. Schab, 2011. Underwater acoustic noise generation and propagation resulting from pile driving for Oregon bridge construction; Phase two: seasonal background noise monitoring in the Columbia River. Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. June 29, 2011.

______Page 73