Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request

Home , Baker Bay, Chinook River

Commanding Officer 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N United States Coast Guard Oakland, CA 94612-5203 Civil Engineering Unit Oakland Staff Symbol: EMB Phone: (510) 637-5567

5090 12 May 2021

Deanna Caracciolo State-Federal Relations Coordinator, Oregon Coastal Managemment Program Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2540

Re: Coastal Consistency Determination for Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal Project Dear Ms. Caracciolo:

The US Coast Guard (CG) is submitting this Coastal Consistency Determination for the CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal project. In accordance with Section 930.35(d) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Federal Consistency Regulations (15 CFR 930), submittal of this Coastal Consistency Determination reflects CG’s commitment to comply, to the maximum extent practicable, with enforceable coastal policies and goals of the State of Oregon. The CG has determined that the proposed activity would be consistent with enforceable policies and goals under the Oregon Coastal Management Plan (OCMP) and would result in no adverse environmental impacts. In accordance with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, Section 307(c)(1), the enclosed Coastal Consistency Determination demonstrates that the proposed activity will be undertaken in a manner to minimize effects on coastal uses and resources. The CG respectfully requests your concurrence with its determination for the proposed project. When completed, please email a letter of concurrence to Mr. William Robinson, at [email protected]. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Robinson at (510) 205-4721.

Sincerely,

Constance Callahan Chief, Environmental Management Branch Civil Engineering Unit Oakland U.S. Coast Guard By direction of the Commanding Officer

Encl: Coastal Consistency Determination, CG Station Cape Disappointment

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request

Proposed Maintenance Dredge and Disposal at CG Station Cape Disappointment Pacific County, Washington 70Z08820FPQQ05400

Prepared for: US Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit (CEU) Oakland 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N Oakland, California 94612

Prepared by: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. 15862 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 150 Portland, Oregon USA 97224 T: 503-639-3400 5/12/2021

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

Table of Contents Overview ...... 1 Description of Proposed Activities (within Oregon) ...... 2 Public Participation ...... 2 Best Management Practices ...... 2 Anticipated Coastal Zone Effects ...... 3 Water Quality ...... 4 Biological Resources ...... 4 Consistency with the Enforceable Policies...... 5 Consistency with Statewide Planning Goals and Local Land Use Regulations ...... 5 Consistency with Local Land Use Regulations ...... 7 Consistency with State Agency Authorities ...... 17

List of Tables Table 1: Consistency with State Agency Enforceable Policies ...... 18

List of Attachments Attachment A Federal Application Materials OR Approvals Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA), USACE PN, ESA and EFH Consultations, National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultations (WA and OR), and Suitability Determination. Attachment B State Application Materials OR Approvals (Oregon Only) DSL Fill Application (Joint Permit Application [JPA]), DEQ Pre-File Form and CWA Section 401 Request, Portland District CWA Section 408 Attachment C Draft Final NEPA-compliant Environmental Assessment Attachment D Washington State 401 Application and Coastal Zone Management Request

5/12/2021 Page i

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Consistency Determination

This document provides the State of Oregon with a Consistency Determination (Determination) under CZMA Section 307(c)(1) and (2) 15 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 930, Subpart C, for the proposed dredging of the mooring basin and travel lift areas at (and subsequent disposal of material from) U.S. Coast Guard (CG) Station Cape Disappointment (Station). The information in this Consistency Determination is provided pursuant to 15 CFR Section 930.39. The CZMA requires that federal agency activities affecting any use or resource of a State’s coastal zone must be consistent with the enforceable policies of the State’s federally approved coastal management program. The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) is the designated state agency that implements the Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP) and undertakes CZMA consistency review in Oregon. A complete Consistency Determination Request must include the following information: • A detailed description of the proposed activity and its associated facilities. • A discussion of anticipated coastal zone effects. Federal agencies may opt to use National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) documents or other project-related documents to describe coastal effects. • Data and information sufficient to support the finding of consistency. • A brief statement indicating whether the proposed activity will be undertaken in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the OCMP. • An analysis of relevant enforceable policies and how the project is consistent or not consistent with them.

This Consistency Determination represents an analysis of the proposed activity considering established enforceable policies and goals under the OCMP. Submittal of this Consistency Determination reflects CG’s commitment to comply, to the maximum extent practicable, with those policies and goals. The CG has determined the activity would be consistent with enforceable policies and goals under the OCMP and result in no adverse environmental impacts; further, the CG has provided the following summary and attached information to support the Determination. It should be noted that the CG has also provided a consistency review request for the dredge and disposal activity to the State of Washington Department of Ecology.

Overview The Station is located at the mouth of the Columbia River approximately 1.8 miles south of Ilwaco, Washington and 11 miles northwest of Astoria, Oregon. The site for the proposed activity is the mooring basin, travel lift, and disposal locations. The CG is proposing to perform dredging to return the mooring basin and travel lift areas at the Station to operational depths needed to ensure safe vessel navigation, berthing, and access to the Station. Significant sediment shoaling is occurring at the Station, restricting vessel access to both piers and travel lift areas required to launch and moor vessels. Dredging at the Station would restore the operational depth of -10 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) plus an additional 2-foot overdredge (OD) allowance (to -12 feet MLLW). As part of the dredge activity, the CG is requesting

5/12/2021 Page 1

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal approval for disposal of dredged materials and disposal of future maintenance dredging generated materials over a 10-year period (i.e., 2021-2031).

Description of Proposed Activities (within Oregon) Two in-water disposal locations in Clatsop County, Oregon have been proposed: 1) Baker Bay Flowlane Disposal (BB-3), and 2) Flowlane Area D. The disposal areas are located within the Baker Bay-Columbia River sub-watershed situated at the mouth of the Columbia River in the southwest corner of Baker Bay. As such, the disposal activity is subject to consistency review by the State of Oregon under the CZMA. Sediments from the proposed dredging footprint were collected in October 2020 and analyzed under guidelines outlined in the Dredged Material Evaluation and Disposal Procedures User Manual (User Manual) prepared by the Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) agencies (DMMP, 2018). Sediment analysis results indicate that the proposed dredged materials contain low chemical concentrations, high proportions of sand (96.7 percent), and low total organic carbon content (0.15 percent). Based on these results, the DMMP approved the proposed dredged materials as suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal and down-ranked the Station from low-moderate to low, re-establishing the recency period to seven (7) years between required characterization studies (USCG 2021). Proposed disposal locations for the dredged materials include unconfined aquatic disposal at the Columbia River flow lanes (Figure 1-3). The first dredging event at the Station is proposed to occur between 1 November 2021 and 28 February 2022, pending agency approval and concurrence. The proposed dredge volume for the first event is approximately 3,726 cubic yards (cy) and is expected to take up to one (1) week to complete. The CG is proposing to place sediments from the first dredging event in the Columbia River at Baker Bay- 3 or Flowlane D under a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 408 approval provided by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Portland District approved17 March 2021. The flowlanes have been established and approved for dredge material disposal by the USACE and USEPA as outlined in the Dredge Management Plan, therefore this activity is consistent with designated uses of the flowlanes. Future dredging events are also anticipated to use the Columbia River Flowlanes; however, if an unanticipated restriction is identified during future disposal events, additional permitting and/ or consultations may apply. Final dredging specifications will be chosen to meet proposed activity objectives in the most cost- effective and efficient way and will be determined through a performance-based bid process that allows the contractor to select specific equipment and methods. In general, depending on the chosen disposal location and timing for the proposed activity, it is likely that either a clamshell or pipeline dredge would be used with the intent to dispose of sediments at a nearby placement area. If clamshell is selected, then a barge would be used to transport sediments.

Public Participation A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was Draft EA was published in the Daily Astorian on February 27, 2021 and the Chinook Observer on March 3, 2021, announcing the availability of the Draft EA for public and agency review.

Best Management Practices All proposed activity elements will implement the following best management practices (BMPs) to ensure protection of water quality from discharge activities:

5/12/2021 Page 2

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

• All in-water work will be performed within the in-water work window of 1 November and 28 February unless otherwise approved by appropriate agencies. • All equipment will be maintained in good condition and designed to ensure no leaking or spilling of potentially hazardous substances such as hydraulic fluid, diesel, gasoline, and other petroleum products would occur. • All hazardous substances such as fuel and petroleum products will be stored in a way that complies with safe operating procedures and appropriate spill response kits with proper containment and training of personnel will be provided in the case of a spill event. • All in-water equipment will be positioned in such a way that it avoids or minimizes damage to existing habitat. Dredging activities will be performed in such a way as to minimize the amount of spilling that may occur. To do this, the operator will: • Control the drop speed of the dredge bucket; • Limit the swing radius of the bucket; • Not overfill the dredge bucket; • Control offloading of dredged materials; • Not overfill the dredge barge beyond 80 percent capacity; • Implement vessel speed limits and protocols to prevent grounding and reduce turbidity plumes; • Employ a Global Positioning System (GPS) to record dredging and placement locations; • Observe dredging depth (including approved OD depth) and area limits; and • Will not bottom stockpile or dredge beyond the OD limit.

Anticipated Coastal Zone Effects In accordance with the CZMA, as amended, Section 307(c)(1), the CG has determined that the proposed activity, located at Station Cape Disappointment (refer to Figure 1) will be consistent with enforceable policies and goals under the OCMP and would not adversely affect the coastal zone. In coordination with the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), the CG is applying for an Individual Consistency Determination. As defined in Section 304 of the CZMA, the term “coastal zone” does not include “lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government.” Station Cape Disappointment is owned and operated by the CG and, therefore, is excluded from the coastal zone. Although the CG does not own all adjacent submerged lands, it does maintain navigational servitude of them. Further, the proposed disposal location is within USACE Federally managed submerged lands. The CG recognizes that Federal actions on land excluded from the coastal zone may affect uses and resources within the coastal zone. Accordingly, the CG analyzed the impacts of the proposed activity on the coastal zone by looking at reasonable foreseeable direct and indirect effects on the coastal uses or resources. Also analyzed were relevant management program enforceable policies. Under the CZMA, applicants must “demonstrate that the activity will be consistent with the enforceable policies of the management program” showing “adequate consideration of policies which are in the nature of recommendations” 15 C.F.R. § 930.58(a)(3). According to the 1987 OCMP, the enforceable policies of the OCMP include: (1) Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals, (2) the applicable acknowledged

5/12/2021 Page 3

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal county or city comprehensive plans and land use regulations, and (3) selected state authorities (e.g., the Oregon Department of State Lands, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, etc.). Refer to Table 1 for a list of applicable enforceable policies. The proposed activity is located within Baker Bay of the Columbia River system. The following summary is intended to provide additional information on coastal zone effects. The proposed activity will have no long-term effects on biological productivity or water quality. Implementing standard construction BMPs – such as a spill prevention and cleanup plan – will avoid or minimize the potential for accidental releases of fuels/oils during dredging and operation of dredging equipment.

Water Quality The Columbia River and Baker Bay at Station Cape Disappointment are classified as “Excellent Quality” water bodies by the State of Washington (173-201A Washington Administrative Code (WAC)). Water quality of this use class shall meet or exceed the requirements for all uses including, but not limited to, salmonid migration and rearing; other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning (173-201A-612 WAC). Based on the proposed activity (dredging and in-water placement) and the dredged material sediment quality, turbidity is the primary water quality parameter of concern (Laura Inouye, Personal Communication 2021). Water quality effects are expected to be temporary – occurring solely during the duration of dredge and of dredge material disposal – for the proposed activity and do not require an extended area of mixing for placement activities. During placement, water quality will be monitored at the boundary of the authorized area of mixing which is defined as 150 feet (45.7 meters) downstream from the dredge/disposal activity for turbidity. Activities associated with disposal will likely disturb a portion of bottom sediments within the disposal area. Disturbances of bottom sediments (mostly sand per the results of sediment sampling as previously indicated) may cause the following impacts on marine water quality: formation of localized, but temporary, turbidity plumes resulting in decreased light transmittance as well as localized, temporary decreases in dissolved oxygen concentrations in bottom waters. Decreased light penetration levels and dissolved oxygen would occur within a hundred feet of the disposal area and would end several hours after cessation of activities as disposed material and disturbed bottom sediments resettle out of the water column. Because disposal material is mostly sand and analytical testing did not indicate elevated levels of chemical contaminants of concern, it is unlikely that temporary turbidity associated with dredging would mobilize significant levels of dissolved-phase contaminants into the water column that would cause any exceedance of ambient water quality criteria. Consequently, effects will be localized and temporary because sediments are composed primarily of sand-sized particles that would settle to the bottom in the immediate disposal area with limited potential transport by currents. Further, because analytical testing of the sediment did not indicate elevated levels of contaminants, temporary bottom disturbance will not result in toxicity to aquatic organisms or increase potentials for contaminant bioaccumulation. Based on this analysis, all water quality impacts will be temporary and localized; therefore, there will be no long-term effects to water quality.

Biological Resources The proposed activity is located within a general area designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by three Fishery Management Plans, and in an area with state and federally listed species. An Essential Fish Habitat

5/12/2021 Page 4

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

(EFH) Assessment and a Biological Assessment has been prepared to support the proposed activity and is included in Attachment A. During disposal activities, temporary impacts to EFH species may occur from increased suspended sediments and increased noise levels (consistent with waterfront operations) from dredging equipment. However, EFH species are highly mobile and will likely leave the dredging and disposal areas during placement activities and then return when these activities are completed. Further, the channel adjacent to the Station is unlikely to provide high-quality habitat for prey species due to the constant transiting of CG vessels within the mooring basin and the boat traffic in the adjacent federal navigation channel to the north. Historical disposal within the proposed locations and the federal navigation channel has already likely altered the benthic environment. Therefore, proposed activity impacts are anticipated to be minor, short term, and/or comparable to background conditions. Proposed dredging and disposal activities may have both direct and indirect effects on species and habitat, including state and federally listed species . Potential effects include mortality or injury to benthic organisms, fish, or other fauna from the physical dredging operation; increased turbidity; mobilization of contaminants into the water column from dredging operations; noise; and disturbance to aquatic biota from the dredge and any supporting vessels. However, underwater noise levels associated with dredging are below thresholds for both behavior and injury for species in the vicinity. Therefore, no effect to marine mammals or birds are anticipated. Although the proposed activity may affect Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed fish species because of the aforementioned environmental stressors, implementing timing restrictions and BMPs will serve to reduce the risk of effects caused by proposed activities on listed species and habitats. In addition, these effects will be temporary because initial dredging and any subsequent, as necessary, dredging events are each expected to take approximately one week to complete. Therefore, proposed activities are not likely to adversely affect protected or sensitive species or habitat that may be present during dredging or their designated critical habitat.

Consistency with the Enforceable Policies The following section addresses consistency with the applicable enforceable policies of the OCMP.

Consistency with Statewide Planning Goals and Local Land Use Regulations To establish consistency with the OCMP, CG must demonstrate consistency with the enforceable policies implemented through Statewide Planning Goals and local land use regulations. Under ORS 197.175, the Statewide Planning Goals are to be implemented by local governments through the adoption of comprehensive plans that are consistent with the goals. In turn, the comprehensive plans are to be implemented through adoption and enforcement of land use regulations. Once the local government adopts, and the LCDC acknowledges, a local government’s comprehensive plan and land use regulations implementing that plan, the local government is to make land use decisions consistent with those acknowledged plan and regulations. Therefore, any proposed activity component approved in a local land use decision as compliant under the applicable local comprehensive plan and implementing land use regulations would by extension make the proposed activity component also consistent with Statewide Planning Goals. Statewide Planning Goals The following is a summary of OCMP enforceable policies implemented by Statewide Planning Goals and a brief statement on which policies apply for this project. 1. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT – All permits and the NEPA document involve public scoping. Therefore, the CG has met Goal 1 of the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals.

5/12/2021 Page 5

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

2. LAND USE PLANNING – Goal 2 states that land use decisions are to be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan, and that local jurisdictions must adopt suitable "implementation ordinances" to put the plan's policies into effect. The designated disposal locations have been acknowledged by the zoning and comprehensive plan through Clatsop County. The proposed maintenance dredging and disposal activity complies with Oregon's standards for comprehensive planning. Dredged material will be disposed of in established in-water dredge material disposal areas used for navigation channel maintenance. In evaluating the determination of consistency for the maintenance dredging and in-water placement of dredged material, it is notable that maintenance dredging and disposal has occurred at these locations on multiple occasions and the disposal site has been established for dozens of years. 3. AGRICULTURAL LANDS - Not applicable as proposed activities are located only within open water. 4. FOREST LANDS - Not applicable as the proposed activity is located only within open water. 5. OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS AND NATURAL RESOURCES – The CG has demonstrated compliance with this planning goal through the summary above and as demonstrated through the NEPA process. 6. AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY – The proposed activity is consistent with the goal. Please see the attached Environmental Assessment. Further, the CG’s compliance with state and federal environmental laws demonstrates consistency with this goal. The proposed maintenance dredging and in- water dredged material disposal will be conducted in compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the State Implementation Plan. The proposed activity is not located in a nonattainment area for limited air quality; it is not a transportation project; and it will not qualify as a major stationary source of emissions of criteria pollutants. All construction equipment will be required to meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s air emission standards and will not generate emissions that violate National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The CG has prepared applications for approval through CWA Section 404 and Section 401 (included in Attachment A). The CG has performed sediment characterization to determine whether sediments are suitable for in-water unconfined placement, according to the requirements of the CWA and the MPRSA. Sediment analysis and reporting has been reviewed by the USACE and a suitability determination has been issued to support the proposed activity (see Attachment A). 7. AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS - Not applicable as the proposed activity is located only within open water and does not involve construction of any infrastructure. 8. RECREATION NEEDS – The areas identified for disposal are used for vessel navigation. Disposal activities to be conducted will use either a single barge or pipeline dredge, consistent with ongoing activities in the area. Recreational activities are not expected to be displaced during construction and would result in no change after placement of the material; however, during the brief period of time a vessel is present during disposal recreation boaters would avoid the immediate area temporarily. 9. ECONOMY OF THE STATE - Not applicable as the proposed activity is located only within open water. Inventory of commercial and industrial lands does not apply. 10. HOUSING - Not applicable as the proposed activity is located only within open water. 11. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES - Not applicable as the proposed activity is located only within open water and does not use, modify, or change public services. 12. TRANSPORTATION - Not applicable as the proposed activity is located only within open water. Surface transportation to conduct project work is relevant in Washington.

5/12/2021 Page 6

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

13. ENERGY Not applicable as the proposed activity is located only within open water and does not use, modify, or change energy related services. 14. URBANIZATION - Not applicable as the proposed activity is located only within open water. 15. WILLAMETTE GREENWAY - Not applicable as the proposed activity is located on the Columbia River. 16. ESTUARINE RESOURCES - The Columbia River estuary is classified as a "development estuary." This classification allows for uses such as dredge and fill activities, as well as navigation activities. The proposed maintenance dredging does not change the classification of the estuary from a development estuary. The proposed activity would not affect wetlands, as there are no wetlands within area where the proposed activities would take place; all proposed activities would occur within the Columbia River. As a result, the maintenance dredging is consistent with state and local land use policies for estuarine habitats. 17. COASTAL SHORELANDS Not applicable as proposed activities are located only within open water. 18. BEACHES AND DUNES – Not applicable as proposed activities are located only within open water. 19. OCEAN RESOURCES - Not applicable as proposed activities are not located in what is considered the territorial sea.

Consistency with Local Land Use Regulations Clatsop County Land Use Planning Upon review, the proposed activity is consistent with Clatsop County land use planning regulations as codified in Clatsop County Standards Document Ordinance 80-14 (as amended in 2018). Below are identified the key Clatsop County standards applicable to the proposed activity and rationale for the consistency findings per standard. The overarching category of applicable standards are under S4.200, Columbia River Estuary Shoreline and Aquatic Use and Activity Standards, summarized below. Columbia River Estuary Shoreland and Aquatic Use and Activity Standards (S4.200) The Columbia River estuary shoreland and aquatic area standards are requirements that apply to development uses and activities proposed or more of the following management designations: Marine Industrial Shorelands Zone (MI); Conservation Shorelands Zone (CS); Natural Shorelands Zone (NS); Aquatic Development Zone (AD); Aquatic Conservation Two Zone (AC-2); Aquatic Conservation One Zone (AC-1); Aquatic Natural Zone (AN); and those areas included in the Shorelands Overlay District (SO). These standards are intended to protect the unique economic, social, and environmental values of the Columbia River Estuary. Elements of the proposed activity would occur in areas zoned as AD. The purpose of the AD zone is to provide for navigation and other identified needs for public, commercial, and industrial water-dependent uses, consistent with the level of development or alteration allowed by this zoning and the need to minimize damage to the Columbia River estuarine ecosystem. The objective of the AD zone is to ensure optimum utilization of appropriate aquatic areas by providing for intensive development. Such areas include deep water areas adjacent to or near the shoreline, navigation channels, turning basins, subtidal areas for in-water disposal of dredged materials, and areas of minimal biological significance needed for uses requiring alteration of the estuary not included in AC-2,

5/12/2021 Page 7

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

AC-1, and AN, and areas for which an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 16, Estuarine Resources, has been adopted. The following uses and activities, and their accessory uses and activities, are permitted in the AD Zone under a Type I procedure, which are activities that involve permitted uses or developments governed by clear and objective review criteria and are subject to general development zone standards: 1. Undeveloped low intensity water-dependent recreation. 2. Passive restoration measures. 3. Navigational aids. 4. Vegetative shoreline stabilization. 5. Research and educational observation. 6. Maintenance and repair of existing structures or facilities, including dikes. 7. Temporary dikes for emergency flood protection, subject to state and federal requirements.

8. Projects for the protection of habitat, nutrient, fish, wildlife, and aesthetic resources. 9. Water-dependent commercial, industrial, and port uses including but not limited to: a. docks, moorages, piers, or wharves b. fuel storage and dispensing facilities c. cargo loading and unloading facilities d. vessel construction, maintenance, or repair facilities e. seafood receiving, processing, and storage f. cargo marshaling, assembly, and storage facilities g. ice-making and sales establishments h. integrated manufacturing and shipping facility where a significant portion of the operation is water-dependent i. marine railway facilities j. other water-dependent uses meeting water-dependent use criteria. 10. Piling and dredging in conjunction with permitted uses 3, and 5 through 9 listed above, pursuant to the applicable standards.

11. Fill in conjunction with permitted uses 6 through 9 listed above, pursuant to the applicable standards.

12. Communication facilities subject to the standards in S4.700. The proposed activities are included in the uses and activities, and their accessory uses and activities, outlined above and permitted in the AD Zone under a Type I procedure, which are actions that involve permitted uses or developments governed by clear and objective review criteria and would be subject to general Clatsop County development zone standards. Type II land use actions are presumed to be appropriate in the zone and generally involve uses or

5/12/2021 Page 8

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

development for which review criteria are reasonably objective, requiring only limited discretion. Impacts on nearby properties may be associated with conditions of approval to minimize those impacts or ensure compliance with county code. Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal (S4.232) Standards in this subsection are applicable to all Columbia River estuarine dredging operations and to both estuarine shoreline and aquatic dredged material disposal: 1. Dredging in estuarine aquatic areas, subject to dredging and dredged material disposal policies and standards, shall be allowed only under specific provisions.

The proposed dredge disposal action complies with the five identified provisions: a. The action is allowed in the designated aquatic zone (AD) for navigational access -- the proposed dredging would be minimized to the minimum amount of dredging necessary to removed shoaled material at the CG Station in Ilwaco, Washington; b. The action is intended to meet the substantial public benefit of maintaining CG mission readiness for the region; c. the action does not unreasonably interfere with public trust rights; d. no feasible alternative upland locations exist; and e. an impact assessment has been prepared (and is included in Attachment A and C) which identifies measure to avoid and/or minimize any adverse impacts. 2. When dredging is permitted, the dredging shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the proposed use.

The proposed dredging would be minimized to the amount of dredging necessary to remove shoaled material for safe operation and navigation of CG vessels. 3. Undesirable erosion, sedimentation, increased flood hazard, and other changes in circulation shall be avoided at the dredging and disposal site and in adjacent areas.

Conditions would be consistent with previous and permitted maintenance dredging and material disposal events, and there would be no increased erosion from future recurring maintenance dredging events. Any effects associated with the proposed activity would be localized and minor with respect to the hydraulics and sediment transport conditions of the Columbia River. Thus, changes to existing patterns of erosion, deposition, and would not be expected. In-water placement of the dredged material is intended to redistribute the sediment within the aquatic ecosystem and maintain sediment availability for riverine transport and depositional functions. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect impacts on the geologic or hydrologic regime as a result of the proposed activity. The proposed activity would likely result in temporary and localized reduction in water quality during the course of dredging and in-water disposal, which would suspend sediments in the water column. These impacts would be minor and temporary in nature and would cease shortly after dredging and placement are complete. The proposed activity’s CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) would contain measures to ensure that turbidity is minimized. Sediments from the placement areas and from

5/12/2021 Page 9

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

areas adjacent to the dredge footprint would be redistributed to areas downstream by natural hydraulic processes after the proposed activity is complete. Because the proposed activity would adhere to the WQC and implement BMPs to protect water quality, no significant direct or indirect impacts are anticipated. 4. The timing of dredging and dredged material disposal operations shall be coordinated with state and federal resource agencies, local governments, and private interests to protect estuarine aquatic and shoreland resources, minimize interference with commercial and recreational fishing, including snag removal from development drifts, and insure proper flushing of sediment and other materials introduced into the water by the project.

The proposed maintenance dredging and disposal activity would be performed only within the approved in-water work window (i.e., 1 November and 28 February). 5. Bottom sediments in the dredging area shall be characterized by the applicant in accordance with EPA and DEQ standards. Information that may be required includes, but is not limited to, sediment grain size distribution, organic content, oil and grease, selected heavy metals, pesticides and other organic compounds, and benthic biological studies. The types of sediment tests required would depend on dredging and placement techniques, sediment grain size, available data at the dredging site, and proximity to contaminant sources. Generally, projects involving in-water disposal of fine sediments require a higher level of sediment testing than projects involving disposal of coarse sediments. Projects involving upland disposal may be exempted from the testing requirement, depending on the nature of the sediments and the amount of existing sediment data available. Unavailable burdens on the permit applicant shall be minimized by considering the economic cost of performing the sediment evaluation, the utility of the data to be provided, and the nature and magnitude of any potential environmental effect.

The CG completed sediment testing, as described above and included in Attachment A. Thus, dredging and the placement of dredged material in-water would neither add to the contamination burden of the lower Columbia River nor would it mobilize hazardous materials in the water column. Further, all relevant state and federal water quality standards would be met. 6. Adverse short-term adverse effects of dredging and placement of dredged materials such as increased turbidity, release of organic and inorganic materials or toxic substances, depletion of dissolved oxygen, disruption of the food chain, loss of benthic productivity, and disturbance of fish runs and important localized biological communities shall be minimized.

The proposed activity would likely result in temporary and localized reduction in water quality during the course of dredging and in-water placement, which would suspend sediments in the water column; however, these impacts would be minor in nature, and would cease shortly after dredging and placement are complete. The WQC would contain measures to ensure that turbidity is minimized. Sediments from the placement areas and from areas adjacent to the dredge footprint would be redistributed to areas downstream by natural hydraulic processes after the proposed activity is complete. Because the proposed activity would adhere to the WQC and implement BMPs to protect water quality, no significant direct or indirect impacts are anticipated.

5/12/2021 Page 10

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

As the in-water work window is designed to coincide with absence of juvenile, only a few individual fish are likely to encounter in-water actions. Adult salmonids will easily escape entrainment flows. Salmonid smolts within a couple feet of the cutterhead could become entrained, but most would be able to avoid the entrainment. Subyearling salmonids are less able to escape entrainment and are subject to a wider zone of potential entrainment due to less swimming stamina and speed. Few if any individual fish will experience a reduction of food or foraging opportunities. Benthic habitat disturbance will be of limited extent, and temporary in nature. For all designated salmonid and steelhead critical habitats, the proposed activity would cause temporary disturbance from the dredge in the migratory corridor, degradation of water clarity as sediments are re-suspended, and a temporary reduction in quantity of food organisms and benthic productivity. Therefore, effects on critical habitat would be temporary, of low magnitude, and would not significantly alter critical habitat within the project area. 7. Impacts on areas adjacent to the dredging site, such as destabilization of fine textured sediments, erosion, accretion, and other undesirable changes in circulation patterns shall be minimized.

The dredging site is located in Washington and therefore not applicable. The disposal would take place in areas of coarse sand and are not expected to cause changes in circulation patterns. The in-water disposal area would be within an area that has previously been used for maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel. 8. The effects of both initial and subsequent maintenance dredging, as well as dredging equipment marshaling and staging shall be considered prior to approval of new projects or expansion of existing projects. Projects will not be approved unless disposal sites with adequate capacity to meet initial excavation dredging and at least five years of expected maintenance dredging requirements are available.

Not applicable as the dredge activity is located in Washington. However, the material to be dredged is suitable for in-water placement and would be placed in an existing and permitted Columbia River disposal site in Oregon, where water depth is 20 feet or greater. 9. Dredging for maintenance of existing tidegate drainage channels and drainage ways is limited to the amount necessary to maintain and restore flow capacity essential for the function (the drainage service provided by the tidegate) of tidegates and to allow drainage and protection of agricultural and developed areas. Tidegate maintenance dredging does not include enlarging or extending the dimensions of, or changing the bottom elevations of, the affected tidegate drainage channel or drainage way as it existed prior to the accumulation of sediments.

This standard does not apply to the proposed maintenance dredging and, therefore, needs no further evaluation. 10. Dredging of subtidal estuarine areas as a source of fill material for dike maintenance, in all aquatic area designation, may be allowed upon the applicant's demonstration.

The proposed maintenance dredging does not involve dredging for source material for dike maintenance; therefore, this standard does not apply and needs no further evaluation. 11. Dredging for mining and mineral extraction, including sand extraction, shall only be allowed in areas deeper than 10 feet below MLLW where the project sponsor

5/12/2021 Page 11

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

demonstrates that mining and mineral extraction in aquatic areas is necessary because no feasible upland sites exist and that the project will not significantly impact estuarine resources.

The proposed maintenance dredging does not involve mining, mineral, or sand extraction; therefore, this standard does not apply and needs no further evaluation. 12. When proposing dredging for sand extraction, the project sponsor shall first consider obtaining the material from a shoaled area within a federally authorized navigation channel that is currently shallower than its authorized depth. The dredging depth shall not exceed the authorized channel depth plus any overdredging that the Corps would normally perform while maintaining the site.

The proposed maintenance dredging does not involve dredging for sand extraction; therefore, this standard does not apply and needs no further evaluation. 13. Dredged material disposal shall occur only at designated sites. The material to be dredged is suitable for in-water placement and would be placed in designated sites within existing and permitted disposal locations in the Columbia River, where water depth is 20 feet or greater. 14. Proposals for in-water disposal of dredged materials, including flowlane disposal, beach nourishment, estuarine open-water disposal, ocean disposal, and agitation dredging, shall:

a. Demonstrate the need for the proposed project and that there are no feasible alternative disposal sites or methods that entail less damaging environmental impacts;

b. Demonstrate that the dredged sediments meet state and federal sediment testing requirements and water quality standards; and

c. Not be permitted in the vicinity of a public water intake. Alternatives for the proposed action were evaluated in the EA (see Attachment C) for the proposed activity, and concluded that there is a need for the proposed activity. As noted above (under Dredging Standard 5), all relevant state and federal water quality standards would be met, and a suitability determination has been issued for sediments. 15. Proposals for in-water estuary disposal shall be coordinated with commercial fishing interests, including, but not limited to: development drift captains at the dredging and disposal site, the Columbia River Fisherman's Protective Union, Northwest Gillnetters Association, and the State fishery agencies. In-water disposal actions shall avoid development drifts whenever feasible. When it is not feasible to avoid development drifts, impacts shall be minimized in coordination with fisheries interests through:

a. Disposal timing; b. Gear placement; c. Choice of disposal area within the drift; and d. Disposal techniques to avoid snag placement. A “Notice to Mariners” would be published during dredging operations.

5/12/2021 Page 12

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

16. Flowlane disposal, estuarine open water disposal and agitation dredging shall be monitored to assure that estuarine sedimentation is consistent with the resource capabilities and purposes of affected natural and conservation designations. The monitoring program shall be established prior to undertraining disposal. The program shall be designated to both characterize baseline conditions prior to disposal and monitor the effects of the disposal. The primary goals of the monitoring are to determine if the disposal is resulting in measurable adverse impacts and to establish methods to minimize impacts. Monitoring shall include, at minimum, physical measurements such as bathymetric changes and may include biological monitoring. Specific monitoring requirements shall be based on, at minimum, sediment grain size at the dredging and disposal site, presence of contaminants, proximity to sensitive habitats and knowledge of resources and physical characteristics of the disposal site.

The material to be dredged is suitable for in-water placement and would be placed in existing and permitted disposal locations in the Columbia River, where water depth is 20 feet or greater and where protocols for disposal are established. Consequently, this standard needs no further evaluation. 17. Flowlane disposal shall be in Aquatic Development areas identified as low in benthic productivity and use of these areas shall not have adverse hydraulic effects. Use of flowlane disposal areas in the estuary shall be allowed only when no feasible alternative land or ocean disposal sites with less damaging environmental impacts can be identified and the biological and physical impacts of flowlane disposal are demonstrated to be insignificant.

This subsection applies to the placement of fill material in tidal wetlands and waters of the Columbia River Estuary. These standards also apply to fill in non-tidal wetlands in shoreline designations that are identified as "significant" wetlands under Statewide Planning Goal 17. 1. Fill in estuarine aquatic areas may be permitted only if all of the following criteria are met:

a. If required for navigation or for other water-dependent uses requiring an estuarine location, or if specifically allowed under the applicable aquatic zone;

b. If a need (i.e. a substantial public benefit) is demonstrated; c. The proposed fill does not unreasonably interfere with public trust rights; d. Feasible alternative upland locations do not exist; and e. Adverse impacts, as identified in the impact assessment, are minimized. The purpose of the action is to facilitate safe berthing and navigation for the CG. The material to be dredged is suitable for in-water placement (see attached suitability determination) and would be placed in existing and permitted disposal locations in the Columbia River, where water depth is 20 feet or greater. Consequently, this standard needs no further evaluation.

5/12/2021 Page 13

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

2. The fill shall cover no more than the minimum necessary to accomplish the proposed use.

The CG does not intend to dredge – and in turn dispose – more than is necessary to accomplish safe berthing and navigation of its vessels. 3. Aquatic area fills using either dredged material or other easily erodible material shall be surrounded by appropriately stabilized dikes.

No solid waste would be disposed of at the placement site or in nearby aquatic areas. 5. Projects involving fill may be approved only if the following alternatives are examined and found to be infeasible:

a. Construct some or all of the project on piling; b. Conduct some or all of the proposed activity on existing upland; c. Approve the project at a feasible alternative site where adverse impacts are less significant.

The material to be dredged is suitable for in-water placement and would be placed in existing and permitted disposal locations in the Columbia River, where water depth is 20 feet or greater. Consequently, this standard needs no further evaluation. Fish and Wildlife Habitat (S4.239) This subsection applies to uses and activities with potential adverse impacts on fish or wildlife habitat in Columbia River Estuary aquatic and shoreline areas. 1. Projects affecting endangered, threatened or sensitive species habitat, as identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall be designed to minimize potential adverse impacts. This shall be accomplished by one or more of the following:

a. Soliciting and incorporating agency recommendations into local permit reviews;

b. Dedicating and setting aside undeveloped on-site areas for habitat; c. Providing on or off-site compensation for lost or degraded habitat; d. Retaining key habitat features (for example: roosting trees, riparian vegetation, feeding areas).

The effects on wildlife, including ESA-listed species, have been evaluated through the preparation of the draft EA and a BA for Section 7 consultation under the ESA. The CG intends to comply with reasonable and prudent measures in issued permits and any biological opinions issued for the proposed activity.

5/12/2021 Page 14

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

2. In-water construction activity in aquatic areas shall follow the recommendation of state and federal fisheries agencies with respect to project timing to avoid unnecessary impacts on migratory fish.

The effects on wildlife, including ESA-listed species, have been evaluated through the preparation of the draft EA and a BA for Section 7 consultation under the ESA (see Attachment C and Attachment A, respectively). The CG proposed to conduct work within the approved in-water work windows. 3. Uses and activities with the potential for adversely affecting fish and wildlife habitat may be approved only if the following impact mitigation actions are incorporated into the permit where feasible. These impact mitigation actions are listed from highest to lowest priority:

a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its implementation;

c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, restoring the affected environment (this may include removing wetland fills, rehabilitation of a resource use and/or extracting site when its economic life is terminated, etc.);

d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations.

The effects on wildlife, including ESA-listed species, have been evaluated through the preparation of the draft EA and a BA for Section 7 consultation under the ESA. The CG has proposed minimization measures to reduce and/or avoid impact to sensitive species. 4. Projects involving subtidal or intertidal aquatic area fill or intertidal aquatic dredging with the potential for adversely affecting aquatic habitat must provide compensatory mitigation, consistent with Mitigation and Restoration Standards (subsection S4.218).

No mitigation for the disposal action is needed. The effects on wildlife, including ESA-listed species, have been evaluated through the preparation of the draft EA and a BA for Section 7 consultation under the ESA. Clatsop County Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance 1. CLATSOP COUNTY LAND USE PLANNING:

The proposed activity would be conducted by a federal agency, and all proposed activities would be located within the Federal Navigation Channel (FNC), which is zoned AD (Aquatic Development Zone) according to the Clatsop County webmap. Consistency Response:

The proposed activity footprint for disposal is located entirely within the flowlane disposal sites in Clatsop County. The CG is not required to obtain any local or state permits. Federal actions are exempt from local and state permitting by the CZMA and by the Oregon DLCD administrative rules, unless required by other federal law (See 15 CFR 930.39(e) and OAR 660-035-0030). As outlined in 15 CFR 930.39, “Federal agencies shall still be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies that are contained in such State permit programs that are part of a management program.” Although the CG is not seeking a local development permit

5/12/2021 Page 15

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

or a plan amendment containing a goal exception, the proposed activity meets both local permit and statewide planning goal requirements for a goal exception as outlined. Therefore, this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the OCMP. 2. CLATSOP COUNTY ZONING

Under principles of federal supremacy and sovereign immunity, the federal government is not subject to state or local regulation. The CG will not apply for a review permit from the County. However, Congress may, by clear and unambiguous language, waive the federal government's sovereign immunity. The CZMA does not require federal agencies to obtain permits, but it does require that federal agencies carry out their activities "in a manner which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved State management programs." 16 United States Code (USC) 1456(c) (1) (A). DLCD has recognized that federal agencies are not required to obtain permits unless a federal law, other than the CZMA, requires them to do so; however, federal agencies are required to demonstrate that the proposed activity is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies underlying the permits. OAR 660-035-0030 (4). Notwithstanding the CG’s federal supremacy, its compatibility/consistency determination includes the following findings to demonstrate consistency with Clatsop County Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance Section 3.7444. Section 3.7444. Permitted Developments (3) Navigational aids. (5) Research and educational observation. (6) Maintenance and repair of existing structure or facilities, including dikes. (7) Temporary dikes for emergency flood protection, subject to state and federal requirements. (8) Project for the protection of habitat, nutrient, fish, wildlife, and aesthetic resources. (9) Water-dependent commercial, industrial, and port uses including but not limited to: (A) docks, moorages, piers, and wharves (B) fuel storage and dispensing facilities (C) cargo loading and unloading facilities (D) vessel construction, maintenance, or repair facilities (E) seafood receiving, processing, and storage (F) cargo marshaling, assembly, and storage facilities (G) ice making and sales establishments (H) integrated manufacturing and shipping facility where a significant portion of the operation is water-dependent (I) marine railway facilities (J) other water-dependent uses meeting the criteria in Section S4.243(1), Water-dependent Use criteria (41) Piling and dredging in conjunction with permitted uses 3, and 5 through 9 listed above, pursuant to the applicable standards in Sections S4.208 and S4.232.

5/12/2021 Page 16

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

(42) Fill in conjunction with permitted uses 6 through 9 listed above, pursuant to the applicable standards in Section S4.235. Consistency Response:

(41) The purpose of the maintenance dredging is to facilitate safe berthing and navigation. (42) The material to be dredged is suitable for in-water placement and would be placed in the existing Network in the Columbia River, where water depth is 20 feet or greater. Consequently, this standard needs no further evaluation. Statement of Consistency: The proposed activity has been evaluated through the draft EA and in consultation with Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), NOAA National Marine Fisheries (NMFS), US Fish and Wildlife Service, and others for impacts to historic and culture resources, ESA-listed species, and water quality. The historical and cultural findings, the BA, and Joint Permit Application for the WQC are incorporated herein by reference. Based on the above evaluation in conjunction with evaluations to meet ESA, NHPA, NEPA, and CWA compliance requirements, the CG has determined that the proposed activity is consistent with the (1) Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals and Guidance, (2) Applicable Oregon Revised Statues, (3) Clatsop County Land Use Planning, and (4) Clatsop County Standards Document. The action is, therefore, consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the OCMP.

Consistency with State Agency Authorities In addition to demonstrating consistency with applicable Statewide Planning Goals and local land use regulations, the CG must also demonstrate consistency with the OCMP enforceable policies implemented through applicable provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and administered by networked state agency authorities. Table 1 details these policies and provides narratives and references to pertinent state permits, permit applications, and consultations demonstrating consistency with those enforceable policies. In addition, the CG has completed a Draft Final EA in accordance with NEPA and has included a copy as Attachment C. The CG representative has reviewed the proposed activity and identified applicable enforceable policies and the relevant state authorities listed in the OCMP. Pertinent permits, permit applications, and other agency documentation, all submitted in January 2021, are provided as attachments and include:

• CWA Section 404/RHA Section 10 – USACE Seattle District, pending approval • CWA Section 408 – USACE Portland District approved • ESA Section 7 and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act – submitted to NMFS / pending concurrence • CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification – submitted to Washington Department of Ecology / pending approval • CZMA Federal Consistency – submitted to Washington Department of Ecology / pending approval • Hydraulic Project Approval – submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife / pending approval

5/12/2021 Page 17

Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal

• Shoreline Conditional Use, State Environmental Policy Act documentation – submitted to Pacific County / pending approval • Removal/Fill application – submitted to ODSL / pending approval • CWA 401 Water Quality Certification – submitted to ODEQ / pending approval • Land Use Compatibility Statement – submitted to Clatsop County / pending approval

Table 1: Consistency with State Agency Enforceable Policies

Enforceable State Policy (ORS §) Authorization Agency Authorization Status & Statement of Consistency 196.682-905 Permits Removal-Fill ODSL The USCG filed a removal-fill application in March 2021 for required for removal permit approval of discharge activities. DSL is currently reviewing. Detailed or fill; conditions on information about removal-fill -construction activities associated issuance of permit with the proposed activity is provided in the Removal-Fill Application and demonstrate that the proposed activity complies with the current edition of ORS Ch. 196.

97.740, 358.905 and National Historic SHPO The USCG requested Section 106 consultation with both OR and WA 390.235 Preservation Act SHPO. Concurrence has been received in Washington and is Section 106 pending in Oregon. A copy of information submitted is included as Consultation an attachment. As such, the proposed activity has complied and will continue to comply with the current edition of the applicable provisions of ORS throughout the construction process.

468B and OAR 340- CWA 401 Water ODEQ The proposed activity’s consistency with the enforceable policies 41 Quality Certification represented throughout ORS Ch. 468B and OAR 340-41 is supported by the following: The USCG has prepared and submitted a water quality monitoring plan and prefile form to DEQ and an application under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 404/10 Application) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Concurrently, the Section 404/10 Application is provided to DEQ to commence its review under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act with respect to Section 401 certification. DEQ is currently reviewing the application. The proposed activity’s compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act is detailed in the Section 404/10 Application is provided as an attachment. This permit applications demonstrate that the proposed activity will comply with the current edition of ORS Ch. 468B.

498, 506, 509 Oregon The effects on wildlife, including ESA-listed species, have been Department of evaluated through the preparation of the draft EA and a BA for Fish and Wildlife Section 7 consultation under the ESA. The USCG plans to comply with reasonable and prudent measures issued for the proposed activity, including working within the approved in-water work window of November 1 – February 28.

5/12/2021 Page 18

PROJECT SITE

FLOW LANE DISPOSAL AREA BB-3

SITE VICINITY ^_

0 0.5 1

Miles DATE UNITED STATES STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT AUGUST 2020

K SCALE H J

: ILWACO, WASHINGTON

Y COAST GUARD B

1 " = 1 mile D E K C

E PROJECT NO. H C Wood Environment & D 336010028 S

: Y B Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. PROJECT VICINITY FIGURE N

W 15862 SW 72nd Ave., Suite 150 A R

D Portland, OR 97224 1 K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\Figure 1 - Project Vicinity.mxd - stephane.descombes - 8/7/2020 - 7:25:10 AM LEGEND:

Proposed Dredge Area Dredge Placement Site (approximate)

B a k e r B a y

Sand Island

Chinook

Sand Island BB-3

Columbia River

Area D

Clatsop Spit

0 2,000 4,000

Feet DATE DREDGE PERMIT APRIL 2021 UNITED STATES STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT COAST GUARD SCALE ILWACO, WASHINGTON 1 " = 4,000 feet

PROJECT NO. Wood Environment & 336010028 Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. PROPOSED 15862 SW 72nd Ave., Suite 150 PLACEMENT LOCATIONS FIGURE DRAWN BY: DRAWN SD CHECKED BY: SS Portland, OR 97224 1-3 K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_Permit\Figure 1-4 - Proposed Placement Locations.mxd - stephane.descombes - 4/7/2021 - 7:24:45 AM

Attachment A Federal Application Materials and/or Approvals

1. JARPA and USACE PN,

2. Biological Assessment and EFH Assessment Consultation Requests,

3. NHPA Section 106 Consultation requests (WA and OR)

4. Suitability Determination

CENWS-ODS-ND Cape Disappointment, 2021

Memorandum for Record March 10, 2021

Subject: Suitability Determination Memorandum and Antidegradation Assessment for Maintenance Dredging at U.S. Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment in Ilwaco, Washington (NWS-2021-246).

Introduction This suitability determination memorandum (SDM) and antidegradation assessment documents the consensus regarding the suitability of the proposed dredged material for unconfined aquatic disposal and antidegradation compliance of the post-dredge leave surface as determined by the Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Departments of Ecology and Natural Resources, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

Project Description The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Cape Disappointment Station is located on a peninsula in Baker Bay, Pacific County, Ilwaco, Washington (Figure 1). The Station is a federally-owned property in the Columbia River Estuary on the eastern shore of Cape Disappointment. Sediment shoaling is occurring at the Station, restricting vessel access to both travel lift areas and piers required to launch and moor vessels. The purpose of the proposed project is to re-establish depths needed for safe vessel navigation, berthing, and access to the Station. The USCG is applying for a maintenance dredging permit to support this initial event as well as future maintenance dredging activities at the Station over a 10-year period.

Project Summary Waterbody Baker Bay (mouth of Columbia River) Water classification Marine Project rank Low-moderate changed to Low (see Rank Section) Total proposed dredging volume (cy) ~3,726 (initial, with additional maintenance for a total of 20,000 cy over 10 years) Target proposed dredging depth -10 ft MLLW Max. proposed dredging depth (includes 2-foot -12 ft MLLW overdepth) Proposed disposal location(s) Unconfined aquatic placement Dredged Material Management Units (DMMUs): No. 1 DMMU (composite of 3 sampling stations) of stations DMMO tracking number CGCDS-1-A-F-424 EIM Study ID CGCDS21 USACE Regulatory Reference Number NWS-2021-246 Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) Approval Date October 1, 2020 (Wood 2020) Sampling Date(s) October 14-15, 2020 Sediment Characterization Report Approval Date March 5, 2021 (Wood 2021) Testing Parameters DMMP Marine COCs (no DFs or TBT) Biological Testing Bioassay testing not required Suitability Outcome All material found suitable for unconfined aquatic placement Recency Expiration Date (Low = 7 years) October 2027 Antidegradation Assessment In compliance

1 CENWS-ODS-ND Cape Disappointment, 2021

Sampling and Analysis Description Sampling was conducted over two days using a RIC 5500 vibracorer aboard the research vessel Tieton, operated by the subcontractor Gravity Consulting LLC. DGPS was used to provide accurate horizontal positioning. Vertical positioning was conducted using the nearest National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) electronic tide-gauge for Columbia River Jetty A. Tide readings were periodically verified throughout the sampling program with the permanently moored tide-board at the Station. Figure 2 shows the proposed and actual (centroid of multiple cores) sediment sampling locations.

Multiple cores were collected from three sampling stations to provide adequate volume for Tier 3 biological testing, if needed. All retained cores met acceptance criteria. A sample composite consisting of material from 17 cores (6 cores from C1, 6 cores from C2, and 5 cores from C3) was generated in the field and submitted for laboratory analysis. Individual Z-samples were collected at each individual location for potential analysis. Table 1 provides the sampling locations and field data associated with each core collected. Table 2 shows the sediment compositing scheme.

Samples were delivered to Analytical Resources, Inc. (ARI) in Tukwila, WA and EcoAnalysts in Port Gamble, WA (for potential biological testing).

Data Validation Wood performed an EPA Stage 2B validation on the composite sample. The validation process resulted in some additional J and UJ qualified data (estimated values) beyond those assigned by the lab, and X- qualifiers for TOC and antimony (presence or absence of the analyte cannot be substantiated), based on specified protocol or technical advisory; but, no analytical results were rejected; and all data were considered usable, as qualified, by the data validator.

Analytical Testing Results Table 3 summarize the physical and chemical results for the DMMU composite sample alongside the DMMP marine guidelines. The sediment collected was predominantly sand (97%) with low total organic carbon (0.15%). Chemicals of concern (COCs) were not detected above the reporting limit or detected at low concentrations, well below the DMMP screening levels and Sediment Management Standards (SMS) marine sediment apparent effects thresholds (AETs) sediment quality standards (SQS). No Z-sample analysis or biological testing was required.

DMMP Determinations Rank Since sediment characterization hadn’t been conducted at the Cape Disappointment Station since 1992, the DMMP agencies agreed to a low-moderate ranking for the 2020 sediment characterization. Based on two rounds of complete analytical testing results (from 1992 and 2020), which indicate the prism is predominantly sand, with low TOC, and low concentrations of COCs, this site has now been determined to be a low- ranked area. In addition, bulk sediment results from 1992 indicated TBT is not a special COC in this location. This re-ranking information will be added to the next update of the DMMP User Manual.

Suitability Determination Chemical concentrations in the dredge prism composite samples were below the DMMP marine SLs as discussed above. The characterization represented up to 8,000 cy of material. The applicant currently proposes to dredge 3,726 cy in Dredge Year 2022 and perform maintenance dredging as needed over a

2 CENWS-ODS-ND Cape Disappointment, 2021

10-year period. The DMMP agencies have concluded that all of the characterized material from DMMU1 is suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal. At this time, the USCG is considering a number of upland and unconfined aquatic disposal options, including locations in the Columbia River, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. An actual disposal location will be determined during project permitting. Removal of sediment (up to the permitted volume of 20,000 cy) within the characterized dredging prism is authorized until the recency expiration date of October 2027 as long as there are no significant changes to the project scope or new contaminant sources identified. Dredging after the recency expiration may require additional characterization and should be coordinated with the DMMO.

Antidegradation Determination The sediment to be exposed by dredging must either meet the State of Washington Sediment Management Standards (SMS) or the State’s Antidegradation Standard (Ecology, 2013) as outlined by DMMP guidance (DMMP, 2008). Concentrations of all DMMP chemicals of concern were below the DMMP SLs and SQS, and there is no reason to believe that a new exposed surface would be contaminated relative to the overlying materials; therefore, this project is in compliance with the State of Washington Antidegradation Standard.

Notes and Clarifications The decisions documented in this memorandum do not constitute final agency approval of the project. During the public comment period that follows a public notice, resource agencies will provide input on the overall project. A final decision will be made after full consideration of agency input, and after an alternatives analysis is done under section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.

A pre-dredge meeting with DNR, Ecology and the Corps of Engineers is required at least 7 days prior to dredging. A dredging quality control plan must be developed and submitted to the USACE Seattle and Portland District’s Regulatory Branch (pending permitted disposal site(s)) and Ecology. Refer to the USACE permit and Ecology 401 certification for project-specific submittal requirements and timelines.

The DMMP does not make specific beneficial use determinations. However, these data are available for the assessment of project-specific beneficial use by the project proponent, permitting agencies, local health jurisdictions and/or the owner of a receiving property.

References DMMP, 2008. Quality of Post-Dredge Sediment Surfaces (Updated). A Clarification Paper Prepared by David Fox (USACE), Erika Hoffman (EPA) and Tom Gries (Ecology) for the Dredged Material Management Program, June 2008. DMMP, 2018. Dredged Material Evaluation and Disposal Procedures (User Manual). Dredged Material Management Program, updated December 2018.

Ecology, 2013. Sediment Management Standards – Chapter 173-204 WAC. Washington State Department of Ecology, February 2013.

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood), 2020. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Dredging at Station Cape Disappointment. Prepared for U.S. Coast Guard. October 2020.

3 CENWS-ODS-ND Cape Disappointment, 2021

Wood, 2021. Sampling and Analysis Plan Report, Dredging at Station Cape Disappointment. Prepared for U.S. Coast Guard. March 2021.

4 CENWS-ODS-ND Cape Disappointment, 2021

Agency Signatures

______3/10/2021 ______Date Joy Dunay – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District

______3/11/2021 ______Date Justine Barton – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

______03/10/2021 ______Date Laura Inouye, PhD. – Washington State Department of Ecology

______03/10/2021 ______Date Shannon Soto – Washington State Department of Natural Resources

Copies Furnished: DMMP agencies Evan Carnes, USACE Regulatory Project Manager Kimbrie Gobbi, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. DMMO File

5 Final Sampling and Analysis Plan Report Dredging at Station Cape Disappointment United States Coast Guard

Table 1 Sampling Locations

Centroid Centroid Measured Tidal Mudline Target Actual Attempt Latitude Longitude Recovered Core Percent Sample ID Latitude Longitude Water Depth Stage3 Elevation Penetration Penetration Number (dd.dddddd)2 (dd.dddddd)2 Length (feet) Recovery4 (dd.dddddd)1 (dd.dddddd)1 (feet) (feet) (ft MLLW) (feet) (feet) 1 46.281360 -124.047468 14.8 5.6 -9.2 4.8 8.0 7.2 90 2 46.281360 -124.047468 16.4 7.9 -8.5 5.5 9.0 9.0 100 3 46.281359 -124.047467 16.6 7.4 -9.2 4.8 8.8 8.8 100 4 46.281359 -124.047467 15.7 6.7 -9.0 5.0 8.7 8.7 100 CG-2020-C1 5 46.281351 -124.047464 46.281359 -124.047467 14.7 5.5 -9.2 4.8 9.0 9.0 100 6 46.281347 -124.047459 12.8 3.8 -9.0 5.0 9.0 9.0 100 75 46.281347 -124.047459 11.0 2.6 -8.4 5.6 9.0 9.0 100 85 46.281341 -124.047464 9.1 1.7 -7.4 6.6 8.9 8.9 100 95 46.281346 -124.047463 9.9 1.0 -8.9 5.1 9.2 9.2 100 1 46.280850 -124.045776 16.7 8.2 -8.5 5.5 9.3 9.3 100 2 46.280850 -124.045776 14.5 6.2 -8.3 5.7 9.2 9.2 100 3 46.280846 -124.045772 13.5 5.1 -8.4 5.6 8.9 8.9 100 CG-2020-C2 46.280852 -124.045774 4 46.280846 -124.045772 12.3 3.8 -8.5 5.5 8.8 8.8 100 5 46.280860 -124.045773 11.2 2.9 -8.3 5.7 8.9 8.9 100 6 46.280860 -124.045773 10.5 2.0 -8.5 5.5 9.0 9.0 100 1 46.280686 -124.045182 8.4 2.4 -6.0 8.0 9.1 9.1 100 2 46.280702 -124.045192 10.6 4.3 -6.3 7.7 8.5 8.5 100 CG-2020-C3 3 46.280695 -124.045180 46.280698 -124.045167 16.2 7.1 -9.1 4.9 9.0 9.0 100 4 46.280698 -124.045167 16.2 6.5 -9.7 4.3 8.7 8.7 100 5 46.280698 -124.045168 17.6 8.2 -9.4 4.6 8.8 8.8 100 Notes: 1. All samples were collected within the ± 3 meter accuracy of the GPS from the centroid, and typically within 5-feet of the centroid location shown on Figure 2-1. 2. All sample collection locations were verified for accuracy with visual observations, field notes, maps, and site photographs. 3. Tide readings for the Study were recorded using a real-time monitoring application of the NOAA tide gauge at Columbia River Jetty A tide station. Readings were verified using the tide board at Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment several times during the Study and the measurements were determined to be accurate. 4. The first Attempt Number 3 at location CG-2020-C1 was rejected and discarded because it did not meet 75 percent recovery. In addition, there were three nonconsecutive attempts (two for attempt 2, one for attempt 3) at location CG-2020-C3 that were rejected because of 0 percent recovery (Appendix A). 5. Sample attempts 7, 8 and 9 at station CG-2020-C1 were collected as contingency volume for Z-layer toxicity and bioaccumulation sample analysis in case full recovery of this layer was not recovered at other locations. These additional attempts were separated from the rest of the core samples collected.

Acronyms: CG = Coast Guard; 2020 = sampling year; C = core sample; dd/ddd.dddddd° = decimal degrees; MLLW = mean lower low water; ft = feet; ND = no data

6 Final Sampling and Analysis Plan Report Dredging at Station Cape Disappointment United States Coast Guard

Table 2 USCG Station Cape Disappointment Sediment Compositing

Mudline Maximum Composited Attempt Sample ID Elevation Sample Depth Core Length Core Compoiste Area Composite Number (ft MLLW) (ft MLLW) (feet) 1 -9.2 -12 2.8 2 -8.5 -12 3.5 3 -9.2 -12 2.8 CG-2020-C1-Composite 4 -9.0 -12 3.0 CG-2020-C1 5 -9.2 -12 2.8 6 -9.0 -12 3.0 7 -8.4 -14 2.0 Contingency Z-layer volume 8 -7.4 -14 2.0 (-12 to -14 ft MLLW) 9 -8.9 -14 2.0 1 -8.5 -12 3.5 CG-2020-Composite 2 -8.3 -12 3.7 3 -8.4 -12 3.6 CG-2020-C2 CG-2020-C2-Composite 4 -8.5 -12 3.5 5 -8.3 -12 3.7 6 -8.5 -12 3.5 1 -6.0 -12 6.0 2 -6.3 -12 5.7 CG-2020-C3 3 -9.1 -12 2.9 CG-2020-C3-Composite 4 -9.7 -12 2.3 5 -9.4 -12 2.6

Notes: Z-layer samples were retained separately as archives and labeled CG-2020-C1-Z, CG-2020-C2-Z, and CG-2020-C3-Z. Based on the chemical testing results, the samples were not analyzed for this Study.

Acronyms: CG = Coast Guard; 2020 = year sampled; C = core sample; MLLW = mean lower low water; ft = feet; Z- layer = resultant sediment surface post-dredging

7 Table 3. USCG STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY DATA Dry Weight SQS - AET CG-2020- Analytical Method Compound Name Type Units SL BT ML Qualifier dry wt Composite SM 2540 G Percent Solids Conventional % . . . . 76.42 EPA 9060 Carbon, Total Organic Conventional % . . . . 0.15 X SM 4500-NH3 B/C (M) Ammonia (as N) Conventional mg/kg . . . . 0.87 SM 2540 G Total Volatile Solids Conventional % . . . . 0.89 SM 4500-S2 Total Sulfides Conventional % . . . . 82.8 J PSEP Grain size Gravel Conventional % . . . . 0.4 PSEP Grain size Sand Conventional % . . . . 96.7 PSEP Grain size Silt Conventional % . . . . ND (<3.0) U PSEP Grain size Clay Conventional % . . . . ND (<3.0) U PSEP Grain size Total Fines Conventional % . . . . ND (<3.0) U Metals EPA 6020A Antimony Metals mg/kg 150 . 200 . ND (<0.02) UX EPA 6020A Arsenic Metals mg/kg 57 507.1 700 57 2.28 EPA 6020A Cadmium Metals mg/kg 5.1 . 14 5.1 ND (<0.04) U EPA 6020A Chromium Metals mg/kg 260 . . 260 7.14 EPA 6020A Copper Metals mg/kg 390 . 1300 390 4.72 EPA 6020A Lead Metals mg/kg 450 975 1200 450 2.74 EPA 7471B Mercury Metals mg/kg 0.41 1.5 2.3 0.41 0.00866 J EPA 6020A Selenium Metals mg/kg . 3 . . 0.82 EPA 6020A Silver Metals mg/kg 6.1 . 8.4 6.1 0.03 J EPA 6020A Zinc Metals mg/kg 410 . 3800 410 25.0 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons EPA 8270 E SIM 2-Methylnaphthalene LMW PAH µg/kg 670 . 1900 670 0.38 J EPA 8270 E SIM Acenaphthene LMW PAH µg/kg 500 . 2000 500 ND (<0.38) U EPA 8270 E SIM Acenaphthylene LMW PAH µg/kg 560 . 1300 1300 ND (<0.46) U EPA 8270 E SIM Anthracene LMW PAH µg/kg 960 . 13000 960 0.73 EPA 8270 E SIM Benzo (a) anthracene HMW PAH µg/kg 1300 . 5100 1300 2.45 EPA 8270 E SIM Benzo (a) pyrene HMW PAH µg/kg 1600 . 3600 1600 2.10 J EPA 8270 E SIM Benzo (g,h,i) Perylene HMW PAH µg/kg 670 . 3200 670 1.56 EPA 8270 E SIM Benzo Fluoranthenes (b,j,k) HMW PAH µg/kg 3200 9900 3200 5.09 J EPA 8270 E SIM Chrysene HMW PAH µg/kg 1400 . 21000 1400 2.57 J EPA 8270 E SIM Dibenzo (a,h) Anthracene HMW PAH µg/kg 230 . 1900 230 0.24 J EPA 8270 E SIM Fluoranthene HMW PAH µg/kg 1700 4600 30000 1700 5.79 EPA 8270 E SIM Fluorene LMW PAH µg/kg 540 . 3600 540 ND (<0.59) U EPA 8270 E SIM Indeno (1,2,3-c,d) Pyrene HMW PAH µg/kg 600 . 4400 600 1.29 EPA 8270 E SIM Naphthalene LMW PAH µg/kg 2100 . 2400 2100 1.07 J EPA 8270 E SIM Phenanthrene LMW PAH µg/kg 1500 . 21000 1500 2.05 EPA 8270 E SIM Pyrene HMW PAH µg/kg 2600 11980 16000 2600 12.6 EPA 8270 E SIM Total LMW PAHs1 LMW PAH µg/kg 5200 . 29000 5200 3.9 J EPA 8270 E SIM Total HMW PAHs HMW PAH µg/kg 12000 . 69000 12000 27.3 J Phenols EPA 8270 E SIM 2,4-Dimethylphenol Phenol µg/kg 29 . 210 29 ND (<2.2) U EPA 8270 E SIM 2-Methylphenol Phenol µg/kg 63 . 77 63 1.3 J EPA 8270 E SIM 4-Methylphenol Phenol µg/kg 670 . 3600 670 3.3 J EPA 8270 E SIM Pentachlorophenol Phenol µg/kg 400 504 690 360 ND (<2.1) UJ EPA 8270 E SIM Phenol Phenol µg/kg 420 . 1200 420 4.6 J Chlorinated Hydrocarbons EPA 8270 E 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Chlorinated Hydrocarbons µg/kg 31 . 64 31 ND (<6.0) U EPA 8270 E SIM 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Chlorinated Hydrocarbons µg/kg 35 . 110 35 ND (<0.7) U EPA 8270 E SIM 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Chlorinated Hydrocarbons µg/kg 110 . 120 110 ND (<0.6) U EPA 8270 E SIM Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Chlorinated Hydrocarbons µg/kg 22 168 230 22 ND (<0.7) U Phthalates EPA 8270 E Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate Phthalate µg/kg 1300 . 8300 1300 ND (<28.8) U EPA 8270 E SIM Butyl Benzyl Phthalate Phthalate µg/kg 63 . 970 63 ND (<0.7) U EPA 8270 E Di-n-Butyl Phthalate Phthalate µg/kg 1400 . 5100 1400 ND (<5.3) U EPA 8270 E Di-n-Octyl Phthalate Phthalate µg/kg 6200 . 6200 6200 ND (<8.7) U EPA 8270 E SIM Diethyl Phthalate Phthalate µg/kg 200 . 1200 200 6.9 J EPA 8270 E SIM Dimethyl Phthalate Phthalate µg/kg 71 . 1400 71 ND (<1.0) UJ Extractables EPA 8270 E SIM Benzyl alcohol Extractables µg/kg 57 . 870 57 ND (<2.5) U EPA 8270 E SIM Benzoic acid Extractables µg/kg 650 . 760 650 ND (<13.4) U EPA 8270 E Dibenzofuran Extractables µg/kg 540 . 1700 540 ND (<4.6) U EPA 8270 E SIM Hexachlorobutadiene Extractables µg/kg 11 . 270 11 ND (<0.7) U EPA 8270 E SIM N-Nitrosodiphenylamine Extractables µg/kg 28 . 130 28 ND (<3.0) U

8 Dry Weight SQS - AET CG-2020- Analytical Method Compound Name Type Units SL BT ML Qualifier dry wt Composite Chlorinated Pesticides EPA 8081B 4,4'-DDD Chlorinated Pesticides µg/kg 16 . . . ND (<0.33) U EPA 8081B 4,4'-DDE Chlorinated Pesticides µg/kg 9 . . . ND (<0.14) U EPA 8081B 4,4'-DDT Chlorinated Pesticides µg/kg 12 . . . ND (<0.34) UJ EPA 8081B Total DDTs Chlorinated Pesticides µg/kg . 50 69 . ND (<0.34) U EPA 8081B Aldrin Chlorinated Pesticides µg/kg 9.5 . . . ND (<1.04) UJ EPA 8081B Chlordane Chlorinated Pesticides µg/kg 2.8 37 . . ND (<2.07) U EPA 8081B Dieldrin Chlorinated Pesticides µg/kg 1.9 . 1700 . ND (<0.12) U EPA 8081B Heptachlor Chlorinated Pesticides µg/kg 1.5 . 270 . ND (<0.05) UJ Polychlorinated Biphenyl Aroclors EPA 8082A Aroclor 1016 PCB Aroclors µg/kg . . . . ND (<1.6) U EPA 8082A Aroclor 1221 PCB Aroclors µg/kg . . . . ND (<1.6) U EPA 8082A Aroclor 1232 PCB Aroclors µg/kg . . . . ND (<1.6) U EPA 8082A Aroclor 1242 PCB Aroclors µg/kg . . . . ND (<1.6) U EPA 8082A Aroclor 1248 PCB Aroclors µg/kg . . . . ND (<1.6) U EPA 8082A Aroclor 1254 PCB Aroclors µg/kg . . . . ND (<1.6) U EPA 8082A Aroclor 1260 PCB Aroclors µg/kg . . . . ND (<0.6) U EPA 8082A Aroclor 1262 PCB Aroclors µg/kg . . . . ND (<0.6) U EPA 8082A Aroclor 1268 PCB Aroclors µg/kg . . . . ND (<0.6) U EPA 8082A Total PCB Aroclors PCB Aroclors µg/kg 130 . 3100 130 ND (<1.6) U PCB Aroclors mg/kg EPA 8082A Total PCB Aroclors . 38 . 12 NC2 U (TOC normalized) carbon Notes All values reported in Dry Weight. 1: 2-Methylnaphthalene is not included in total LPAHs 2: NC = not calculated due to no detection of PCB aroclors D = The report value is from a dilution. J = Estimated concentration value detected below the reporting limit. U = This analyte is not detected above the reporting limit (RL) or if noted, not detected above the limit of detection (LOD). Y1 = Raised reporting limit due to interference Analytes are reported to the method detection limit provided by Analytical Resources, Incorporated mg - milligram ND - Non Detect < MDL kg - kilogram PAH - Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon µg - microgram PCB - Polychlorinated biphenyl % - percent AET SQS = Apparent effects threshold sediment quality standard (dry weight) BOLD = value detected is above SL or SQS SL = Screening Level BOLD = value detected is above BT BT = Bioaccumulation Trigger BOLD = value detected is above ML ML = Maximum Level Qualifier Definitions J = The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample. U = The analyte was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit. UJ = The analyte was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit. However, the reported quantitation limit is approximate and may or may not represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.

X = The sample results were affected by serious deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and to meet published method and quality criteria. The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be substantiated by the data provided. Acceptance or rejection of the data should be decided by the project team, but exclusion of the data is recommended.

9 PROJECT SITE

SITE VICINITY ^_

0 0.5 1

Miles

DATE DREDGE PERMIT UNITED STATES SEPTEMBER 2020 STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT COAST GUARD SCALE ILWACO, WASHINGTON 1 " = 1 mile Wood Environment & PROJECT NO. 336010028 Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. PROJECT VICINITY 15862 SW 72nd Ave., Suite 150 FIGURE

DRAWN BY:SD CHECKED BY:KG Portland, OR 97224 1

K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_Permit\Figure 1-1 - Project Vicinity.mxd - stephane.descombes - 9/17/2020 - 9:21:30 AM

10 LEGEND:

Bathymetry Contour Proposed Dredge Area !. Actual Sampling Location Centroid

-18 (2 ft. interval, MLLW datum) Proposed Dredge Area Toe !. Proposed Sampling Location Bathymetry Contour B a k e r B a y (1 ft. interval, MLLW datum) Estimated Dredge Footprint

-18

-20 -16 -20 -14 -18 -12

-10

-16

CG-2020-C3 !.!.

CG-2020-C2 -4 !. !. 0 MLLW -8 -12 2 -14 -6

-2 6 8 MHHW CG-2020-C1 !.!.

Approximate location -4 10 of 12" outfall -2

MHHW MLLW Approximate location 0 of 6" outfall 2 4 6

SOURCE: Bathymetric data is from a survey conducted by Gahagan & Bryant Associates, Inc. on April 1, 2020 0 30 60 and represents the sea floor conditions present on that date. Feet DREDGE PERMIT DATE DECEMBER 2020 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT SCALE ILWACO, WASHINGTON 1 " = 60 ' Wood Environment & PROJECT NO. 336010028 DRAFT Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. ACTUAL & PROPOSED SAMPLING LOCATIONS 7376 S.W. Durham Road FIGURE Portland, OR 97224

DRAWN BY:SD CHECKED BY:KG 2

K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_Permit\Figure 2-2 - Actual & Proposed Sampling Locations - Centroids.mxd - stephane.descombes - 12/21/2020 - 2:05:58 PM 11 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Dr. S.E., Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503

In Reply Refer To: 01EWFW00-2021-I-0453

William A. Robinson U.S. Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit Oakland 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N Oakland, California 94612

Dear Mr. Robinson:

Subject: U.S. Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment 10-Year Maintenance Dredging

This letter is in response to yourJanuary 6, 2021, request for our concurrence with your determination that the proposed action in Ilwaco, Pacific County, Washington, “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” federally listed species. We received your letter and Biological Assessment, providing information in support of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determinations, on January 7, 2021.

Project Description:

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) proposes to dredge and dispose of sediment from the vessel mooring basin and boat haul-out area at USCG Station Cape Disappointment. The project area is 4.2 acres, and the initial dredge volume is approximately 3,726 cubic yards (cy) of sediment. The first maintenance dredge event will require one week to complete and is scheduled during the in-water work window of November 1 to February 28. Additional maintenance dredging events over the next ten years will be conducted every two to five years, will remove similar amounts of sediment as the first maintenance dredge, and remove approximately 10,000 cy of sediment in total. Methods and location for dredged material disposal will be based upon suitability testing results. Dredge material will either be (1) loaded onto a barge for transport to an in-water disposal site (if eligible for in-water disposal) or (2) loaded onto trucks, placed temporarily onsite for dewatering, and trucked to an approved upland site.

INTERIOR REGION 9 COLUMBIA–PACIFIC NORTHWEST

Idaho, Montana*, Oregon*, Washington *PARTIAL William A. Robinson 2

Specifically, you requested informal consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA) for the federally listed species and critical habitat identified below.

x Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) x Bull trout designated critical habitat x Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus

The USCG determined that the action will have “no effect” on additional listed species and designated critical habitat that are known to occur in Pacific County. The determination of “no effect” to listed resources rests with the federal action agency. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has no regulatory or statutory authority for concurring with “no effect” determinations, and no consultation with the Service is required. We recommend that the federal action agency document their analyses on effects to listed species, and maintain that documentation as part of the project file.

Sufficient information has been provided to determine the effects of the proposed action and to conclude whether it would adversely affect federally listed species and/or designated critical habitat. Our concurrence is based on information provided by the federal action agency, best available science, and complete and successful implementation of the conservation measures included by the federal action agency.

EFFECTS TO BULL TROUT AND MARBLED MURRELET

I. Exposure

Exposures are extremely unlikely (discountable) because of the following:

x The action is located in the Lower Columbia River (downstream of Bonneville Dam), where, at present, bull trout occurrence is rare and exposure to this action is extremely unlikely.

x The action will occur during a time of year (November 1 to February 28) when few, if any, bull trout are present in the action area.

x Given the location and limited scope, scale, and duration of construction activities and resulting temporary effects, exposure of marbled murrelets is extremely unlikely.

II. Effects to Bull Trout and Marbled Murrelet Habitat and their Prey

Effects will not be measureable (insignificant) and will not significantly disrupt normal behaviors (i.e., the ability to successfully feed, move, and/or shelter) and are therefore, considered insignificant because of the following:

William A. Robinson 3

x The action will result in temporary impacts to water quality, including potential temporary increases in turbidity and water column contaminant concentrations. These effects will be intermittent and limited in physical extent and duration.

With successful implementation of the conservation measures included by the federal action agency as part of the proposed action, we expect that the effects of the action will not measurably degrade or diminish habitat functions or prey resources in the action area. Therefore, effects from the action are considered insignificant.

x Construction activities and proposed permanent features may impact habitat that supports the species and/or their prey. These impacts will be limited in physical extent and/or duration and will not measurably degrade habitat functions, including prey resources that are important to the species within the action area:

x The action will result in limited impacts to water quality, including potential temporary increases in turbidity and water column contaminant concentrations. These effects will be intermittent and limited in physical extent and duration.

x The action will maintain or reestablish authorized channel depths and contours at a location(s) dredged in the past. Any in-water disposal of dredged material will comply with a current, valid Site Use Authorization approved under the Dredged Material Management Program. The action will not degrade habitat functions that are important to the species or their prey. The action will not diminish forage fish or salmonid production.

x The action will not result in shading, destruction, or long-term impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation, and there will be minimal loss of prey resources.

EFFECTS TO DESIGNATED BULL TROUT CRITICAL HABITAT

The final revised rule designating bull trout critical habitat (75 FR 63898 October 18, 2010) identifies nine Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) essential for the conservation of the species. The 2010 designation of critical habitat for bull trout uses the term PCE. The new critical habitat regulations (81 FR 7214) replace this term with physical or biological features (PBFs). This shift in terminology does not change the approach used in conducting our analyses, whether the original designation identified PCEs, PBFs, or essential features. In this letter, the term PCE is synonymous with PBF or essential features of critical habitat.

The following PCEs are present in the action area. Of the PCEs present, some will not be affected by the proposed action.

William A. Robinson 4

PCE 2: Migration habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers.

x The action may temporarily introduce an impediment or barrier within migration habitat; however, it will not preclude bull trout movement through the area, either during or after construction, and any effects will be temporary. The migration habitat will not be permanently altered, destroyed, or degraded.

PCE 3: An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.

x The action may temporarily reduce the food base via a small reduction of prey resources. However, the impacts will be temporary and/or components of the project design will avoid, reduce, or compensate for them.

PCE 4: Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments, and processes that establish and maintain these aquatic environments, with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and unembedded substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure.

x The action will have no effect on this PCE.

PCE 8: Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited.

x The action may impact water quantity and/or quality. However, the effects will be temporary; components of the project design include actions to avoid, reduce, or compensate for the effects; and/or we would be unable to measure, detect, or evaluate the effects.

CONCLUSION

This concludes consultation pursuant to the regulations implementing the ESA (50 CFR 402.13). Our review and concurrence with your effect determinations is based on implementation of the project as described. It is the responsibility of the federal action agency to ensure that the projects they authorize or carry out are in compliance with the regulatory permit and ESA. If a permittee or the federal action agency deviates from the measures outlined in a permit or project description, the federal action agency has the obligation to reinitiate consultation and comply with section 7(d).

This project should be re-analyzed and re-initiation may be necessary if: 1) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner, or to an extent, not considered in this consultation, 2) if the action is subsequently modified in a manner

William A. Robinson 5 that causes an effect to a listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this consultation, and/or 3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by this project.

This letter constitutes a complete response by the Service to your request for informal consultation. A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, in Lacey, Washington. If you have any questions about this letter or our shared responsibilities under the ESA, please contact the consulting biologist identified below.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation Biologist(s): Mitchell Dennis, (360) 753-6038

Sincerely, Digitally signed by THOMAS THOMAS MCREYNOLDS Date: 2021.04.19 MCREYNOLDS 09:02:43 -07'00'

IRU Brad Thompson, State Supervisor Washington Fish and Wildlife Office

January 7, 2021 Mr. W.A. Robinson III Environmental Management Branch USCG Department of HomeLand Security 1301 Clay Street, @700N Oakland, California 94612-5203

Re: USCG Maintenance Dredging Project Log No: 2020-10-06127-USCG

Dear Mr. Robinson III:

Thank you for contacting our Department. We have reviewed the materials you provided for the proposed USCG Maintenance Dredging Project at USCG Station Cape Disappointment near Ilwaco, Pacific County, Washington.

We concur with your findings of No Adverse Effect with the stipulation for an unanticipated discovery plan.

In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured, and the concerned tribes and this department notified.

We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4).

These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on the behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in conformance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36CFR800. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and a copy of these comments should be included in subsequent environmental documents. Sincerely,

Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. State Archaeologist (360) 890-2615 email: [email protected]

State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 www.dahp.wa.gov

US Army Corps Joint Public Notice of Engineers Seattle District Application for a Department of the Army Permit and a Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Consistency Concurrence

US Army Corps of Engineers WA Department of Ecology Public Notice Date: April 8, 2021 Regulatory Branch SEA Program Expiration Date: May 8, 2021 Post Office Box 3755 Post Office Box 47600 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Reference No.: NWS-2021-246 Telephone: (206) 316-3049 Telephone: (360) 407-6076 Name: U.S. Coast Guard (Station ATTN: Mr. Evan Carnes, ATTN: SEA Program, Cape Disappointment Maintenance Project Manager Federal Permit Coordinator Dredging)

Interested parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) have received an application to perform work in waters of the U.S. as described below and shown on the enclosed, revised drawings dated March 25, 2021.

The Corps will review the work in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Ecology will review the work pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, with applicable provisions of State water pollution control laws and the Coastal Zone Management Act.

APPLICANT: U.S. Coast Guard Attention: Mr. William Robinson U.S. Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit (CEU) Oakland 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 637-5563

AGENT: Wood Plc Attention: Ms. Erin Hale 15862 Southwest 72nd Ave, #150 Portland, OR 97224 Telephone: (805) 403-4802

LOCATION: In Baker Bay in the Columbia River near Ilwaco, Pacific County, Washington.

WORK: The applicant proposes to dredge up to 20,000 cubic yards of accreted sediment from the U.S. Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment mooring basin. Up to 4,000 cubic yards of sediment would be dredged initially, and up to an additional 16,000 cubic yards over a 10-year period. The proposed dredging would maintain operational depths of the mooring basin to a target depth of -10 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) with a 2- foot over dredge allowance to -12 feet MLLW. Dredging would occur via hydraulic suction dredge or clamshell dredge from a barge-mounted crane. Dredged material would be disposed in the flow lane of the Columbia River at the Baker Bay Flowlane Disposal or Flowlane Area D.

NWS-2021-246; U.S. Coast Guard (Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredging)

PURPOSE: Dredge to maintain vessel access and moorage.

Dredged Material Testing: The proposed dredged material has been tested according to the procedures specified by DMMP, a multi-agency program for the evaluation of dredged material proposed for disposal at open-water sites in Washington State. The DMMP evaluations may include both chemical and biological testing of sediments. For this project, the DMMP agencies determined that all 20,000 cubic yards were suitable for unconfined disposal at the DMMP nondispersive (or dispersive) open-water disposal sites as described above. The sediment testing data are available at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Seattle District, Dredged Material Management Office.

Disposal Site Use Conditions: The following standard site-use conditions will be specified by the Corps and the Washington Department of Natural Resources as part of the Federal/State permitting processes: (1) disposal operations must not interfere with Indian treaty fishing at the disposal site, including gill nets and other fishing gear; (2) the permittee must coordinate any nighttime disposal with the Corps, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch Project Manager; and (3) approval must be received from the District Engineer prior to conducting nighttime disposal. Other appropriate special conditions may be added as a result of comments received during the public review period for this public notice.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The applicant has requested the material be dredged over a 10-year period.

MITIGATION: The proposed activity has potential to impact eelgrass. The applicant has prepared a mitigation plan that indicates the final layout and extent of compensatory eelgrass planting area would be determined by the results of pre‐ and post‐dredging surveys.

ENDANGERED SPECIES: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA on all actions that may affect a species listed (or proposed for listing) under the ESA as threatened or endangered or any designated critical habitat. The U.S. Coast Guard, as the lead agency for ESA consultation, will consult with the NMFS and/or the USFWS as required under Section 7 of the ESA.

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, requires all Federal agencies to consult with the NMFS on all actions, or proposed actions, permitted, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The U.S. Coast Guard, as the lead agency for EFH consultation, will consult with the NMFS as required.

CULTURAL RESOURCES: The U.S. Coast Guard, as the lead agency for determining compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and Native American Tribes as appropriate.

PUBLIC HEARING: Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.

EVALUATION – CORPS: The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered, including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.

2 NWS-2021-246; U.S. Coast Guard (Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredging)

The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Native American Nations or tribal governments; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for the work. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the activity.

The described discharge will be evaluated for compliance with guidelines promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency under authority of Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA. These guidelines require an alternatives analysis for any proposed discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.

EVALUATION – ECOLOGY: Ecology is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, Native American Nations or tribal governments, State, and local agencies and officials; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this activity. Ecology will be considering all comments to determine whether to certify or deny certification for the proposed project.

ADDITIONAL EVALUATION: This proposal is the subject of Conditional Use Permit, being processed by Pacific County. As a Federal agency, the U.S. Coast Guard will contact the Washington Department of Ecology directly to ensure the work is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Program.

COMMENT AND REVIEW PERIOD: Conventional mail or e-mail comments on this public notice will be accepted and made part of the record and will be considered in determining whether authorizing the work would not be contrary to the public interest. In order to be accepted, e-mail comments must originate from the author’s e-mail account and must include on the subject line of the e-mail message the permit applicant’s name and reference number as shown below. Either conventional mail or e-mail comments must include the permit applicant’s name and reference number, as shown below, and the commenter’s name, address, and phone number. All comments whether conventional mail or e-mail must reach this office, no later than the expiration date of this public notice to ensure consideration.

CORPS COMMENTS: All e-mail comments should be sent to [email protected] Conventional mail comments should be sent to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Attention: Evan G. Carnes, P.O. Box 3755, Seattle, Washington 98124-3755. All comments received will become part of the administrative record and are subject to public release under the Freedom of Information Act including any personally identifiable information such as names, phone numbers, and addresses.

ECOLOGY COMMENTS: Any person desiring to present views on the project pertaining to a request for water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA and/or Coastal Zone Management consistency concurrence, may do so by submitting written comments to the following address: Washington State Department of Ecology, Attention: Federal Permit Coordinator, Post Office Box 47600, Olympia, Washington 98504-7600, or e-mail to [email protected].

To ensure proper consideration of all comments, responders must include the following name and reference number in the text of their comments: NWS-2021-246; U.S. Coast Guard

Encl: Figures (5)

3 T10N-R11W 32 T10N-R11W 33 LEGEND:

Township Range Section Line Taxlot

T09N-R11W 04 B a k e r B a y T09N-R11W 05

Ilwaco Channel

PROJECT T09N-R11W 08 SITE

T09N-R11W 09

SITE VICINITY ^_ NOTE: Not for construction, for agency review only.

Columbia River

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet I REFERENCE: NWS-2021-246 LOCATION: In Columbia River, Pacific County, WA. PROPOSED: Sediment dredging.

APPLICANT: United States Coast Guard LAT/LONG: 46.28004 N, -124.04503 W (NAD83) IN: Columbia River

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: See JARPA Attachment C SHEET TITLE: Project Vicinity NEAR/AT: Ilwaco

SHEET: 1 of 5 COUNTY: Pacific STATE: WA

DATE: January 2021 REVISED DATE: March 25, 2021 March 25, 2021, Drawing Revision: Corps Reference Number Added K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_JARPA\Figure 1 - Project Vicinity.mxd E2USN

B a k e r B a y

E1UBL

MLLW

MHHW E2USN

MLLW

MHHW LEGEND: E2EM1NProposed Dredge Area Eelgrass Locations: Eelgrass Spatial Distribution E2USN Eelgrass Areal Extent Eelgrass Vegetated Cover NWI Wetland Type: SOURCE: Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Wetland data obtained from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory: Estuarine and Marine Wetland http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/

NOTE: Not for construction, for agency review only.

0 62.5 125 250 Feet I REFERENCE: NWS-2021-246 LOCATION: In Columbia River, Pacific County, WA. PROPOSED: Sediment dredging.

APPLICANT: United States Coast Guard LAT/LONG: 46.28004 N, -124.04503 W (NAD83) IN: Columbia River

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: See JARPA Attachment C SHEET TITLE: Project Plan View NEAR/AT: Ilwaco

SHEET: 2 of 5 COUNTY: Pacific STATE: WA

DATE: January 2021 REVISED DATE: March 25, 2021 K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_JARPA\Figure 2 - Project Plan View.mxd B a k e r B a y

260' B

780' E'

Total Dredge Area = 4.2 acres F' C 345'

MLLW

D MHHW

180' E 275' MLLW A'

MHHW 125'

LEGEND: F B' Proposed Dredge Area Proposed Dredge Area Toe Estimated Dredge Footprint Eelgrass Locations: Eelgrass Spatial Distribution Eelgrass Areal Extent Eelgrass Vegetated Cover

NOTE: Not for construction, for agency review only.

0 62.5 125 250 Feet I REFERENCE: NWS-2021-246 LOCATION: In Columbia River, Pacific County, WA. PROPOSED: Sediment dredging.

APPLICANT: United States Coast Guard LAT/LONG: 46.28004 N, -124.04503 W (NAD83) IN: Columbia River

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: See JARPA Attachment C SHEET TITLE: Project Dimensions NEAR/AT: Ilwaco

SHEET: 3 of 5 COUNTY: Pacific STATE: WA

DATE: January 2021 REVISED DATE: March 25, 2021 K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_JARPA\Figure 3 - Project Dimensions.mxd NOTE: NOT TO SCALE

REFERENCE: NWS-2021-246 LOCATION: In Columbia River, Pacific County, WA. PROPOSED: Sediment dredging.

APPLICANT: United States Coast Guard LAT/LONG: 46.28004 N, -124.04503 W (NAD83) IN: Columbia River

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: See JARPA Attachment C SHEET TITLE: Cross-Sections NEAR/AT: Ilwaco

SHEET: 4 of 5 COUNTY: Pacific STATE: WA

DATE: January 2021 REVISED DATE: March 25, 2021

NWS-2021-246

REVISED DATE: March 25, 2021 Ilwaco Potential Upland Placement Site (Port of Ilwaco)

B a k e r B a y

Sand Island

Chinook

Baker Bay Sand Island Flowlane Disposal (BB-3) (dispersive) 46.260003, -124.034676 (NAD83)

Columbia River

Flowlane Area D (dispersive) 46.240267, -123.958849 (NAD83)

Clatsop Spit LEGEND: Proposed Dredge Area

NOTE: Not for construction, for agency review only.

0 2,000 4,000 8,000 Feet I REFERENCE: NWS-2021-246 LOCATION: In Columbia River, Pacific County, WA. PROPOSED: Sediment dredging.

APPLICANT: United States Coast Guard LAT/LONG: 46.28004 N, -124.04503 W (NAD83) IN: Columbia River

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: See JARPA Attachment C SHEET TITLE: Proposed Disposal Locations NEAR/AT: Ilwaco

SHEET: 5 of 5 COUNTY: Pacific STATE: WA

DATE: January 2021 REVISED DATE: March 25, 2021 K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_JARPA\Figure 5 - Proposed Disposal Locations.mxd Commanding Officer 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N United States Coast Guard Oakland, CA 94612-5203 Civil Engineering Unit Oakland Staff Symbol: EMB Phone: (510) 637-5567

16475 January 6, 2021 J

Elizabeth Babcock Branch Chief, North Puget Sound NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 7600 Sand Point Way Northeast Seattle, WA 98040

Dear Ms. Babcock, The U.S. Coast Guard (CG) is seeking permits to perform maintenance dredging over a 10-year period at CG Station Cape Disappointment to meet safe navigation and berthing requirements for its vessels. CG Station Cape Disappointment is located is located at 322 Coast Guard Road in Pacific County, Washington. In accordance with the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the CG is requesting concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that the proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the following ESA-listed species and/or their designated critical habitat:

 Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and designated critical habitat o Lower Columbia River Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), ESA-listed as threatened o Upper Willamette River ESU, ESA-listed as threatened o Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU, ESA-listed as endangered o Snake River spring/summer run ESU, ESA-listed as threatened o Snake River fall-run ESU, ESA-listed as threatened  Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and designated critical habitat o Lower Columbia River ESU, ESA-listed as threatened  Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) and designated critical habitat o Columbia River ESU, ESA-listed as threatened  Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and designated critical habitat o Snake River ESU, ESA-listed as endangered  Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and designated critical habitat o Lower Columbia River Distinct Population Segment (DPS), ESA-listed as threatened o Middle Columbia River DPS, ESA-listed as threatened o Upper Columbia River DPS, ESA-listed as threatened o Upper Willamette River DPS, ESA-listed as threatened o Snake River Basin DPS, ESA-listed as threatened  Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) and designated critical habitat o Southern DPS, ESA-listed as threatened  Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) and designated critical habitat o Southern DPS, ESA-listed as threatened

Subject: U.S. COAST GUARD DREDGING AT STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT

The project would adversely affect EFH for various federally managed fish species under the Pacific Coast Salmon, Pacific Coast Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagic Species FMPs and designated Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs). With best management practices implemented during project operations and proposed mitigation, this project would not have a permanent adverse on EFH or designated HAPCs.

To initiate consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the USCG has prepared a Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment to serve as the basis for a determination of effects of the project on species and habitat listed by the Endangered Species Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (Enclosure 1).

Based on the analysis presented in the Enclosure 1, the CG concludes that the proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect migrating salmonids, green sturgeon Southern DPS, eulachon, or designated critical habitat. No permanent adverse impacts to essential fish habitat for Pacific Coast Salmon, Pacific Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagic FMPs or designated HPACs are anticipated. The CG requests your concurrence with its determination. Please contact me at [email protected] or by phone at (510) 637-5563 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

W. A. Robinson III Acting Chief, Environmental Management Branch U.S. Coast Guard By direction of the Commanding Officer

Enclosures: (1) Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

2 Commanding Officer 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N United States Coast Guard Oakland, CA 94612 Civil Engineering Unit Oakland Staff Symbol: EM Phone: (510) 637-5567

5090 05 January 2021 Mr. John Pouley Oregon Heritage/State Historic Preservation Office 725 Summer Street NE, Suite C Salem, OR 97301

Dear Mr. Pouley:

The US Coast Guard (USCG) intends to perform maintenance dredging at USCG Station Cape Disappointment near Ilwaco, Pacific County, Washington and to dispose of dredged material at an in- water site in Clatsop County, Oregon (Enclosure 1 is a location map showing the site of the proposed undertaking and Area of Potential Effects [APE] for dredging; Enclosure 2 is a location map showing the APE for dredged material disposal). We are soliciting your concurrence on our preliminary finding of No Historic Properties Affected on this undertaking under the definitions and requirements laid out in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Dredging will take place within the existing, active mooring basin and boat travel lift area at USCG Station Cape Disappointment, returning it to its previously dredged depth of 10 feet below the mean lower low water (MLLW) mark (MLLW is the average height of the lowest tide recorded each day) plus an additional 2 feet of over-dredge depth, bringing the total depth allowance to 12 feet below MLLW. The last maintenance dredge event of the mooring basin occurred in 2001, during which 10,000 cubic yards (cy) of sediment were dredged; emergency dredging in 2015 removed an additional 125 cy of sediment. In addition to restoring the original depth of the mooring basin, the undertaking will also expand the total dredged area to 4.2 acres from 2.4 acres to include the adjacent boat lift (see Enclosure 1). This will result in the removal of approximately 3,726 cy of sediment. No improvements or modifications to land facilities or landforms associated with the USCG Station Cape Disappointment will occur.

The location for disposal of the dredged sediments will be finalized following suitability testing; prior evaluations suggest that sediments from the undertaking area are suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal. Two in-water disposal locations in Clatsop County, Oregon are proposed: 1) Baker Bay Flowlane Disposal (BB-3), and 2) Flowlane Area D (see Enclosure 2). A beneficial reuse site to be determined may be used for disposal if these sites are deemed unsuitable, however only previously used and/or permitted locations in the Port of Ilwaco would be considered in this event. Sediment disposal would adhere to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401, and River and Harbors Act Section 10 regulatory programs.

Dredging will occur within the area of the Cape Disappointment Historic District. The Cape Disappointment Historic District includes numerous contributing elements: two lighthouses (Cape Disappointment and North Head), fortifications, gun emplacements, and associated buildings (within historic Fort Canby). These contributing elements of the district preserve a physical record of historical use of the land area of the cape between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries. The Historic District has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) since 1975. Though historic properties that are contributing elements of the Historic District exist throughout the land area of Cape Disappointment, none are present in the APE. We reviewed recent consultation concerning work in the same dredging area in 2015, which resulted in a finding of No Historic Properties Affected at that time (Enclosure 3, which includes the consultation letter submitted to the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation [DAHP] in 2015 and the DAHP officer’s response concerning Subj: U.S. COAST GUARD STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT DREDGING

the dredging site). Our current determination of No Historic Properties Affected is based on this prior determination as well as a desktop review of the APE, conducted in October 2020 and finalized in January 2021 (Enclosure 4).

As the portion of this proposed undertaking located within the Historic District involves only dredging below MLLW in an active USCG mooring basin, it will have no effect, either temporary or permanent, on the original location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association of any contributing elements of the District or on the District as a whole. Disposal will occur outside of the District near a busy transportation corridor. USCG therefore believes that both dredging and disposal activities associated with the proposed undertaking will result in No Historic Properties Affected (either those listed or that may be eligible for listing).

In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800, this correspondence invites you to comment on this undertaking. We would appreciate your response to this letter with your feedback in identifying effects the proposed undertaking might have on historic properties that may exist within the APE. We respectfully request your response within 30 working days. If we receive no response within this timeframe, we will assume you have no comments or concerns and/or concur with our effects determination regarding this action. Please contact Ms. Gilda Barboza at [email protected] or by phone at (510) 637-5512 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

DAVID W. STALTERS Chief, Environmental Management Branch U.S. Coast Guard By direction of the Commanding Officer

Enclosures: (1) Figure 1: Area of Potential Effect, Dredging Area (2) Figure 2: Area of Potential Effect, Proposed Disposal Locations (3) Section 106 Consultation Letter and Effects Determination (June 2015) (4) Cultural Resources Technical Report – Maintenance Dredging USCG Station Cape Disappointment

2 LEGEND:

Proposed Dredge Area Previously Dredged Area (2015)

B a k e r B a y

SITE VICINITY ^_

0 100 200

Feet

DATE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT UNITED STATES NOVEMBER 2020 STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT COAST GUARD SCALE ILWACO, WASHINGTON 1 " = 200 feet Wood Environment & PROJECT NO. 336010028 Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. DREDGE AREA 15862 SW 72nd Ave., Suite 150 FIGURE Portland, OR 97224 1 DRAWN BY:SD CHECKED BY:JHK

K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_APE\Figure 1 - Dredge Area.mxd - stephane.descombes - 11/18/2020 - 9:36:29 AM Ilwaco LEGEND: Potential Upland Proposed Dredge Area Placement Site (Port of Ilwaco) Disposal Site (approximate)

B a k e r B a y

Sand Island

Chinook

Sand Island BB-3

Columbia River

Area D

Clatsop Spit

0 2,000 4,000

Feet

DATE DREDGE PERMIT UNITED STATES JANUARY 2021 STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT COAST GUARD SCALE ILWACO, WASHINGTON 1 " = 4,000 feet Wood Environment & PROJECT NO. Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. PROPOSED 336010028 15862 SW 72nd Ave., Suite 150 DISPOSAL LOCATIONS FIGURE Portland, OR 97224 2 DRAWN BY:SD CHECKED BY:JHK

K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_Permit\Figure 2 - Proposed Disposal Locations.mxd - stephane.descombes - 1/4/2021 - 9:03:40 AM

Attachment B State Application Materials (Oregon Only)

1. DSL Application (JPA),

2. DEQ Pre-File Form and CWA Section 401 Request,

3. Portland District CWA Section 408

N Clatsop County Planning Department 800 Exchange Street Suite 100 Astoria, OR 97103 Development Permit 503-325-8611 Fax: 503-338-3606 Agency Sign-Off - Compatibility - no req of dev findings [email protected] Website: co.clatsop.or.us Type I Record Number: 186-21-000297-PLNG

IVR Tracking Number: 186085068975

Application Date: 04/27/2021 Expiration Date: 04/27/2022 Issued Date: 04/27/2021 Project Name: LUCS - JPA United States/USCG Description: LUCS for dredge material disposal in Area D and in-water flow lane, Columbia River/Baker Bay Owner and Site Address

Owner: UNITED STATES OF Parcel: Worksite Address: AMERICA 911000000000 Address: COLUMBIA RIVER

Contact Information

Type Name Address Phone Agent for Applicant Wood E&I 15862 SW 72nd Ave, Ste 150, Portland, OR 805-403-4802 97224 Applicant William Robinson Civil Engineering Unit Oakland Oakland CA 510-637-5563 94612

GENERAL INFORMATION

Use Category: AGENCY SO - Agency Sign-Off Zoning 1: AD Comp Plan Designation: Development

Fees

Fee Qty Qty type Fee status Fee amount Amount paid Agency Sign-Off, compatibility - not 1 Ea INVOICED $51.00 $51.00 requiring development of findings GIS fee - Planning 1 Ea INVOICED $9.00 $9.00

INSPECTIONS Inspections may be required by Clatsop County Building Codes Division for the indicated Application/Permit Type. Please contact the agency to determine if inspections are required.

4/27/2021 - 8:45:06AM Page 1 of 3 PLNG_PlanningPermit_pr Development Permit Agency Sign-Off - Compatibility - no req of dev findings: Page 2 of 3 186-21-000297-PLNG PARCEL SETBACKS

SETBACK FRONT ACTUAL: None given SETBACK FRONT REQUIRED: None given SETBACK REAR ACTUAL: None given SETBACK REAR REQUIRED: None given SETBACK S1 ACTUAL: None given SETBACK S1 REQUIRED: None given SETBACK S2 ACTUAL: None given SETBACK S2 REQUIRED: None given Record History

Staff Member Status Date Julia Decker Application Intake - Application Submitted 04/27/2021 Julia Decker Application Intake - Issue Permit/Decision 04/27/2021 Julia Decker Close Out - Decision/Permit Issued 04/27/2021

4/27/2021 - 8:45:06AM Page 2 of 3 PLNG_PlanningPermit_pr Development Permit Agency Sign-Off - Compatibility - no req of dev findings: Page 3 of 3 186-21-000297-PLNG Compliance/Agency Requirements Except as noted, the Clatsop County Community Development Department finds the proposed use(s)/action(s) in compliance with Clatsop County Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance and with the Clatsop County Comprehensive Plan. The evaluation of the land parcels outlined above is based on the information presented at this time, standards provided in the Clatsop County Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance, and policies of the Comprehensive plan, and the Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Map. The applicant or property owner must comply with the conditions noted below and on the attached applicant's statement. This permit is not valid unless the conditions are met. Agency Statements Pertaining to the subject property described, I hereby declare that I am the legal owner of record, or an agent having the consent of the legal owner of record, and am authorized to make the application for a Development Permit/Action so as to obtain permits: Building, Sanitation, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Oregon Division of State Lands, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation, or a Clatsop County Road Approach. I shall obtain any and all necessary permits before I do any of the proposed uses or activities. The statements within this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that if the permit authorized was based on false statements, or it is determined that I have failed to fully comply with all conditions attached to and made part of this permit, this permit approval is hereby revoked and null and void. It is expressly made a condition of this permit that I at all times fully abide by all State, Federal, and local laws, rules, and regulations governing my activities conducted or planned pursuant to this permit. As a condition for issuing this Development Permit/Action, the undersigned agrees that he/she will hold Clatsop County harmless from and indemnify the County for any and all liabilities to the undersigned, his/her property or any other person or property, that might arise from any and all claims, damages, actions, causes of action or suits of any kind or nature whatsoever, which might result from the undersigns' failure to build, improved, or maintain roads which serve as access to the subject property or from the undersigns' failure to fully abide by any of the conditions included in or attached to this permit. WAIVER OF VESTED RIGHTS DURING APPEAL PERIOD FOR ZONING AUTHORIZATIONS. I have been advised that this Land and Water Development Permit/Action by Clatsop County Community Development Director may be appealed within twelve (12) calendar days of the date of permit issuance and authorization (note: if the twelfth day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the appeal period lasts until the end of the next day which is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday). I understand that if the approval authorized by the County and referenced above is reversed on appeal, then the authorization granted prior to the end of the appeal period will be null and void. I further understand and consent to the fact that any actions taken by me in reliance upon the authorization granted during the appeal period shall be at my own risk, and that I hereby agree not to attempt to hold Clatsop County responsible for consequences or damages in the event that removal of improvements constructed during the appeal period is ordered because an appeal is sustained. I am aware that failure to abide by applicable Clatsop County Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance 80-14, as amended and Standards Document regulations may result in revocation of this permit or enforcement action by the County to resolve a violation and that enforcement action may result in levying of a fine. I understand that a change in use, no matter how insignificant, may not be authorized under this permit and may require a new Development Permit/Action (check first, with the Clatsop County Community Development Department). I understand that his Development Permit/Action expires 180 days from the date of issuance unless substantial construction or action pursuant to the permit has taken place. Upon expiration, a new development permit must be obtained.

4/27/2021 - 8:45:06AM Page 3 of 3 PLNG_PlanningPermit_pr

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. 15862 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 150 Portland, Oregon USA 97224

T: 503-639-3400 www.woodplc.com

Memo To: Chris Stine, ODEQ NWS-2001-246

From: Erin Hale Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions Inc.

Date: May 12, 2020

Subject: USCG Cape Disappointment 401 WQ Certification Request for Disposal

Good morning Mr. Stine, The USCG has provided the below responses to the nine requirements per EPAs new 401 WQ Rule to support the approval process:

1. Contact Information:  Project proponent: William Robinson, [email protected] , 510-637-5563  POC for application questions: Erin Hale, [email protected], 805-403-4802 2. The proposed project includes both Dredge and Disposal. However, only disposal is proposed within the State of Oregon. The location was selected based on the Washington DMMO recommendation for disposal.

3. A USACE Individual Permit is required to support the project.

4. The potential discharge to the Columbia River includes clean sand as identified in the submitted JPA.

5. A water quality monitoring plan has been prepared to support the proposed project has been approved by Ecology (and submitted to DEQ).

6. The following permits and/or agency approvals are required:

 USACE Section 404/RHA Section 10-Seattle District, Submitted / Pending

‘Wood’ is a trading name for John Wood Group PLC and its subsidiaries Memorandum

 USACE Section 408-Portland District – Submitted / Approved  ESA Section 7 and MSA-Submitted to NMFS / Pending and USFWS / Approved  Ecology 401 WQ Certification - Submitted / Pending  Ecology CZMA Federal Consistency – Submitted / Pending  WDFW-HPA -Submitted / Pending  Pacific County – Shoreline Conditional Use, SEPA – Submitted / Approved  ODSL – Removal/Fill application -Submitted / Approved  DCLD - CZMA Federal Consistency – Submitted / Pending  Clatsop County – Land Use Compatibility Statement – Submitted / Approved

7. Prefiling meeting request is included as an attachment submitted April 12, 2021. 8. The USCG hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. 9. The USCG hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.

Please let us know if you need any additional information or if your have any questions/comments. Thank you, Erin Attachments

1. Draft Final EA 2. Previously submitted (not attached):

DSL JPA approval – submitted via email to DEQ on May 6, 2021 Clastsop County Land Use Compatability Statement – submitted to DEQ via email on May 6, 2021 Suitability Determination / Approval -submitted to DEQ via email on April 13, 2021 Water Quality Monitoring Plan – submitted to DEQ via email on April 12, 2021 USACE Section 408 Approval – submitted to DEQ via email on April 12, 2021 USACE public notice – submitted to DEQ via email on April 12, 2021 Joint Permit Application – submitted to DEQ via email on April 12, 2021

5/12/2020 Page 2 of 2

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PORTLAND DISTRICT PO BOX 2946 PORTLAND, OR 97208-2946

March 17, 2021

SUBJECT: USACE Section 408 Alteration Determination, 408-FY21-N015 USCG Station Cape Disappointment Dredging and Sediment Disposal

Erin Hale John Wood Group Plc Company 15862 SW 72nd Ave #150 Portland, OR 97224

Dear Erin Hale:

The Portland District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) received your application on February 18, 2021 for a determination under Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which is codified at 33 U.S.C. § 408 (referred to as “Section 408”) for review of your dredging and dredge sediment disposal project. The plan involves dredging at the USCG Station Cape Disappointment to re-establish operational depths at the Station located on a peninsula in Baker Bay, Ilwaco, Pacific County, Washington. Dredging would occur within an estimated 4.2-acre area and proposed in-water sediment disposal. Under Section 408, permission from the USACE is required to make alterations to, or to temporarily or permanently occupy or use, any USACE federally authorized project.

No federal levees are present in the proposed dredging and placement areas. The proposed dredging is located at USCG Station Cape Disappointment and the placement proposed at Baker Bay-3 and Flowlane D. If sediments are deemed unsuitable for placement at Baker Bay-3 and Flowlane D, placement sites located outside of the Federal Navigation Channel (FNC) will be utilized (Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay or an upland placement site). Therefore, there will be no negative impact on the FNC or federal navigation infrastructure. There are no federally authorized levee systems within the project area. The proposed project will not alter, occupy, or use a USACE federally authorized project and therefore does not require permission from the USACE under Section 408.

This determination does not obviate the need to obtain other federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. In particular, your project may require a Department of the Army permit from the Seattle District Regulatory office. The Seattle District Regulatory Branch will be provided a copy of this letter. The USACE retains the right to revoke this Section 408 determination at any time if the proposed work negatively affects the federally authorized project or if the project plans change.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact the District’s Section 408 Program Manager, Ms. Sally Bird-Gauvin at (503) 808-4765 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

RINGOLD.VALERIE. Digitally signed by RINGOLD.VALERIE.ANN.1231233160 ANN.1231233160 Date: 2021.03.17 09:35:57 -07'00' Valerie A. Ringold Planning Chief cc: Evan Carnes, Regulatory Project Manager

Attachment C Draft Final NEPA-Compliant Environmental Assessment

Environmental Assessment for Proposed Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment, Pacific County, Washington

Task Order Number: 70Z08820FPQQ05400 Contract Number: 70Z05019DWEAISI09

Prepared for:

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD U.S. Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit (CEU) Oakland 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N Oakland, California 94612

Prepared by:

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. 15862 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 150 Portland, OR 97224

May 2021

This page intentionally left blank.

Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 CONTENTS

2 SECTION TITLE PAGE

3 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... iv

4 SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 1-1 5 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 6 1.2 LOCATION AND BACKGROUND ...... 1-1 7 1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1-3 8 1.4 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS ...... 1-3 9 1.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REQUIREMENTS ...... 1-4 10 1.6 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...... 1-4

11 SECTION 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-1 12 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 2-1 13 2.1.1 Incorporation of Regulatory Guidance and Permit 14 Conditions ...... 2-4 15 2.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...... 2-7 16 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED 17 ANALYSIS ...... 2-8

18 SECTION 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 3-1 19 3.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 3-1 20 3.1.1 Definition of Resource ...... 3-1 21 3.1.2 Existing Conditions ...... 3-2 3.1.2.1 Terrestrial Biological Resources ...... 3-2 3.1.2.2 Migratory Birds ...... 3-3 3.1.2.3 Aquatic Biological Resources ...... 3-4 3.1.2.4 Invasive Species ...... 3-16 22 3.2 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ...... 3-19 23 3.2.1 Definition of Resource ...... 3-19 24 3.2.2 Existing Conditions ...... 3-20 25 3.3 WATER RESOURCES ...... 3-21 26 3.3.1 Definition of Resource ...... 3-22 27 3.3.2 Existing Conditions ...... 3-23 3.3.2.1 Bathymetry and Circulation ...... 3-23 3.3.2.2 Freshwater ...... 3-24 3.3.2.3 Marine Waters ...... 3-24 3.3.2.4 Wetlands ...... 3-25 3.3.2.5 Groundwater ...... 3-25 3.3.2.6 Floodplains and Flood Hazards ...... 3-26 28 3.4 NOISE ...... 3-26 29 3.4.1 Definition of Resource ...... 3-26

i Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

SECTION TITLE PAGE

3.4.1.1 Land Use Guidelines and Ambient Noise ...... 3-28 1 3.4.2 Existing Conditions ...... 3-28 3.4.2.1 Airborne Noise ...... 3-28 3.4.2.2 Underwater Noise ...... 3-29 3.4.2.3 Noise Sensitive Receptors ...... 3-29

2 SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 4-1 3 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 4-1 4 4.1.1 Approach to Analysis ...... 4-1 5 4.1.2 Impacts from Proposed Action ...... 4-2 6 4.1.3 Impacts from No-Action Alternative ...... 4-13 7 4.2 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ...... 4-13 8 4.2.1 Approach to Analysis ...... 4-13 9 4.2.2 Impacts from Proposed Action ...... 4-13 10 4.2.3 Impacts from No-Action Alternative ...... 4-14 11 4.3 WATER RESOURCES ...... 4-14 12 4.3.1 Approach to Analysis ...... 4-14 13 4.3.2 Impacts from Proposed Action ...... 4-15 14 4.3.3 Impacts from No-Action Alternative ...... 4-20 15 4.4 NOISE ...... 4-20 16 4.4.1 Approach to Analysis ...... 4-20 17 4.4.2 Impacts from Proposed Action ...... 4-20 18 4.4.3 Impacts from No-Action Alternative ...... 4-21

19 SECTION 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 5-1 20 5.1 PROJECTS CONSIDERED ...... 5-1 21 5.2 EVALUATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 5-3

22 SECTION 6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...... 6-1

23 SECTION 7 REFERENCES ...... 7-1

24 SECTION 8 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 8-1 25

ii Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 APPENDICES

Appendix A Agency Distribution List Appendix B Scoping Letter and Agency Response Appendix C Compliance with Rules and Regulations Appendix D Cultural Resource Technical Report Concurrence Appendix E ESA and EFH Concurrence

2 LIST OF FIGURES

3 Page Figure 1. Project Vicinity ...... 1-2 Figure 2. Dredge Footprint ...... 2-3 Figure 3. Disposal Locations ...... 2-4

LIST OF TABLES

4 Page Table 2-1. Best Management Practices ...... 2-6 Table 3-1. Special-Status Aquatic Species with the Potential to Occur at Station Cape Disappointment ...... 3-7 Table 3-2. Invasive Species with the Potential to Occur in the Vicinity of Station Cape Disappointment ...... 3-18 Table 3-3. Typical Sources Contributing to Airborne Noise ...... 3-27 Table 3-4. Typical Sources Contributing to Underwater Noise ...... 3-28 Table 5-1. Cumulative Projects and Plans ...... 5-2 Table 6-1. Summary of Potential Impacts on Affected Environmental Resources ...... 6-1

iii Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS °C degrees Celsius AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act APE area of potential effect BA Biological Assessment BMP best management practice CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CEU Civil Engineering Unit CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide COMDTINST Coast Guard Commandant Instruction CWA Clean Water Act cy cubic yard CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act dB decibels dBA A-Weighted Sound Level DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DHS Department of Homeland Security DLCD Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development DNL Day-night sound level DoD U.S. Department of Defense DoDI Department of Defense Instruction DPS Distinct Population Segment DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement EL elevation ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps FMP Fisheries Management Plan FNC federal navigation channel FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern HTL high tide line

iv Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)

Hz hertz I- Interstate IPaC Information Planning and Conservation ISAB Independent Scientific Advisory Board LCDC Land Conservation and Development Commission LCEP Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MHHW mean higher high water MLLW mean lower low water MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act msl mean sea level NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NMLBS National Motor Lifeboat School NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory O3 ozone OCMP Oregon Coastal Management Program ORS Land Use Act of 1973 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Pb lead PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PM particulate matter PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less RHA Rivers and Harbors Act SAT Science Advisory Team SEPA State Environmental Policy Act

v Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)

SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 sulfur dioxide SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure SPL sound pressure level TMDL total maximum daily load U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC U.S. Code USCG U.S. Coast Guard USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WAC Washington Administrative Code WDOE Washington State Department of Ecology WHSRN Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area μPa micropascal(s)

vi Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 SECTION 1 2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

3 1.1 INTRODUCTION

4 This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the 5 requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 US Code 6 [USC]); Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing 7 NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§1500-1508) and associated CEQ 8 guidelines; Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01; and 9 Coast Guard Commandant Instruction (COMDTINST) 5090.1, US Coast Guard 10 Environmental Planning Policy and Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures. 11 This section specifies the purpose of and need for the proposed maintenance 12 dredge at US Coast Guard (USCG) Station Cape Disappointment, Washington.

13 1.2 LOCATION AND BACKGROUND

14 Station Cape Disappointment is situated at the mouth of the Columbia River in 15 the southwest corner of Baker Bay, a shallow waterbody, totaling approximately 16 15 square miles in area. The southwest corner of Baker Bay is separated from the 17 Columbia River by the landforms of Cape Disappointment and Sand Island, 18 located east of the project site (Figure 1).

19 The Station’s primary missions include providing search and rescue to commercial 20 and recreational mariners within 50 nautical miles of the Columbia River entrance 21 and providing a maritime law enforcement presence near the approaches to the 22 Columbia River including execution of Homeland Security missions. Commonly 23 known as “Cape D,” the crew stationed here respond to 250-300 calls for assistance 24 every year. The station has five search and rescue boats that support its mission. 25 The station is also home to the National Motor Lifeboat School (NMLBS) which 26 maintains five additional lifeboats. The NMLBS is a unique USCG training center 27 that provides motor lifeboat training as well as Readiness and Standardization 28 assessments. The Columbia River at Cape Disappointment, known as the 29 “graveyard of the Pacific,” provides the training grounds for USCG personnel 30 learning to maintain and operate the boats assigned at the Station.

1-1 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Figure 1. Project Vicinity 2

1-2 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Station Cape Disappointment needs to maintain a depth of 10 feet below the 2 mean lower low water (MLLW) to safely transit through the area. Over time 3 sediment accumulates in and around the existing piers and travel lift station 4 which limits the accessibility to the infrastructure which in turn inhibits the 5 ability of the USCG to perform its mission.

6 Pursuant to NEPA, the USCG has prepared this EA to evaluate the potential 7 effects on the environment from implementing proposed dredging at Station 8 Cape Disappointment. CEQ regulations and COMDTINST 5090.1 require that an 9 EA identify and evaluate all reasonable alternatives, including a “No-Action 10 Alternative” in which the Proposed Action is not undertaken. The information 11 and analysis contained in this EA will serve as the basis for a USCG decision if 12 the Proposed Action would result in a significant impact to the environment, 13 which would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement 14 (EIS), or if no significant impacts would occur and therefore a Finding of No 15 Significant Impact (FONSI) would be appropriate.

16 1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

17 The USCG proposes to restore operational depths at Station Cape 18 Disappointment to safely operate and support ongoing missions. The proposed 19 dredging footprint includes the area around the USCG docks and pier associated 20 with the mooring basin and the boat travel lift.

21 • The purpose of the Proposed Action is to restore functionally operating 22 depths at the Station. 23 • The need for the Proposed Action is to fulfill the USCG’s mission at Station 24 Cape Disappointment.

25 1.4 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

26 On 12 November 2020, scoping letters were distributed by the USCG to solicit 27 input on the Proposed Action from interested agencies and stakeholders. The 28 notices provided a 30-day period during which comments could be submitted on 29 key issues that relevant stakeholders felt should be addressed during the

1-3 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 environmental review process (see Appendix A, Agency Distribution List, and 2 Appendix B, Scoping Letter and Agency Response). A letter was also sent to the 3 Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation to notify that 4 agency as well as federally recognized tribes with interest in Station Cape 5 Disappointment of the Proposed Action and of the USCG’s intent to prepare this 6 EA. A Notice of Availability for the Draft EA was published in the Daily Astorian 7 on February 27, 2021 and the Chinook Observer on March 3, 2021 announcing the 8 availability of the document for review and a timeline for submitting comment 9 and input.

10 1.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REQUIREMENTS

11 This EA has been prepared in accordance with the Department of Homeland 12 Security Management Directive 023-01 and USCG COMDTINST 5090.1 in 13 compliance with requirements of NEPA and CEQ Regulations dated 28 14 November 1978 (40 CFR §§1500-1508). In July 2020, CEQ provided updated 15 guidance specific to compliance with NEPA (Update to the Regulations 16 Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act) 17 intended to streamline the NEPA process, including addressing preparation 18 timelines and document length; this guidance went into effect in September 2020. 19 As such, this EA has been prepared to comply with this direction by focusing on 20 relevant resources, presenting succinct findings, and incorporating relevant 21 ancillary studies by reference. (Appendix C, Compliance with Rules and 22 Regulations provides a comprehensive summary of NEPA and other relevant 23 federal laws and regulations.)

24 1.6 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

25 This EA considers the Proposed Action and evaluates potential environmental 26 impacts to those resources that would likely be affected by implementation of the 27 Proposed Action. In this case, this EA evaluates the following environmental 28 resources:

29 • Biological Resources 30 • Coastal Zone Management

1-4 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 • Water Quality 2 • Noise

3 Implementation of the Proposed Action evaluated in this EA is not anticipated to 4 result in environmental impacts to resources listed below. Per NEPA, 5 environmental resource areas that are anticipated to experience either no or 6 negligible environmental impact under implementation of the Proposed Action 7 or its alternatives are not examined in detail. Environmental resources not 8 examined further in this EA – and a brief rationale for their dismissal from 9 detailed investigation – are listed below.

10 • Aesthetics

11 No aboveground changes are proposed. The Proposed Action is limited to 12 restoring operational depths which would not be observable following 13 project implementation. During proposed dredging, the presence of 14 barges and dredge equipment would be present; however, such activities 15 would be temporary and presence of that equipment would be consistent 16 with the industrial nature of the waterfront facility. Therefore, no impacts 17 to visual resources would result from implementation of the proposed 18 project.

19 • Land Use

20 Overarching land use planning, development, and activities at the Station 21 would neither affect nor be affected by the Proposed Action; the mission 22 of Station Cape Disappointment would remain unchanged. No changes to 23 navigation zones would result from project implementation. Coastal zone 24 concurrence and management is discussed in the Coastal Zone Management 25 section of the EA.

26 • Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

27 The Proposed Action is limited to activities conducted in-water and 28 would not affect the socioeconomic characteristics of any adjacent 29 communities. As such, implementation of the action would not result in or 30 contribute to any potentially disproportionate impacts affecting minority

1-5 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 populations or low-income populations. Therefore, no impacts to 2 socioeconomics or Environmental Justice communities would result from 3 implementation of the Proposed Action.

4 • Public Health and Safety

5 The storage and handling of bulk fuels and other hazardous materials and 6 wastes is carefully regulated to minimize public health and safety risks on 7 and in the vicinity of Station Cape Disappointment. Further, access to the 8 Station is carefully controlled by an entry control facility, and waterside 9 access is restricted and monitored by security cameras and patrols. Public 10 access is limited, to preserve the integrity of the Coast Guard mission and 11 to protect the health and safety of members of the public. These safety and 12 security measures will continue during and beyond implementation of the 13 Proposed Action, and there would be no impacts to Public Health and 14 Safety.

15 • Air Quality

16 Impacts related to project implementation would be short-term and 17 temporary, limited to the duration of dredge activities. Given that 18 dredging would be limited to one to two vessels and equipment would 19 not require substantial transportation via heavy-haul truck or other heavy 20 equipment, no impacts to Air Quality would result from implementation 21 of the Proposed Action.

22 • Public Services and Utilities

23 Implementation of the Proposed Action would occur in-water. No new 24 public services would be constructed, no increase in demand would occur, 25 and existing utility infrastructure would not be altered or expanded. 26 Therefore, there would be no impacts to Public Services and Utilities.

27 • Transportation and Circulation

28 Under the Proposed Action, only a small number of additional vehicle 29 trips would be added to daily traffic volumes during construction phases 30 and limited to parking at the dock and increased traffic volume would be

1-6 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 negligible. Therefore, implementation would have no impacts to 2 transportation and circulation.

3 • Recreation

4 Under the Proposed Action, in-water work activities would occur within 5 and immediately adjacent to existing USCG facilities where access 6 restrictions to recreationalists are already established. Any barge 7 movement and staging to support Proposed Action activities would be 8 minimal and not conducted where recreational boaters are active. 9 Therefore, no impacts related to recreation or recreational navigation 10 would occur.

11 • Cultural Resources

12 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation has 13 been initiated for the project and the USCG has completed a Cultural 14 Resources Technical Report (see Appendix D). The findings of that report 15 conclude the following: proposed maintenance dredging would occur 16 within mooring and travel areas that have been routinely dredged to 17 restore original operational depths. The final decision on the location for 18 in-water disposal of dredged material has not been made, but alternatives 19 under consideration are assessed in this EA. No improvements or 20 modifications to land facilities are associated with dredging or disposal. 21 Based on the location of all proposed activities, there is no potential for in 22 situ cultural resources to be encountered within the identified 23 maintenance dredging area or within the two alternative in-water disposal 24 locations.

25 Dredging would occur within the previously recorded area of the Cape 26 Disappointment Historic District, while disposal would occur outside of 27 the District. As the proposed undertaking involves only dredging below 28 the water’s surface in an active USCG mooring basin, it will have No 29 Effect, either temporary or permanent, on any historic properties on any 30 elements of the Cape Disappointment Historic District or on the Historic 31 District as a whole. The State of Washington Department of Archaeology 32 and Historic Preservation provided concurrence on January 7, 2021.

1-7 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 • Geological Resources

2 Under the Proposed Action in-water improvements to restore previous 3 operational depths would occur. These depths are consistent with 4 previous dredged depths at the facility and no further / previously 5 excavated ground or underwater disturbance would occur. Therefore, 6 implementation of the Proposed Action is not expected to result in 7 impacts to regional geology, topography, or soils.

1-8 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 SECTION 2 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

3 The USCG is proposing to restore 4 operational depths at Station Cape 5 Disappointment to safely operate 6 and support ongoing missions. The 7 proposed dredging footprint 8 includes the area around the USCG 9 docks and piers associated with the 10 mooring basin (Photo 1) and the 11 boat travel lift.

12 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION Photo 1. Station Cape Disappointment Mooring Basin

13 CEQ Regulations for Implementing 14 NEPA provide guidance for considering alternatives to a federal action and 15 require rigorous exploration and objective evaluation of reasonable alternatives. 16 Alternative dredge locations were not considered as those would not meet the 17 purpose and need of the Proposed Action (refer to Section 1.3, Purpose of and Need 18 for the Proposed Action).

19 The Proposed Action includes performing maintenance dredging over a 10-year 20 period, to return the mooring basin and travel lift areas at Station Cape 21 Disappointment to its previously maintained depth of 10 feet below the MLLW 22 mark (MLLW is the average height of the lowest tide recorded each day). The 23 last maintenance dredge event of the mooring basin occurred in 2001, during 24 which 10,000 cy of sediment were dredged; emergency dredging in 2015 25 removed an additional 125 cy of sediment. In addition, the Proposed Action 26 allows for an additional 2 feet of over-dredge depth within this footprint, 27 bringing the total depth allowance to 12 feet below MLLW over a total dredged 28 area of 4.2 acres (see Figure 2). This would result in the removal of 29 approximately 3,726 cy of sediment during the initial dredge event proposed to 30 be conducted in 2021. Subsequent maintenance events would be conducted as

2-1 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 needed to maintain operational depths within the 10-year period. No 2 improvements or modifications to land facilities or landforms would occur.

3 Dredging is planned to be completed using a barge-mounted bucket clamshell or 4 backhoe dredge, or pipeline dredge. Dredging is anticipated to take up to one (1) 5 week to complete. Dredging and sediment disposal would comply with 6 pertinent regulatory programs, including MPRSA, Sections 404 and 401 of the 7 CWA, and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Dredging would occur 8 within the approved in-water work window from November 1 through February 9 28. Based on relatively recent sediment testing results for projects in the 10 immediate vicinity, it is anticipated that the dredged sediment would be suitable 11 for unconfined aquatic disposal.

12 Two in-water disposal locations in Clatsop County, Oregon have been proposed: 13 1) Baker Bay Flowlane Disposal (BB-3), and 2) Flowlane Area D (see Figure 3). 14 Further, other options including upland disposal (e.g. Port of Ilwaco) and 15 additional in-water sites (e.g. Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay) are being 16 considered dependent on availability, timing, and agency approvals. Only 17 previously used and/or permitted locations to receive dredged material will be 18 considered.

2-2 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Figure 2. Dredge Footprint

2-3 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Figure 3. Disposal Locations

2 2.1.1 Incorporation of Regulatory Guidance and Permit Conditions

3 Both dredging and disposal of dredged material would require consultation and/or 4 permits from myriad agencies. Following the consultation and/or permitting

2-4 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 process, agencies may recommend guidance, best management practices (BMPs) 2 and/or mitigation to reduce potential effect to species and/or water quality.

3 It is anticipated that the following BMPs would be required and are therefore 4 incorporated into the Proposed Action. BMPs are existing policies, practices, and 5 measures that the USCG would adopt to reduce potential environmental impacts 6 of designated activities, functions, or processes. Although BMPs mitigate 7 potential impacts by avoiding, minimizing, or reducing/eliminating impacts, 8 BMPs are distinguished from potential mitigation measures because BMPs are: 9 (1) existing requirements for the Proposed Action, (2) ongoing, regularly 10 occurring practices, and/or (3) not unique to this Proposed Action. In other 11 words, the BMPs identified in this document are inherently part of the Proposed 12 Action and are not potential mitigation measures proposed as a function of the 13 NEPA environmental review process for the Proposed Action. Table 2-1 includes 14 a list of BMPs.

2-5 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Table 2-1. Best Management Practices

BMP Description Impacts Reduced/Avoided A pre-construction survey Pre-Construction Eelgrass would occur prior to dredging Potential impact to protected Survey activities to confirm the species. absence of eelgrass. Vessel operators will follow Potential water quality designated speed zones to and impacts associated with Vessel Speed Limits from the project site and sediment spillage from selected disposal site barges/scows. Dredge passes will start on the Potential water quality Dredge Direction berth near the shoreline and impacts. move toward deeper water. Potential water quality Vessel draft and movements impacts associated with will be controlled by the Vessel Grounding Prevention sediment disturbance or contractor to limit potential material spill due to vessel for grounding. grounding incidents. During transport and Potential water quality handling of sediment, impacts associated with Spillage Control containment measures will be sediment spillage outside of used to minimize spillage. selected disposal sites. The contractor will be Potential water quality required to conduct a surface impacts associated with Surface Debris Survey debris survey prior to transport and deposition of dredging. non-dredge material. Potential water quality The contractor will use a GPS impacts associated with Global Positioning System to ensure that material is dredge and transport of (GPS) Locator Requirement removed from the correct materials outside the project locations. area. The contractor will not be Potential water quality allowed to excavate beyond impacts associated with Dredge Depth Limit and Area the overdredge depth or dredge and transport of Limits outside of the project area materials outside the project limits. area. The dredge bucket will be Potential water quality swung directly to the barge impacts associated with Dredge Bucket Swing Limit after it breaks the water sediment release at dredge site surface using the minimal due to prolonged transit of swing distance dredge bucket to barge/scow.

2-6 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Table 2-1. Best Management Practices (Continued)

BMP Description Impacts Reduced/Avoided Potential water quality No bottom stockpiling or Bottom Stockpiling and impacts associated with multiple bites of the clamshell Dredging Limit unnecessary sediment bucket will be allowed. disturbance at dredge site. Potential water quality impacts associated with over- steepening of the slope Overdredging at the bases of Overdredge Limit resulting in unnecessary the slope will be limited. sediment movement/sliding or impacts to adjacent structural stability. Potential water quality The dredge bucket will not be impacts associated with Dredge Bucket Fill Limit overfilled. sediment spillage from overfilled dredge bucket. Potential water quality The barge/scow will not be Barge/Scow Maximum impacts associated with filled beyond 85 percent Capacity sediment spillage outside of capacity. selected disposal sites Material will not be allowed to Potential water quality leak from the discharge impacts associated with Dredge Material Control pipeline or leak from the bins unintended sediment release or overtop the walls of the outside of selected disposal barge/scow. sites. During offloading, metal spill aprons, upland spill control Potential water quality curbing and collection impacts associated with systems, and other spill Offloading Spill Control uncontrolled deposition of control measures will be sediment during offloading implemented. If a bucket is operations. used, a dribble apron will be used. Surface booms, oil-absorbent pads, and similar materials Potential water quality Spill/Sheen Response will be maintained onsite to impacts associated with Materials contain any sheen that may spill/sheen. occur on the surface of the water during dredging.

2 2.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

3 CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require that a No-Action Alternative be 4 analyzed to provide a baseline for comparison with the Proposed Action. The

2-7 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 No-Action Alternative identifies and describes the potential environmental 2 impacts of the status quo (i.e., if the Proposed Action were to not be 3 implemented).

4 Under the No-Action Alternative, the USCG would not take action to restore 5 functional operating depths at Station Cape Disappointment and the vessel 6 berthing and transitioning areas would continue to fill in with sediment resulting 7 in progressively shallower depth. Under this alternative, the USCG would lose 8 the ability to maintain operations and complete its mission due to impassibility 9 of berthing and transiting areas. The No-Action Alternative would not meet the 10 purpose and need of the Proposed Action; however, it will be carried forward for 11 consideration in accordance with CEQ regulations.

12 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

13 Alternatives to the Proposed Action, including dredge and disposal methods and 14 disposal location alternatives, were identified but eliminated from further 15 consideration because these options either were not viable or resulted in greater 16 potential environmental effects; therefore, they are not analyzed in detail in this 17 Environmental Assessment.

2-8 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 SECTION 3 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3 The following Affected Environment summaries provide an environmental 4 baseline of each resource category and describe the conditions at and adjacent to 5 the project site. The regulatory framework of applicable laws, ordinances, 6 regulations, and guidance pertinent to the resource category is cites; details of 7 such regulations are provided in Appendix C.

8 Each of the following resource descriptions address existing conditions for 9 environmental resources potentially affected by the Proposed Action. In 10 compliance with the NEPA, CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA, Department 11 of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, and USCG COMDTINST 12 5090.1, United States Coast Guard Environmental Planning Policy and Environmental 13 Planning Implementing Procedures (April 2019), the description of the affected 14 environment focuses only on those environmental resources that would be 15 subject to potential impacts (as described in Section 1.5, Scope of the Environmental 16 Assessment). (Section 1.5 also discusses resources not anticipated to experience 17 environmental impact under implementation of the Proposed Action and such 18 rationale is presented.) In this case, this EA evaluates the following 19 environmental resources:

20 • Biological Resources 21 • Coastal Zone Management 22 • Water Quality, and 23 • Noise.

24 3.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

25 3.1.1 Definition of Resource

26 Biological resources include native or naturalized plants and wildlife and their 27 habitats. Plant associations are referred to generally as vegetation, and animal 28 species are referred to generally as wildlife. Habitat can be defined as the 29 resources and conditions present in an area that support a plant or animal.

3-1 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Within this EA, biological resources are divided into four major categories: 2 (1) terrestrial biological resources, (2) migratory birds; (3) aquatic biological 3 resources, and (4) invasive species. Vegetation, habitat, wildlife, and special- 4 status species are discussed in their respective categories (i.e., terrestrial and 5 aquatic).

6 Sensitive biological resources are defined as those plant and wildlife species 7 listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed as such, by the United States 8 Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Oceanic and Atmospheric 9 Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to 10 the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Other sensitive biological resources include 11 those that are afforded protection under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 12 (MMPA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act 13 (MBTA).

14 3.1.2 Existing Conditions

15 3.1.2.1 Terrestrial Biological Resources

16 Station Cape Disappointment includes USCG docks and pier associated with the 17 mooring basin and the boat travel lift. No terrestrial vegetation or habitat exists 18 within the proposed dredging area. The Project Area includes the proposed 19 dredge area, the proposed disposal locations, and the equipment staging area 20 located within the Station’s parking lot.

21 According to the USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation (IPaC) 22 System, a total of four threatened and endangered birds have the potential to 23 occur in the vicinity of the Project Area (i.e., the area of potential effect [APE]); 24 however, only two of the four birds are considered terrestrial birds: streaked 25 horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus 26 americanus). The other two birds are considered seabirds and are discussed 27 further in Section 3.1.2.2, Aquatic Biological Resources (see Table 3-1). Neither the 28 streaked horned lark nor the yellow-billed cuckoo are likely to occur within the 29 vicinity of Station Cape Disappointment as preferred habitat for each species 30 does not occur within the vicinity.

3-2 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 3.1.2.2 Migratory Birds

2 The Columbia River estuary serves as one of the most important areas within the 3 Pacific Flyway for migrating shorebirds and provides key wintering waterfowl 4 habitat (Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership [LCEP] 2020a). Baker Bay also 5 supports large populations of over-wintering birds traveling between northern 6 breeding grounds and southern wintering sites along the Pacific Flyway. Located 7 just inside the mouth of the Columbia River, broad salt marshes along the 8 shoreline of Baker Bay and East and West Sand Islands provide feeding habitat 9 for migrating and wintering waterfowl and shorebirds. The USFWS lists 12 10 migratory birds of particular concern that have the potential to occur within a 11 10-kilometer grid that overlaps the Project Area.

12 • Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 13 • Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) 14 • Black Turnstone (Arenaria melanocephala) 15 • Clark’s Grebe (Aechmophorus clarkii) 16 • Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) 17 • Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa) 18 • Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) 19 • Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata) 20 • Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) 21 • Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla) 22 • Western Screech-owl (Megascops kennicottii kennicottii) 23 • Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus)

24 These birds either occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern list or 25 warrant special attention. Although these species have the potential to be present 26 in the Project Area, only two of the species listed – the bald eagle and the Clark’s 27 grebe – have the potential to be breeding during the proposed dredge window of 28 1 November 2021 to 28 February 2022. Clark’s grebe nests along freshwater lakes 29 and marshes that have emergent, hydrophytic vegetation along the edges, and 30 the eagle nests primarily in large-canopy trees. There is no freshwater wetland

3-3 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 habitat present within the Project Area that would support the nesting 2 requirements of Clark’s grebe. In addition, although the Project Area includes 3 some scrub/shrub habitat and many larger coniferous trees along the land ridge 4 that rises above Coast Guard Road, no known bald eagle nests have been 5 identified in the immediate vicinity; however, eagles are likely to forage in the 6 vicinity of Cape Disappointment.

7 3.1.2.3 Aquatic Biological Resources

8 Approximately 46.5 miles of the lower Columbia River, stretching upriver from 9 the river mouth, is designated as the Columbia River estuary (Independent 10 Scientific Advisory Board [ISAB] 2000). Station Cape Disappointment is located 11 within the Columbia River estuary, approximately 2.2 miles upstream from the 12 mouth of the river. The average flow at the mouth of the river is 265,000 cubic 13 feet per second (LCEP 2020a). This section of the Columbia River is characterized 14 by strong currents (both tidal and river currents), wave action, deep water, and 15 coarse sand substrates (Tetra Tech 1992). Baker Bay formed on the north side of 16 the river as a result of land recession to the north (Gable 2010). Sand Island lies 17 along the southern boundary between Baker Bay and the lower Columbia River, 18 just east of the Project Area. A protected harbor within the small town of Ilwaco 19 borders the northern shore of the Baker Bay, approximately 1.5 miles northeast of 20 Station Cape Disappointment (USCG 2020). Shoaling within Baker Bay is so 21 extensive that most of the bay unnavigable at low tide (Gable 2010).

22 The Columbia River is heavily trafficked by marine vessels for trade, the cruise 23 industry, commercial fishing, and recreation. Given the high industrial, 24 commercial, agricultural, and recreational demands of the Columbia River, the 25 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operates and maintains a federal 26 navigation channel (FNC) in the lower Columbia River to provide safe and 27 reliable navigation for all vessels, including larger ocean-going ships 28 transporting goods into and out of the region. The USACE dredges 4 to 5 million 29 cubic yards (cy) of sand every year from the FNC at the mouth of the river near 30 Cape Disappointment and the Project Area. Dredge materials are placed by the 31 USACE primarily at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- (USEPA-) approved 32 disposal sites. The FNC at the mouth of the river is maintained to the authorized

3-4 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 depth of 48 feet established by the Rivers and Harbors Act. Public Law 98-63 (30 2 July 1983) authorized deepening of the northernmost 2,000 feet of this portion of 3 the channel to 55 feet (USACE 2014).

4 Aquatic Habitats

5 The Columbia River estuary contains some of the most biologically productive 6 ecosystems in the world because of the large, concentrated supply of nutrients 7 produced from the convergence of the Columbia River with the Pacific Ocean 8 (ISAB 2000; Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network [WHSRN] 2020). 9 Baker Bay is mapped by the USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) as a 10 mixture of both estuarine open water and estuarine wetlands associated with shoals. 11 The USCG boat basin, boat haul-out area, and West Channel FNC (nearest to and 12 north of the Project Area) are mapped as estuarine open water (E1UBL). The 13 shallows to the southeast and southwest of the Project Area are mapped as 14 estuarine, intertidal, unconsolidated shore, regularly flooded wetlands (E2USN); 15 estuarine, intertidal, emergent, persistent, regularly flooded wetlands (E2EM1N); 16 or estuarine, intertidal, unconsolidated shore, irregularly flooded wetlands 17 (E2USP). These estuarine habitats are inherently important for fish, shorebirds, 18 and other wildlife (WHSRN 2020). In addition to estuarine waters, other aquatic 19 habitat community types found within the larger estuary area include intertidal 20 mud and sand flats, intertidal marshes, intertidal forested wetlands, sand/pebble 21 shores, and sand dunes (USCG 2020).

22 Near-shore habitat within the Project Area 23 include industrial development (i.e., 24 piers/wharves) as well as sandy and vegetated 25 bottom, both of which can support a variety of 26 marine species, including birds, fish, and benthic 27 species. Aquatic habitat along the shoreline 28 provides suitable habitat for foraging birds and 29 smaller fish (Photo 2).

30 Deeper aquatic habitat provides suitable habitat 31 for fish and aquatic vegetation. Baker Bay and Photo 2: Shoreline in the vicinity of Cape Disappointment

3-5 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 the Columbia River estuary provide suitable habitat for migratory fish species, as 2 described in Table 3-1. The Columbia River estuary provides a critical migration 3 corridor for anadromous fish, including all salmonid populations that pass 4 through at least twice during their life spans (LCEP 2020a). Juvenile fish likely 5 use areas within Baker Bay and aquatic habitats surrounding Station Cape 6 Disappointment for rearing and refugia. However, in general, Baker Bay and 7 aquatic habitats surrounding Station Cape Disappointment are disturbed by 8 development, previous and ongoing USCG and USACE maintenance dredging 9 operations, and ongoing commercial (e.g., fishing), recreational (e.g., cruise 10 travel), and industrial (e.g., trade) operations.

11 Aquatic Vegetation

12 The present distribution of eelgrass in the Columbia River estuary is poorly 13 understood because of the lack of comprehensive documentation of submerged 14 aquatic vegetation, which includes eelgrass and freshwater plant species, in 15 recent years. However, historical data and early nautical charts from the 1800s 16 indicate that prior to human influence, submerged aquatic vegetation was 17 predominant within the estuary (Sherwood et al. 1990; Judd et al. 2009). 18 However, recent records from 2007 indicate that Baker Bay contains one of only 19 two known eelgrass meadows remaining within the Columbia River estuary. 20 Although eelgrass beds are known to exist within Baker Bay, eelgrass is not 21 widely distributed, and its presence is considered rare within the estuary (Tetra 22 Tech 1992).

3-6 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Table 3-1. Special-Status Aquatic Species with the Potential to Occur at 2 Station Cape Disappointment

Potential for Common Scientific Federal State Population Occurrence in Name Name Status Status Project Area Birds Marbled Brachyramphus Washington, Oregon, FT, SE Potential to occur murrelet marmoratus and California DPS MBTA Western Charadrius FT, Not expected to snowy Pacific Coast DPS SE nivosus MBTA occur plover Fish Lower Columbia River FT C Likely to occur ESU Upper Willamette River FT C Likely to occur ESU Chinook Oncorhynchus Upper Columbia River Not expected to salmon tshawytscha FT C spring-run ESU occur Snake River Not expected to FT C spring/summer-run ESU occur Snake River fall-run ESU FT C Likely to occur Coho Oncorhynchus Lower Columbia River Not expected to FT - Salmon kisutch ESU occur Chum Oncorhynchus Columbia River ESU FT C Likely to occur Salmon keta Sockeye Oncorhynchus Not expected to Snake River ESU FE C Salmon nerka occur Unlikely to occur but Lower Columbia River FT C present in deeper DPS waters Unlikely to occur but Middle Columbia River FT C present in deeper DPS waters Unlikely to occur but Steelhead Oncorhynchus Upper Columbia River FT C present in deeper Trout mykiss DPS waters Unlikely to occur but Upper Willamette River FT - present in deeper DPS waters Unlikely to occur but Snake River Basin DPS FT C present in deeper waters

3-7 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Table 3-1. Special-Status Aquatic Species with the Potential to Occur at 2 Station Cape Disappointment (Continued)

Potential for Common Scientific Federal State Population Occurrence in Name Name Status Status Project Area Thaleichthys Eulachon Southern DPS FT C Likely to occur pacificus Green Acipenser Southern DPS FT - Likely to occur Sturgeon medirostris Bull Salvelinus Not expected to Entire Species FT C Trout conﬂuentus occur 3 Notes: 4 ESU = Evolutionary Significant Unit DPS = Distinct Population Segment 5 Federal Status 6 FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened 7 MBTA = Migratory Bird Treaty Act 8 State Status 9 SE = State Endangered C = Candidate 10 Source: USCG 2020.

11 A baseline eelgrass survey was conducted in June 2020 (Merkel & Associates 12 2020) to identify eelgrass within the vicinity of the proposed dredge area. The 13 direct investigations and observations during the dive surveys were performed 14 in accordance with requirements of both the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy 15 (CEMP) (NOAA 2014) and Eelgrass/ Macroalgae Habitat Interim Survey 16 Guidelines (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2008). The eelgrass 17 survey identified approximately 300 square meters (0.07 acres) of eelgrass 18 vegetation located to the south and along the shoreline of the Project Area. 19 Eelgrass within this area is derived from an intermittent fringing eelgrass bed 20 positioned along the upper margin of an outside bend in the Port of Ilwaco 21 channel. Eelgrass throughout the survey area was determined to be healthy, with 22 no sedimentation and no evidence of disease (Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2020).

23 Aquatic Wildlife

24 Hundreds of species of fish and wildlife are known to use the lower Columbia 25 River estuary during a portion of their lives, including a recorded 22 amphibians, 26 311 birds, 101 mammals, 21 reptiles, and 79 species of fish (LCEP 2020b).

3-8 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Baker Bay attracts large numbers of migrating shorebirds and is heavily used by 2 loons, grebes, cormorants, gulls, and terns. Canada geese, puddle ducks, bay 3 ducks, and sea ducks all use the area, and occasional flocks of brant are attracted 4 by the bay's eelgrass beds. An estimated 5,000 to 10,000 ducks winter in the area 5 while geese nest on East Sand Island. Gulls and cormorants use East Sand Island 6 for nesting. Brown pelicans and peregrine falcon use the area for feeding and 7 resting. The area is also heavily used by wintering bald eagles (Pacific Coast Joint 8 Venture 1994).

9 Larger marine mammals such as orcas (Orcinus orca) and whales are unlikely to 10 enter Baker Bay because of shoaling, which creates such shallow depths that 11 most of the bay sediment is exposed at low tide. Several sea turtles species, such 12 as the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys 13 coriacea), and loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) are known to occur in the 14 lower Columbia River and estuary but have not been observed within Baker Bay.

15 Fish species known to occur in the lower Columbia River estuary include 16 American shad (Alosa sapidissima), bay goby (Lepidogobius lepidus), cabezon 17 (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), kelp greenling 18 (Hexogrammus decagrammus), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), pacific 19 sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus), Padded sculpin (Artedius fenestralis), peamouth 20 (Mylocheilus caurinus), redtail surfperch (Amphistichus rhodoterus), showy snailfish 21 (Liparis pulchellus), silver surfperch (Hyperprosopon ellipticum), spiny dogfish 22 (Squalus acanthias), surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), walleye pollock (Theragra 23 chalcogramma), and yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis) (LCEP 2020b). Open water 24 areas in the vicinity of Station Cape Disappointment support phytoplankton after 25 periods of upwelling in Baker Bay and provide forage for anchovies and 26 sardines, which in turn are preyed upon by salmon.

27 Special-Status Aquatic Species and Habitat

28 Thirty-two species of plants, fish, and wildlife that live along the lower Columbia 29 River are currently protected under the ESA (LCEP 2020a). Special-status aquatic 30 species with the potential to occur in the vicinity of Station Cape Disappointment 31 include two seabird species under the jurisdiction of USFWS, including the

3-9 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) and western snowy plover 2 (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). Additionally, the Chinook salmon 3 (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (Lower Columbia River Evolutionary Significant Unit 4 [ESU], Upper Willamette River ESU, Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU, 5 Snake River spring/summer-run ESU, and Snake River fall-run ESU); Coho 6 salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) (Lower Columbia River ESU); Chum salmon 7 (Oncorhynchus keta) (Columbia River ESU); sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) 8 (Snake River ESU); steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Lower Columbia River 9 Distinct Population Segment [DPS], Middle Columbia River DPS, Upper 10 Columbia River DPS, Upper Willamette River DPS, and Snake River Basin DPS); 11 eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) (Southern DPS); green sturgeon (Acipenser 12 medirostris) (Southern DPS); and bull trout (Salvelinus conﬂuentus) are managed 13 under the jurisdiction of NMFS have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the 14 Station.

15 The lower Columbia River, including the vicinity of Station Cape 16 Disappointment, has been designated as Critical Habitat for eight of the nine 17 special status aquatic species that have the potential to occur within the Project 18 Area, including Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, sockeye salmon, 19 steelhead, eulachon, green sturgeon, and bull trout. Critical Habitat may also 20 include areas that are not currently occupied by the species but have been 21 designated as essential for its recovery (USFWS 2020). Although Critical Habitat 22 has been designated for the marbled murrelet, the species is not located in or 23 near the Project Area.

24 Smaller fry and fingerlings of several fish species, including the Chinook salmon 25 (Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU and Snake River spring/summer-run 26 ESU), coho salmon (Lower Columbia River ESU), sockeye salmon (Snake River 27 ESU), and steelhead (all five DPSs) are currently absent in the Columbia River 28 estuary and juveniles (i.e., subyearling) are currently rare. Although adults (i.e., 29 greater than one year in age) from these ESUs are abundant, adults spend 30 relatively little time in shallow estuarine habitats (Chinook ESUs) or prefer 31 deeper, main-channel estuarine habitats (Coho salmon, Sockeye salmon, and 32 steelhead). Therefore, Chinook salmon of the Upper Columbia River spring-run 33 ESU and Snake River spring/summer-run ESU, coho salmon of the Lower

3-10 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Columbia River ESU, sockeye salmon of the Snake River ESU, and steelhead are 2 not likely to occur within the Project Area. Additionally, the Project Area is in the 3 Lower Columbia River, downstream of the Bonneville Dam where bull trout 4 occurrence is currently rare or unlikely.

5 Based on the findings of the 2020 Biological Assessment addressing this 6 Proposed Action, the following species are expected to occur in the vicinity of the 7 project. Based on known species occurrence, none of the other species listed in 8 Table 3-1 have the potential to be impacted by activities proposed at the Station 9 (see Section 4, Environmental Consequences for further detail). Each of these 10 species is fully described in the 2020 Biological Assessment completed for the 11 Proposed Action (Appendix E).

12 Marbled murrelet. The Project Area contains potential near-shore foraging 13 habitat for this species, and Cape Disappointment State Park (outside of the 14 Project Area) contains potential old-growth forest breeding habitat. Therefore, 15 the marbled murrelet has the potential to occur within the Project Area.

16 Chinook Salmon. Chinook salmon with the potential to occur in the Project Area 17 include members of three designated ESUs:

18 • Lower Columbia River ESU. The Lower Columbia River ESU includes all 19 naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from the Columbia 20 River and its tributaries from its mouth at the Pacific Ocean upstream to a 21 transitional point between Washington and Oregon east of the Hood River 22 and the White Salmon River, and includes the Willamette River to 23 Willamette Falls, Oregon, with the exclusion of spring-run Chinook 24 salmon in the Clackamas River (70 FR 37160). Juveniles from this ESU are 25 currently abundant in the Columbia River estuary and are likely to occur 26 within the shallow subtidal habitat provided by the Project Area. 27 However, fry, fingerling, and adult life stages (i.e., greater than one year 28 in age) are rare and are not likely to occur in the Project Area. 29 • Upper Willamette River ESU. Juveniles from this ocean-type ESU are 30 currently present in moderate numbers within the Columbia River estuary 31 and are likely to occur within the shallow subtidal habitat provided by the 32 Project Area. Although adults from this ESU are abundant, adult Chinook 33 salmon spend relatively little time in shallow estuarine habitats. Smaller

3-11 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 fry and fingerlings are currently absent or rare. Therefore, fry, fingerling, 2 and adult life stages are not likely to occur within the Project Area. 3 • Snake River fall-run ESU. Juveniles from this ocean-type ESU are 4 currently abundant in the Columbia River estuary and are likely to occur 5 within the shallow subtidal habitat provided by the Project Area. 6 Although adults from this ESU are present in moderate numbers, adult 7 Chinook salmon spend relatively little time in shallow estuarine habitats. 8 Smaller fry and fingerlings are currently absent or rare. Therefore, fry, 9 fingerling, and adult life stages are not likely to occur within the Project 10 Area.

11 Chum Salmon (Columbia River ESU). Early and late fry from this ESU are 12 currently abundant in the Columbia River estuary and are likely to occur within 13 the Project Area. Fingerlings, juveniles, and adults from this ESU are currently 14 absent in the river and are not likely to occur in the Project Area.

15 Eulachon (Southern DPS). Eulachon are anadromous smelt that are endemic to 16 the northwestern Pacific Ocean and native to the eastern Pacific Ocean. The 17 lower Columbia River and its tributaries support the largest known spawning 18 run of southern DPS eulachon.

19 North American Green Sturgeon (Southern DPS). Green sturgeon are believed 20 to most of their lives in nearshore oceanic waters, bays, and estuaries. The 21 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has established that green sturgeon 22 are present in Baker Bay. Although this species may not spend a significant 23 amount of time within the Project Area, they are likely to occur in the summer 24 and fall months when the subadult and adult green sturgeon move into coastal 25 bays and estuaries.

26 Steelhead. Five Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) with the potential to be 27 found within the Action Area are stream-type salmonids, characterized by 28 migration to sea after typically rearing for at least one year in freshwater.

29 • Lower Columbia River DPS. The Lower Columbia River DPS includes 30 naturally spawned anadromous steelhead originating below natural and 31 manmade impassable barriers from rivers between the Cowliz and Wind 32 rivers (inclusive) and the Willamette and Hood rivers (inclusive) (NOAA

3-12 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Fisheries, 2020a). Fish originating from the upper Willamette River basin 2 above Willamette Falls are excluded from this DPS.

3 • Middle Columbia River DPS. The Middle Columbia River DPS includes 4 naturally spawned anadromous steelhead originating below natural and 5 man-made impassable barriers from the Columbia River and its 6 tributaries upstream of the Wind and Hood Rivers (exclusive) to, and 7 including, the Yakima River (NOAA Fisheries, 2020b). This DPS excludes 8 steelhead originating from the Snake River basin.

9 • Upper Columbia River DPS. The Upper Columbia River DPS includes 10 naturally spawned anadromous steelhead originating below natural and 11 man-made impassable barriers from the Columbia River and its 12 tributaries upstream of the Yakima River to the United States border with 13 Canada (NOAA Fisheries, 2020c). This DPS includes steelhead from six 14 hatcheries.

15 • Upper Willamette River DPS. The Upper Willamette River DPS includes 16 naturally spawned anadromous winter-run steelhead originating below 17 natural and man-made impassable barriers from the Willamette River and 18 its tributaries upstream of Willamette Falls to, and including, the 19 Calapooia River (NOAA Fisheries, 2020d).

20 • Snake River Basin DPS. The Snake River Basin DPS includes all naturally 21 spawned anadromous steelhead originating below natural and man-made 22 impassable barriers in the Snake River basin (NOAA Fisheries, 2020e). 23 This also includes steelhead from six hatcheries.

24 Based on information provided by Fresh et al. (2005), smaller fry and fingerlings 25 from these DPSs are currently absent in the Columbia River estuary and 26 juveniles (i.e., subyearling) are currently absent or rare. Therefore, subadult 27 individuals from this ESU are not likely to be present within the Action Area to 28 any great extent. Although adults (i.e., greater than one year in age) from these 29 DPSs are abundant, adult steelhead prefer deeper, main-channel estuarine

3-13 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 habitats. Therefore, adults are also not likely to be present in the Action Area to 2 any great extent.

3 Marine Mammals

4 A number of marine mammals protected under the MMPA occur within 5 Columbia River and also have the potential to occur in the vicinity of Station 6 Cape Disappointment. According to a study by the Washington Department of 7 Game (now Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) in 1984, California sea 8 lions (Zalophus californianus) and northern sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) are 9 abundant in the Columbia River estuary during the winter and spring, leaving 10 the area by early summer as they return to their breeding ranges. Pacific harbor 11 seals (Phoca vitulina) are year-round residents of the estuary, primarily using 12 intertidal sand shoals as haulout locations. The California gray whale 13 (Eschrichtius robustus) is seasonally abundant near the Columbia River mouth 14 during its semiannual north-south migrations and are occasionally sighted in the 15 river during periods of flood tide when currents pull whales into the river 16 (Washington Department of Game 1984). However, there are no marine mammal 17 rookeries or significant habitual haul-outs within the proposed dredging 18 footprint. Additionally, given the occurrence of shoaling (shallow depths 19 exposed at low tide) in most of the bay, larger marine mammals are unlikely to 20 occur within Baker Bay.

21 Essential Fish Habitat

22 Seagrass is considered EFH under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 23 and Management Act administered by NMFS. As previously described, a 24 baseline eelgrass survey conducted in June 2020 for the Proposed Action 25 identified approximately 300 square meters (0.07 acres) of eelgrass vegetation 26 within or adjacent to the Project Area. Additionally, according to the EFH 27 Assessment (Appendix A of the 2020 Biological Assessment) prepared for the 28 Proposed Action, the Project Area includes EFH for several fish species, 29 including Pacific Coast salmon (i.e., Chinook and coho), groundfish species, and 30 finfish species (i.e., Pacific sardine [Sardinops sagax], Pacific [chub] mackerel 31 [Scomber japonicus], northern anchovy [Engraulis mordax], and jack mackerel

3-14 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 [Trachurus symmetricus]), and one invertebrate (i.e., market squid [Doryteuthis 2 opalescens]). These species are federally managed under the Pacific Coast Salmon, 3 Pacific Coast Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries Management 4 Plans (FMPs). The Columbia River, including the Project Area, is identified as a 5 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) under the Pacific Groundfish and 6 Pacific Salmon FMPs and are both of particular importance to certain life stages 7 of species managed under the FMPs and more sensitive to degradation. As such, 8 HAPCs provide additional focus for conservation efforts.

9 Pacific Coast Salmon EFH. Estuarine and marine EFH includes all coastal waters 10 from the extreme high tide line within state territorial waters to the full extent of 11 the Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nautical miles offshore of Washington and 12 Oregon) and north of Point Conception, California. Freshwater habitat 13 designation is based on watersheds known to currently or historically be 14 inhabited by managed salmon species. Five HAPCs are within the Pacific Coast 15 salmon EFH, including complex channels and floodplain habitats; thermal 16 refugia; spawning habitat; estuaries; and marine and estuarine submerged 17 aquatic vegetation.

18 Groundfish EFH. Groundfish EFH ranges from the Canada/Washington border 19 in the north, south to the California/Mexico border. In aggregate, groundfish 20 EFH is identified as all waters and substrates within the following areas:

21 • Waters and substrate less than or equal to 3,500 meters deep (relative to 22 mean higher high-water level [MHHW]), or the upriver extent of saltwater 23 intrusion, upstream and landward to where ocean-derived salts measure 24 less than 0.5 part per thousand during average annual flow;

25 • Seamounts in depths greater than 3,500 meters; and 26 • Areas designated as HAPCs that have not been included in the criteria 27 above.

28 Four habitat types and additional Specific Areas of Interest are designated as 29 HAPCs for groundfish in Washington, including estuaries; canopy kelp; 30 seagrass; and rocky reefs. Specific Areas of Interest in Washington include all 31 waters and sea bottoms in state waters, shoreward from the 3-nautical-mile 32 boundary of the territorial sea to the MHHW. All waters within the Project Area

3-15 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 are considered a Specific Area of Interest. Due to its location within the lower 2 Columbia River estuary system, the Project Area would be given additional 3 protection as an HAPC for groundfish.

4 Coastal Pelagic EFH. The EFH criteria for coastal pelagic species are defined by 5 thermal range within the geographic locations where managed pelagic species 6 are known to exist, where coastal pelagic species have historically resided during 7 periods of similar environmental conditions, or where environmental conditions 8 do not preclude habitation by the pelagic species. Thus, the EFH for coastal 9 pelagic species is dynamic, and depends upon the temperature of the upper 10 mixed layer of the ocean.

11 In the east-west orientation, EFH for coastal pelagic species is defined as all 12 estuarine and marine waters, from the shoreline of Washington, Oregon, and 13 California to the EEZ boundary, that are above the thermocline and where sea 14 surface temperatures range between 10 degrees Celsius (ºC) and 26ºC. The 15 northern extent of the EFH varies on the basis of seasonal water temperatures; 16 the boundary exists at the location of the 10ºC isotherm. The southern boundary 17 of the coastal pelagic species EFH is the United States/Mexico border. Given that 18 the EFH zone changes with water temperatures, there are no definitive maps.

19 At certain times of the year, the Project Area may contain sea surface 20 temperatures ranging from 10ºC to 26ºC, thereby meeting the criterion for coastal 21 pelagic species EFH. However, the range of these species is predominantly in 22 warmer, open coastal environments.

23 3.1.2.4 Invasive Species

24 Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species, defines an "invasive species" as a species: 25 1) that is nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration, and 2) whose 26 introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm 27 to human health. Executive Order 13751, Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of 28 Invasive Species, amended Executive Order 13112 and directs actions to continue 29 coordinated Federal prevention and control efforts related to invasive species.

3-16 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 The coastline of Washington currently experiences an increased risk of the 2 introduction of invasive species as a result of increasing regional vessel traffic, 3 emerging trade routes, and proposed coastal and nearshore development. The 4 Washington Invasive Species Council identifies 14 priority invasive species, 5 including 2 crustaceans, 5 mollusks, 3 fish, 2 amphibians, and 2 mammals, as 6 well as three general species categories: tunicate, zooplankton, and crayfish (see 7 Table 3-2; Washington Invasive Species Council 2020). The Washington 8 Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a list of 247 aquatic invasive species. 9 In particular, the European green crab and the zebra and quagga mussels are 10 identified as highly invasive species with the potential to cause dramatic impacts 11 on ecosystems, outdoor recreation, and the economy (Washington Department of 12 Fish and Wildlife 2020). The Columbia River Basin is the only major river basin 13 in the United States that has not been impacted by invasive zebra and quagga 14 mussels (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2019).

3-17 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Table 3-2. Invasive Species with the Potential to Occur in the Vicinity of 2 Station Cape Disappointment

Species Name Scientific Name Tunicate Chain Tunicate Botrylloides violaceus Clubbed Tunicate Styela clava Golden Star Tunicate Botryllus schlosseri Sea Grape Tunicate Molgula manhattensis Vase Tunicate Ciona intestinalis Zooplankton Oithona davisae Pseudodiaptomus forbesi Crustaceans Chinese Mitten Crab Eriocheir sinensis European Green Crab Carcinus maenas Giant Tasmanian Crayfish Astacopis gouldi Gippsland Crayfish Euastacus kershawi Glenelg Crayfish Euastacus bispinosis Lamington Spiny Crayfish Euastacus sulcatus Murray Crayfish Euastacus armatus Northern Crayfish Orconectes virilus Ringed Crayfish Orconectes neglectus Rusty Crayfish Orconectes rusticus Spiny Crayfish Euastacus var. Yara Crayfish Euastacus yarraensis Mollusks Mediterranean White Snail Theba pisana New Zealand Mudsnail Potamopyrgus antipodarum Quagga Mussel Dreissena bugensis Varnish (Marine) clam Nuttallia obscurata Zebra Mussel Dreissena polymorpha Fishes Asian (Bighead) Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis Northern Snakehead Channa argus Northern Pike Esox lucius Amphibians African clawed frog Xenopus laevis Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Mammals Feral swine Sus scrofa domesticus Nutria Myocastor coypus 3 Sources: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020; Washington Invasive Species Council 2020.

3-18 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 3.2 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

2 3.2.1 Definition of Resource

3 The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 establishes a federal- 4 state partnership to provide for the comprehensive management of coastal 5 resources. Coastal states and territories that choose to enter that partnership 6 must develop site-specific coastal management programs including enforceable 7 policies and mechanisms to balance resource protection and coastal development 8 needs. In other words, any federal agency proposing to conduct or support an 9 activity within or outside the coastal zone that would affect any land or water 10 use or natural resource of the coastal zone must do so in a manner consistent 11 with the CZMA or applicable state coastal zone program to the maximum extent 12 practicable. The federal consistency provisions of the CZMA require that federal 13 actions, including the issuance of federal licenses, permits, and funding, be 14 consistent with the enforceable policies of the Washington and Oregon Coastal 15 Zone Management Program(s).

16 Federal lands, which are “lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the 17 discretion of…the Federal Government, its officers, or agents,” are statutorily 18 excluded from the State’s “coastal zone.” If, however, the proposed federal 19 activity affects coastal resources or uses beyond the boundaries of the federal 20 property (i.e., spillover effects), the CZMA Section 307 federal consistency 21 requirement applies.

22 Although a state may have authority over most activities independent of the 23 federal consistency review process, states ordinarily do not have authority over 24 federal actions except under those circumstances where Congress has acceded to 25 state review. The federal consistency provisions of the CZMA extend the reach of 26 states by giving them the ability to review Federal agency activities, 27 authorizations, and financial assistance that have reasonably foreseeable effects 28 on coastal resources or uses. Activities that require a federal authorization, such 29 as a license or permit, must be fully consistent with a state’s enforceable policies 30 in order for a federal agency to approve the activity. If a state finds that an 31 activity is not consistent with its federally approved enforceable policies,

3-19 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 the state may object to the activity.

2 3.2.2 Existing Conditions

3 As defined in Section 304 of the CZMA, the term “coastal zone” does not include 4 “lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is 5 held in trust by the Federal Government.” The federal government (in this case, 6 the USCG) owns and operates Station Cape Disappointment; therefore, Station 7 Cape Disappointment is not part of the coastal zone. The USCG recognizes that 8 actions outside the coastal zone that affect land or water uses or natural 9 resources of the coastal zone via “spillover” are subject to the provisions of 10 CZMA.

11 Oregon

12 In 1977, Oregon became the second state to have a CZMA management program 13 approved. The Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP) is administered 14 by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) as 15 part of the overall land use management regime established under the Land Use 16 Act of 1973, as amended. The Act, codified as ORS Chapter 197 et seq., established 17 the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) with authority to 18 adopt goals and guidelines which local comprehensive plans would be required 19 to meet. The OCMP is the principal mechanism by which the State ensures that 20 local governments, with state oversight, balance conservation and development 21 of coastal and other resources via statewide goals for land use planning. Local 22 governments, such as the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners, are required 23 to adopt comprehensive land use plans that meet the statewide requirements and 24 to make the day-to-day land use decisions in conformance with state-approved, 25 goal-based plans.

26 Under the CZMA, applicants must “demonstrate that the activity will be 27 consistent with the enforceable policies of the management program” showing 28 “adequate consideration of policies which are in the nature of 29 recommendations.” 15 C.F.R. § 930.58(a)(3). According to the 1977 Oregon 30 Coastal Management Program, the enforceable policies of the OCMP include: (1)

3-20 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals, (2) the applicable acknowledged county or 2 city comprehensive plans and land use regulations, and (3) selected state 3 authorities (e.g., the Oregon Department of State Lands, the Oregon Department 4 of Environmental Quality, etc.). The following Oregon enforceable policies 5 apply to the project:

6 • Statewide Planning Goal 19 Ocean Resources 7 • ORS 196.682-905: Oregon Department of State Lands – Removal-Fill 8 Permit 9 • ORS 97.740, 358.905 and 390.235: Oregon State Historic Preservation Office 10 – National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance

11 • ORS 468B: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality – Clean Water 12 Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. 13 Washington

14 A proponent in Washington is required to obtain a Coastal Zone Certificate of 15 Consistency from the Washington Department of Ecology for developments 16 located within Washington’s coastal counties that involve federal activities, 17 federal licenses or permits, and federal assistance programs. As such, the 18 following enforceable policies of the CZMA program apply to the project:

19 • Shoreline Management Act Compliance – Pacific County and Washington 20 Department of Ecology

21 • State Water Quality Certification – Washington Department of Ecology 22 • State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

23 3.3 WATER RESOURCES

24 The following discussion of water resources includes surface water, wetlands, 25 groundwater, and floodplains. This section discusses the physical characteristics 26 and quality of water resources. Marine wildlife and vegetation are addressed in 27 Section 3.1, Biological Resources.

3-21 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 3.3.1 Definition of Resource

2 Surface water resources generally consist of wetlands, lakes, rivers, streams, and 3 marine waters. Surface water is important for its contributions to the economic, 4 ecological, recreational, and human health of a community or locale. A water 5 body can be deemed impaired if water quality analyses conclude that 6 exceedances of water quality standards occur. A total maximum daily load 7 (TMDL) is the maximum amount of a substance (natural or anthropogenic) that 8 can be assimilated by a water body without causing impairment.

9 Marine waters typically include estuaries, waters seaward of the historic height 10 of tidal influence, and offshore high salinity waters. Marine water quality is 11 described as the chemical and physical composition of the water as affected by 12 natural conditions and human activities.

13 Shorelines are the land-water interfaces located along marine (oceans), brackish 14 (estuaries), or fresh (lakes) bodies of water. Physical dynamics of shorelines 15 include tidal influences, channel movement and hydrological systems, flooding 16 or storm surge areas, erosion and sedimentation, water quality and temperature, 17 presence of nutrients and pathogens, and sites with potential for protection or 18 restoration. Shoreline ecosystems are vital habitat for multiple life states of many 19 fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. Different shore zones provide 20 different kinds and levels of habitat, and when aggregated, can significantly 21 influence life. Organic matter that is washed onto the shore, or “wrack,” is an 22 important component of shoreline ecosystems, providing habitat for 23 invertebrates, soil and organic matter, and nutrients to both the upland terrestrial 24 communities and aquatic ecosystems.

25 Wetlands are jointly defined by USEPA and USACE as “those areas that are 26 inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration 27 sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 28 prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” 29 Wetlands generally include “swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.”

3-22 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Groundwater is water that flows or seeps downward and saturates soil or rock, 2 supplying springs and wells. Groundwater is used for water consumption, 3 agricultural irrigation, and industrial applications. Groundwater properties are 4 often described in terms of depth to aquifer, aquifer or well capacity, water 5 quality, and surrounding geologic composition. Sole source aquifer designation 6 provides limited protection of groundwater resources which serve as drinking 7 water supplies.

8 Floodplains are areas of low, level ground present along rivers, stream channels, 9 large wetlands, or coastal waters. Floodplain ecosystem functions include natural 10 moderation of floods, flood storage and conveyance, groundwater recharge, and 11 nutrient cycling. Floodplains also help to maintain water quality and are often 12 home to a diverse array of plants and animals. In their natural vegetated state, 13 floodplains slow the rate at which the incoming overland flow reaches the main 14 water body. Floodplain boundaries are most often defined in terms of frequency 15 of inundation, that is, the 100-year and 500-year flood. Floodplain delineation 16 maps are produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and provide 17 a basis for comparing the locale of the Proposed Action to the floodplains.

18 3.3.2 Existing Conditions

19 3.3.2.1 Bathymetry and Circulation

20 Baker Bay is located at the mouth of the Columbia River between Cape 21 Disappointment and Chinook Point. Bay openings include Ilwaco Channel to the 22 west, an inlet between East Sand Island and West Sand Island, and an opening 23 between the eastern shore of East Sand Island and Chinook Harbor. These 24 channels and inlets provide navigation and transit for USCG vessels. The 25 Wallacut River and Chinook River empty into the Bay. As described in 26 Section 1.2, Location and Background, USCG needs to maintain a depth of 10 feet 27 below the MLLW for vessels to safely transit through the area. The existing water 28 depth within the proposed dredge area ranges from approximately -6 to -21 feet 29 MLLW.

3-23 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Baker Bay has mixed semidiurnal tides such that the higher high tide occurs 2 before the lower low tide, which creates the strongest currents on the large ebb 3 tide (NOAA 2020a). The tidal range (difference between MLLW and MHHW) in 4 the Ilwaco area of Baker Bay is approximately 6.0 feet (NOAA 2020b). Columbia 5 River flows are primarily confined to the main channels of the river, with some 6 flow into Baker Bay via inlets during flood tide. In general, Baker Bay remains 7 fresh with transient periods of brackishness and limited ocean-influenced water 8 reaching the inner portions of the bay (Baden 2014).

9 3.3.2.2 Freshwater

10 Station Cape Disappointment is located within Willapa watershed, also known 11 as Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 24 (Washington State Department of 12 Ecology [WDOE] 2020). Limited data on WRIA 24 is available as a watershed 13 plan has not yet been prepared for the area. WRIAs are further divided into sub- 14 watersheds with landside facilities of Station Cape Disappointment located 15 within the Chinook River-Frontal Columbia River sub-watershed and in-water 16 facilities of located in the Baker Bay-Columbia River sub-watershed.

17 The nearest freshwater system to Station Cape Disappointment is an unnamed 18 1.07 acre riverine habitat located approximately 1.16 miles northwest (USFWS 19 2020). Other freshwater waterbodies in the general vicinity of the Station Cape 20 Disappointment are O’Neil Lake, a 10.11-acre freshwater pond, approximately 21 0.5 mile northwest and McKenzie Head Lagoon, an 8.42 acre freshwater pond, 22 approximately 0.8 mile northwest (USFWS 2020).

23 3.3.2.3 Marine Waters

24 CWA Section 303(d) requires states to identify waters that do not meet water 25 quality standards and for which a TMDL evaluation must be performed. The 26 USEPA has designated WDOE as the regulatory authority in Washington 27 responsible for this process. Currently, WDOE includes two sections of Baker 28 Bay (Columbia River) on the WDOE Section 303(d) list (WDOE 2020). The Ilwaco 29 Marina segment of the Baker Bay, located 2 miles north of the Station, is listed for 30 bacteria. The eastern shore of Cape Disappointment, adjacent to the Station, is

3-24 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 listed for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) found in tissue of mussel samples. 2 While these waterbodies have been identified on the WDOE Section 303(d) list, 3 WDOE has not adopted TMDLs for these pollutants in Baker Bay or the 4 Columbia River (WDOE 2020). Pacific County had not adopted a water quality 5 improvement project specific to these water bodies or pollutants (WDOE 2020).

6 Sediment testing was performed in support of the proposed dredge activity in 7 September 2020. Results of that testing event indicate the material to be dredged 8 is ~95 percent sand with contaminate levels below screening thresholds and 9 bioaccumulation triggers.

10 3.3.2.4 Wetlands

11 Baker Bay is mapped by the USFWS NWI as a mixture of both estuarine open 12 water and estuarine wetlands associated with shoals. The USCG boat basin, boat 13 haul-out area, and West Channel FNC (nearest to and north of the Project Area) 14 are mapped as estuarine open water (E1UBL). The shallows to the southeast and 15 southwest of the Project Area are mapped as estuarine, intertidal, unconsolidated 16 shore, regularly flooded wetlands (E2USN); estuarine, intertidal, emergent, 17 persistent, regularly flooded wetlands (E2EM1N); or estuarine, intertidal, 18 unconsolidated shore, irregularly flooded wetlands (E2USP) (USFWS 2020).

19 3.3.2.5 Groundwater

20 Groundwater aquifers in the Washington are protected through the 21 Chapter 173-200 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), which sets standards 22 to maintain the highest quality of groundwater and Chapter 173-157 WAC which 23 establishes standards for review of aquifer storage and recover proposals and for 24 mitigating any adverse impacts. Groundwater is used for municipal, irrigation, 25 agricultural, and industrial uses. More than 60 percent of all of Washington 26 residents get their drinking water from groundwater (WDOE 2020). There are 27 228 wells in Pacific County, with 1 well noted as occurring at Station Cape 28 Disappointment (WDOE 2020).

3-25 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 3.3.2.6 Floodplains and Flood Hazards

2 The WDOE serves as the State Coordinating Agency that assists local 3 governments to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program and 4 Washington floodplain management laws and manage successful development 5 in flood zones. FEMA prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that indicate 6 potential flood areas, based upon a 100-year storm event. A 100-year storm is a 7 storm that statically would occur once in a 100-year period or has a 1-percent 8 chance of occurring in any given year. This is the standard used to determine 9 areas of flooding for the purposes of flood insurance programs managed by 10 FEMA and has become the standard for the evaluation of potential flooding. The 11 National Flood Insurance Program requires local jurisdictions to issue permits 12 for all development in the 100-year floodplain, as depicted on the maps issued by 13 FEMA.

14 The Station is located within FIRM Panel Number 53049C0720D and within a 15 100-year floodplain (Zone AE) with an elevation (EL) of approximately 11 feet 16 (FEMA 2020). The 100-year floodplain encompasses the entirety of the Station’s 17 in-water facilities and shorelines. As such, the Station is subject to FEMA flood 18 zone regulations, which limit development within the floodplain.

19 3.4 NOISE

20 3.4.1 Definition of Resource

21 Noise is defined as unwanted sound or, more specifically, as any sound that is 22 undesirable because it interferes with communication, is intense enough to 23 damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying (Federal Interagency Committee on 24 Noise [FICON] 1992). Human response to noise can vary according to the type 25 and characteristics of the noise source, the distance between the noise source and 26 the receptor, the sensitivity of the receptor, and the time of day. Human noise- 27 sensitive receptors are, in general, those areas of human habitation or substantial 28 use where the intrusion of noise has the greatest potential to adversely affect the 29 occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the environment.

3-26 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Due to the wide range of pressure and intensity encountered during 2 measurements of sound, a logarithmic scale is used, based on the decibel (dB), 3 which, for sound intensity, is 10 times the log10 of the ratio of the measurement 4 to reference value. For sound pressure level (SPL), the amplitude ratio in dB is 20 5 times the log10 ratio of measurement to reference. Hence each increase of 20 dB 6 in SPL reflects a 10-fold increase in signal amplitude (whether expressed in terms 7 of pressure or particle motion). That is, 20 dB means 10 times the amplitude, 40 8 dB means 100 times the amplitude, 60 dB means 1,000 times the amplitude, and 9 so on. Because the dB is a relative measure, any value expressed in dB is 10 meaningless without an accompanying reference. In describing underwater 11 sound pressure, the reference amplitude is usually 1 μPa, and is expressed as 12 “dB re 1 μPa.” For in-air sound pressure, the reference amplitude is usually 20 13 μPa and is expressed as “dB re 20 μPa.” Additionally, different weighting factors 14 may be used to better relate sound to the user, as in A-weighting sound levels 15 (dBA), or the decibels filtered to de-emphasize the low- and high-frequency 16 components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the 17 human ear and correlates well with subjective human reactions to sound.

18 Table 3-3. Typical Sources Contributing to Airborne Noise

Distance Noise Level Source (feet) (dBA) Automobile, 40 mph 50 72 Automobile Horn 10 95 Light Automobile Traffic 100 50 Truck, 40 mph 50 84 Heavy Truck or Motorcycle 25 90 19 Notes: mph = miles per hour. 20 dBA = A-Weighted Sound Level

21 Underwater noise is generated mainly from underwater construction activities 22 and the turning of vessel propellers.

3-27 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Table 3-4. Typical Sources Contributing to Underwater Noise

Frequency Noise Source Source Level Reference Range (Hz) 161–186 dB RMS Richardson et al. 1995; Dredging 1−500 re: 1 µPa at 1 meter DEFRA 2003; Reine et al. 2014 141–175 dB RMS Galli et al. 2003; Matzner & Jones Small vessels 860–8,000 re: 1 µPa at 1 meter 2011; Sebastianutto et al. 2011 157–188 dB McKenna 2011; Large ship 20−1,000 re: 1 µPa2sec SEL at 1 meter Kipple and Gabriele 2007 Tug docking gravel 200–1,000 149 dB at 100 meters Blackwell and Greene 2002 barge Abbreviations: dB = decibel; Hz = Hertz; RMS = root mean square; sec = second; SEL = sound exposure level dB re 1 μPa at 1 m = decibels (dB) referenced to (re) 1 micro (μ) Pascal (Pa) at 1 meter

2 3.4.1.1 Land Use Guidelines and Ambient Noise

3 Guidelines established by FICON are used by the United States Department of 4 Housing and Urban Development to determine acceptable levels of noise 5 exposure for various land use categories. Land use categories most sensitive to 6 ambient noise are residential, institutional, cultural, and some recreational uses. 7 Industrial land uses are the least sensitive to surrounding noise, largely due to 8 the inherently high levels of ambient noise associated with industrial activities. 9 Ambient background noise in urbanized areas typically varies from 60 to 70 dBA 10 but can be higher; suburban neighborhoods experience ambient noise levels of 11 approximately 45 to 50 dBA (USEPA 1973).

12 3.4.2 Existing Conditions

13 3.4.2.1 Airborne Noise

14 Ambient airborne noise in the vicinity of the Station is characteristic of a busy 15 harbor environment, with sounds associated with boat traffic (e.g., motors, 16 mechanical lifts, etc.), as well as general USCG activities, including horn blasts, 17 public address system announcements, daily search and rescue alarm testing, 18 power washing and sanding of vessels, small arms firing, and helicopter 19 landings (USCG 2007).

3-28 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 3.4.2.2 Underwater Noise

2 Sources of underwater noise from boats and other marine vessels can include 3 engine noises, noise created from vessel-related devices (e.g., horns, and sonars), 4 and interaction of waves with a vessel’s hull. Small vessels have been recorded to 5 produce underwater sounds from 141 to 175 dB re 1 µPa at 1 meter at 1 meter 6 (refer to Table 3-4). Because recreational craft, fishing boats, and other 7 commercial craft use the West Channel FNC to travel to and from the Ilwaco 8 Marina, it is assumed that the Project Area is regularly subjected to underwater 9 noise from boats in this dB range or lower.

10 3.4.2.3 Noise Sensitive Receptors

11 The nearest noise-sensitive receptors on the Station is the personnel housing 12 approximately 200 m to the southeast of the Project Area. The nearest noise- 13 sensitive receptors outside of the Station are the single-family residences and 14 houseboats or live-aboard boats at Ilwaco Marina approximately 2,500 m to the 15 north. However, based on the Station’s location at the mouth of the Columbia 16 River in the southwest corner of Baker Bay, the ambient noise levels at these 17 locations are considered to be consistent with an industrial environment.

3-29 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 This page intentionally left blank.

3-30 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 SECTION 4 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3 Environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the Proposed 4 Action and its alternatives at Station Cape Disappointment are evaluated in this 5 section. Analyses are presented by resource area, as presented in Section 3, 6 Affected Environment. Analysis of potential impacts to resources typically 7 includes: 1) identification and description of resources that could potentially be 8 affected; 2) examination of the Proposed Action and the potential effects the 9 action may have on the resource; 3) assessment of the significance of potential 10 impacts; and 4) development of mitigation, special procedures, or adaptive 11 management measures in the event that potentially significant impacts are 12 identified.

13 For this analysis, potential impacts are defined as:

14 • Negligible – if the action would result in no noticeable effects, beneficial 15 or adverse, over existing conditions. 16 • Minor – if the action would result in a limited adverse effect over existing 17 conditions. 18 • Substantial – if the action would result in a noticeable or measurable 19 adverse impact to existing environmental conditions.

20 Impacts were evaluated in terms of context (local or regional), type (adverse or 21 beneficial), duration (short- or long-term), and intensity.

22 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

23 4.1.1 Approach to Analysis

24 Determination of the significance of potential impacts to biological resources is 25 based on: 1) the importance (i.e., legal, commercial, recreational, ecological, or 26 scientific) of the resource; 2) the proportion of the resource that would be 27 affected relative to its occurrence in the region; 3) the sensitivity of the resource 28 to proposed activities; and 4) the duration of adverse ecological effects. Impacts 29 to biological resources would be considered significant if federally listed species 30 or federally designated critical habitats of concern would be adversely affected or

4-1 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 if species or habitats would be affected over relatively large areas or disturbances 2 cause reductions in population size or distribution.

3 4.1.2 Impacts from Proposed Action

4 Both permanent and temporary impacts to biological resources would occur 5 from implementation of the Proposed Action. After construction, there would be 6 no changes in personnel levels or vessel (or any other) operations at the base. No 7 upland or waterside infrastructure improvements or development would occur; 8 further, no in-water or overwater activity beyond the maintenance dredging 9 would occur. No additional long-term activities associated with this Proposed 10 Action would occur at the Station. Therefore, continued operational activities at 11 the Station would not adversely impact terrestrial or aquatic biological resources.

12 Terrestrial Biological Resources

13 As described in Section 3.1, Biological Resources, the Project Area includes the 14 proposed dredge area, disposal location areas, and the equipment staging area 15 located within the Station’s parking lot. No terrestrial vegetation occurs within 16 the Project Area. Moreover, BMPs and control measures would be implemented 17 to minimize impacts to adjacent terrestrial vegetation when staging heavy 18 construction equipment and temporary dredge materials laydown (e.g., flagging 19 the approved limits of construction, locating staging areas and equipment 20 storage on previously disturbed lands).

21 Special-Status Terrestrial Species

22 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects species that are federally listed as 23 threatened or endangered, or proposed for federal listing. The 2020 Biological 24 Assessment determined that implementation of the Proposed Action would have 25 no effect to terrestrial listed species and/or critical habitat in the Project Area 26 (USCG 2020).

4-2 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Migratory Birds

2 As described in Section 3.1.2.2, Migratory Birds, Baker Bay supports many birds 3 during their migration along the Pacific Flyway. The developed nature of the 4 Station provides limited habitat for roosting and nesting. However, the IPaC 5 System listed 12 migratory bird species with the potential to occur in the vicinity 6 of Station Cape Disappointment.

7 Dredging activities and increased human presence during construction would 8 result in increases in noise that could indirectly disturb migratory birds protected 9 under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the federally threatened 10 marbled murrelet. Although construction activities could temporarily displace 11 birds from adjacent habitats in the vicinity of individual shoreline segments, any 12 birds disturbed by construction activities (e.g., noise-generating dredging 13 activities) could temporarily relocate to similar, potentially more suitable habitat 14 within the lower Columbia River estuary. Further, wildlife in the vicinity of the 15 lower Columbia River and Station Cape Disappointment are generally 16 accustomed to disturbance resulting from USCG vessel operations and 17 maintenance, commercial and industrial trade operations, cruise ship 18 movements, and agricultural operations. Further, no terrestrial vegetation or 19 trees are proposed for removal under the Proposed Action. With implementation 20 of the BMPs described in Table 2-1 (e.g., flagging the approved limits of 21 construction, locating staging areas and equipment storage on previously 22 disturbed lands), impacts to migratory birds protected under the MBTA would 23 be minor and short term.

24 Implementation of the Proposed Action would not impact migratory birds, as no 25 potential nesting locations or foraging habitat would be disturbed. Activities 26 associated with proposed dredging would be compatible and consistent with 27 existing, ongoing USACE dredging activities in the Columbia River estuary as 28 well as existing local vessel traffic. As such, implementation of the Proposed 29 Action would have no adverse impacts on migratory birds.

4-3 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Aquatic Biological Resources

2 Turbidity

3 Dredging of bottom sediments within the USCG boat basin area would disturb 4 sediments and temporarily increase turbidity, which may directly and indirectly 5 impact aquatic species. The size and shape of the turbidity plume is difficult to 6 quantify because of the variability in existing conditions (e.g., wind and 7 currents). However, sediment at the site is predominantly sand, and a return to 8 normal suspended sediment rates is predicted to occur through tidal circulation 9 more rapidly than if the sediment were finer (i.e., clay or silt) and / or located in 10 protected areas. With installation of turbidity curtains during dredging activities, 11 turbidity would remain localized. In the immediate area, increased turbidity may 12 temporarily decrease light penetration and levels of dissolved oxygen. It is 13 possible that small numbers of fish species or foraging birds could experience 14 reduced feeding opportunities due to increased turbidity; however, similar 15 habitat exists adjacent to proposed work areas and individuals could easily 16 relocate as needed. Decreases in levels of light penetration and dissolved oxygen 17 would end shortly after dredge events and would not result in a substantial or 18 prolonged decline in productivity. Additionally, because sediment testing 19 indicate very low levels of pollutants there is no expected release to Baker Bay. 20 BMPs, as described in Table 2-1, would reduce potential impacts caused by 21 turbidity during implementation of the Proposed Action.

22 Any in-water dredge disposal would occur at sites approved for in-water 23 disposal that have received similar material previously including from existing, 24 ongoing USACE dredging projects. As a result, the in-water effects are 25 considered minor, temporary, and within background conditions for an area that 26 has been historically dredged and likely experiences frequent scour and 27 resuspended bottom sediments from marine vessel traffic within shallow shoals. 28 Therefore, impacts related to turbidity would be short-term and minor.

29 Underwater Noise

30 It has been documented that underwater noise can influence fish and marine 31 mammal behavior. Fish and marine mammals detect and respond to sound,

4-4 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 using its cues to hunt for prey, avoid predators, and promote social interaction 2 (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001). Sound has also been shown to affect growth 3 rates, fat stores, and reproduction in fish (Meier and Horseman 1977; Banner and 4 Hyatt 1973). High-intensity sounds can also permanently damage fish and 5 marine mammal hearing (Popper and Clark 1976; Enger 1981; Cox and Rogers 6 1987).

7 Proposed dredging would result in temporary increases in underwater noise 8 levels that could potentially impact special-status birds, fish species, and marine 9 mammals in the area. Injury noise levels for fish are defined by NOAA Fisheries 10 as those noise levels above 187 dB SEL for fish over 2 grams and noise levels 11 above 183 dB SEL for fish under 2 grams. Behavioral disturbance is defined by

12 noise levels above 150 dB root-mean-square (RMS) (California Department of 13 Transportation 2015). Based on a previous study conducted in both coarse 14 sand/gravel and unconsolidated sediment, the underwater noise associated with 15 bucket clamshell dredging operations is anticipated to range from 99 dB for the 16 bucket closing to 124 dB for the bucket contacting the bottom (Jones et al. 2015), 17 which is less than background noise levels anticipated for the area. Therefore, 18 noise levels associated with the proposed dredging activities are expected to be 19 below both behavior and injury guideline levels. In addition, the Proposed 20 Action would require only one week to complete with the use of one or two 21 working barges. Noise from heavy equipment and barge use is comparable to the 22 noise associated with USCG vessels and those commercial, recreational, or 23 fishing vessels that routinely travel through the Project Area to and from the 24 marina in Ilwaco. Further, the lower Columbia River estuary is routinely subject 25 to underwater noise associated with cargo ships, barges, ferries, cruise ships, and 26 leisure boats. Wildlife that are present within the Project Area during dredging 27 are expected to relocate temporarily, if possible, because of the physical 28 disruption.

29 In-water construction activities under the Proposed Action would follow noise 30 control measures outlined in Table 2-1 to minimize potential impacts to fish and 31 marine mammals in the area. Vessel drift and vessel movements would be 32 controlled by the construction contractor to limit potential for noise impacts from 33 grounding. After the proposed dredging operations are completed, noise levels 34 would immediately return to ambient levels presently found in the area and

4-5 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 mobile species could return. No long-term noise effects would occur as a result 2 of implementation of the Proposed Action. Overall, potential noise effects from 3 this project would be considered to be minimal, short-term, and below 4 dangerous threshold levels and/or anticipated ambient levels.

5 Aquatic Vegetation, Habitats, and Wildlife

6 Aquatic vegetation, benthic species, and bottom estuarine habitat located within 7 the Project Area would be disturbed directly by removal of species during 8 implementation of the Proposed Action and indirectly by increased turbidity 9 during dredge activities. In-water dredging activities have the potential to 10 directly or indirectly disturb benthic species and mollusks as well as aquatic 11 vegetation including eelgrass.

12 Turbidity associated with dredging may have localized, indirect impacts on 13 benthic resources and aquatic wildlife. However, the impact on water quality 14 from turbidity and suspended sediments would be short term and limited to the 15 areas of bottom disturbance and localized to the dredged area. For in-water 16 dredging activities associated with the Proposed Action, turbidity control 17 measures would be implemented, such as floating turbidity curtains (i.e., barriers 18 with weighted skirts) that extend to within 2 feet of the bottom around all work 19 areas (refer to Table 2-1). Therefore, implementation of BMPs would reduce 20 potential impacts to benthic resources from turbidity during construction of the 21 Proposed Action.

22 Proposed dredging activities under the Proposed Action would also directly and 23 indirectly disturb eelgrass within the Project Area. Impacts to eelgrass is 24 described below under Special-Status Aquatic Species and Habitat.

25 All applicable permits (e.g., [CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification and 26 CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit) would be obtained prior to the start of 27 construction activities (see Section 4.3, Water Quality, for further discussion of 28 potential impacts to water quality). With implementation of the BMPs in 29 Table 2-1, permit conditions, and any additional BMPs required following 30 consultation with NMFS, potential direct impacts to aquatic vegetation and 31 benthic resources would be minor. In-water disturbances are considered minor,

4-6 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 short-term, and within background conditions for an area that has been 2 historically dredged and likely experiences frequent scour and resuspended 3 bottom sediments from marine vessel traffic within shallow shoals.

4 Special-Status Aquatic Species and Habitat

5 As described in Section 3.1, Biological Resources, the USFWS IPaC System listed 6 two special-status sea birds that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the 7 Station, including the marbled murrelet (Washington, Oregon, and California 8 Distinct Population Segment [DPS]) and western snowy plover (Charadrius 9 alexandrinus nivosus) (Pacific Coast DPS) (refer to Table 3-2).

10 The 2020 Biological Assessment also identified the following species: the 11 Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (Lower Columbia River 12 Evolutionary Significant Unit [ESU], Upper Willamette River ESU, Upper 13 Columbia River spring-run ESU, Snake River spring/summer run ESU, and 14 Snake River fall-run ESU); Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) (Lower Columbia 15 River ESU); Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) (Columbia River ESU); sockeye 16 salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) (Snake River ESU); steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 17 (Lower Columbia River DPS, Middle Columbia River DPS, Upper Columbia 18 River DPS, Upper Willamette River DPS, and Snake River Basin DPS); eulachon 19 (Thaleichthys pacificus) (Southern DPS); green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) 20 (Southern DPS); and bull trout (Salvelinus conﬂuentus) under the jurisdiction of 21 NMFS that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of Station Cape 22 Disappointment. The Project Area is within federally designated critical habitat 23 for the Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, sockeye salmon, steelhead, 24 eulachon, green sturgeon, and bull trout (USCG 2020).

25 A number of marine mammals protected under the MMPA also have the 26 potential to occur in the vicinity of Station Cape Disappointment, including 27 California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), northern sea lions (Eumetopias 28 jubatus), Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), and California gray whales 29 (Eschrichtius robustus). In-water dredging activities have the potential to impact 30 these federally listed aquatic species and marine mammals because of associated 31 construction noise, turbidity, and other direct disturbances.

4-7 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Potential impacts to marbled murrelet, Chinook salmon (Lower Columbia River 2 ESU, Upper Willamette River ESU, and Snake River fall-run ESU); chum salmon 3 (Columbia River ESU); Eulachon (Southern DPS); and green sturgeon (Southern 4 DPS), as well as their critical habitat and EFH, are discussed below. As described 5 in Section 3.1, Biological Resources, no other aquatic special-status species listed in 6 Table 3-2 has the potential to be impacted by proposed dredging activities at the 7 Station.

8 Marbled murrelet. The proposed dredge area provides suitable near-shore 9 foraging habitat for marbled murrelet. Marbled murrelet forage by hovering over 10 shallow water, locating prey, and plunging into the water. In-water dredging 11 activities at the Station have the potential to disturb this species because of 12 construction-related noise, water quality degradation, and loss of important 13 foraging habitat (USCG 2020).

14 As described above, the maximum underwater noise level associated with 15 dredging is typically 124 dB RMS. Additionally, the Station is subject to typical 16 ambient noise from a busy harbor environment (refer to Section 3.4, Noise). The 17 USFWS noise thresholds for the marbled murrelet are 202 dB for underwater 18 injury noise levels and greater than 150 dB for behavior noise levels (Washington 19 State Department of Transportation 2014). Therefore, noise levels from proposed 20 dredging activities are expected to be below injury and behavior guidelines 21 established for the murrelet and equal to background noise levels for the area. 22 The USFWS has also established a 29-dB noise threshold for the marbled 23 murrelet for in-air masking effects. However, given that there are no known 24 marbled murrelet nests occurring within or near the Project Area, in-air noise 25 levels would not significantly affect nesting behavior and would be consistent 26 with background noise levels at the Project Area. Per the BA completed to 27 support the project, noise levels generated from proposed dredging activities 28 may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the marbled murrelet.

29 Short-term effects on water quality, such as the suspension of sediments to the 30 water column, during dredging could cause prey species to temporarily relocate, 31 which may limit the feeding efficiency of the marbled murrelet. In addition, 32 increased turbidity may also affect the bird’s ability to visual detect fish in the 33 surface layer. However, the area to be dredged is negligible in comparison with

4-8 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 the lower Columbian River estuary as a whole, and proposed dredging events 2 are anticipated to require only one week to complete. Affected individuals are 3 expected to move away from the Project Area to adjacent areas with similar 4 habitat types (i.e., estuarine waters) and either remain in their new location or 5 return to the Project Area shortly after dredging is complete. Additionally, no 6 permanent habitat modification is proposed. Following completion of the 7 Proposed Action, water depths and habitat types (i.e., piers/wharves and 8 unvegetated bottom) would be consistent with historical operational depths and 9 habitat types in this area since the USCG’s occupation of Station Cape 10 Disappointment. Therefore, impacts from water quality degradation and loss of 11 habitat may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the marbled murrelet.

12 The procedures in Table 2-1 would minimize the potential for impacts on 13 marbled murrelets. For example, construction activities will be conducted within 14 the approved in-water work window from November 1 through February 28, 15 outside of the nesting and foraging season for marbled murrelets (i.e., late-March 16 through late-September) to avoid direct impacts to this species from 17 construction-related noise and turbidity (refer to Section 2.1, Proposed Action). 18 Sediment disturbance and turbidity are expected to be localized with 19 implementation of the proposed turbidity control measures, and there would be 20 no impacts to the water column after dredge events. Therefore, the potential for 21 impacts to the marbled murrelet would be short term and minor.

22 Special-Status Fish and Marine Mammals. In-water dredge activities have the 23 potential to impact these federally listed fish species and marine mammals due 24 to associated noise, turbidity, water quality degradation, and other direct 25 disturbances. However, dredging would occur near shore where water depths 26 are shallow and special-status fish and marine mammal species would not 27 typically occur. Juvenile and adult fish species that might visit the area are 28 mobile and would be able to avoid proposed dredging activities at the Station. 29 Most species may already avoid this area given the frequency of vessel traffic 30 moving through the FNC and the USCG boat basin. Proposed dredging is 31 anticipated to occur over a period of one week; therefore, construction and 32 related impacts related to noise and turbidity would be short term and 33 temporary. The Proposed Action would implement BMPs to reduce the potential 34 for direct and indirect impacts to special-status species and their habitat. For

4-9 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 example, maintenance of equipment and vehicles would occur at a designated 2 area, away from aquatic habitat to avoid spills and water quality degradation 3 (refer to Table 2-1). The installation of silt curtains and debris booms would also 4 avoid and minimize potential impacts from turbidity on special-status species 5 and their habitat. Dredging would be restricted to between November 1 through 6 February 28 during the typical migratory periods for listed salmonids when 7 these species are most likely to be transitory and upstream of the Station. As 8 previously described, anticipated noise levels are below known injury thresholds 9 to fish. Therefore, temporary impacts to special-status aquatic species from 10 proposed dredging associated with the Proposed Action would be minor.

11 Critical habitat. As described in Section 3.1.2.3, Aquatic Biological Resources, the 12 lower Columbia River estuary serves as a critical migration corridor and contains 13 rearing habitat for juvenile anadromous fish species. As such, the lower 14 Columbia River, including the vicinity of Station Cape Disappointment, has been 15 designated as Critical Habitat for Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, 16 sockeye salmon, steelhead trout, eulachon, green sturgeon, and bull trout. 17 Proposed dredging may have a temporary effect on one or more of fish primary 18 constituent elements (e.g., roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding 19 sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water quality or quantity, host species or 20 plant, pollinator, geological formation, vegetation type, tide, and/or specific soil 21 types), which are essential to the conservation of a species. However, according 22 to the 2020 Biological Assessment, dredging would not significantly alter local 23 hydrology, water level and flow, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, erosion 24 and sediment input/transport, physical habitat structure, vegetation, soils, 25 nutrients and chemicals, fish passage, or stream/estuarine/marine biota and 26 prey resources in Baker Bay. These features are essential for the propagation and 27 ultimate survival of fish. As a result, dredging activities may affect, but are not 28 likely to adversely affect, designated Critical Habitat for the eight special-status 29 fish species with the potential to be located within the Project Area.

30 EFH. EFH is an area containing habitat essential to the long-term survival and 31 health of the nation’s fisheries, including the water and seafloor. As described in 32 Section 3.1.2.3, Aquatic Biological Resources, seagrass is considered EFH under the 33 MSA administered by NMFS. When considering an action in EFH, federal

4-10 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 agencies are required to consult with NMFS about actions that could adversely 2 impact EFH (NMFS 2018).

3 Proposed dredging activities may temporarily disturb existing EFH through 4 direct burial of benthic invertebrates and macroinvertebrates or removal of 5 organisms and benthic habitat, which fish species may feed on. However, 6 according to the EFH Assessment (Appendix A of the 2020 Biological 7 Assessment), the Project Area does not likely provide high-quality habitat for 8 prey species due to the constant movement of USCG vessels within the mooring 9 basin and the boat traffic that moves through the adjacent FNC. Historically 10 permitted maintenance dredging within the proposed dredging area and the 11 adjacent FNC has altered the benthic environment. The EFH Assessment 12 determined that the dredged area would likely be recolonized with a similar 13 species assemblage within 6 to 12 months following implementation of the 14 Proposed Action. Further, similar sandy bottom and pier/wharf habitats located 15 near the Project Area throughout Baker Bay and/or within the adjacent 16 Columbia River can provide alternative foraging habitats for motile fish species 17 during and immediately following the proposed dredging activities. Therefore, 18 proposed dredging would result in effects that are considered temporary in 19 nature, short term, and/or comparable to existing conditions.

20 As described in Section 3.2, Biological Resources, the 2020 baseline eelgrass survey 21 identified approximately 300 square meters (3,229 square feet or 0.07 acres) of 22 eelgrass vegetation distributed through approximately 25,122 square feet (0.57 23 acres) within the Project Area (Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2020). According to the 24 baseline eelgrass survey, proposed dredging activities would directly disturb 25 eelgrass adjacent to the travel lift boat haul-out facility but also may include 26 potential indirect impacts associated with a risk of destabilizing the toe of the 27 steep bank adjacent to the docks in a manner that results in slumping of the bank 28 and loss of eelgrass along the upper margin of the slope. Dredging activities also 29 have the potential to indirectly disturb this patch of eelgrass because of increased 30 turbidity, which eelgrass is extremely sensitive to. Given that eelgrass is 31 extremely sensitive to turbidity, a preconstruction eelgrass survey would be 32 performed prior to construction. A mitigation plan has been prepared to support 33 proposed dredging and will be submitted to NFMS for approval (refer to 34 Table 2-1) as part of the USCG consultation process. With implementation of the

4-11 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 BMPs in Table 2-1, including turbidity curtains and erosion control, a 2 preconstruction eelgrass survey, mitigation, and any additional BMPs required 3 following consultation with NMFS, potential direct impacts to eelgrass would be 4 minor.

5 Following the proposed dredging activities, existing USCG operations would 6 continue, and no additional in-water or overwater activity (e.g., infrastructure 7 development, seafloor modification, overwater shading, etc.) would occur. As 8 indicated previously, the USACE routinely conducts maintenance dredging of 9 the lower Columbia River to provide safe and reliable navigation for all vessels, 10 including larger ocean-going ships transporting goods into and out of the region. 11 Additionally, the lower Columbia River estuary and Baker Bay are regularly 12 trafficked by USCG vessels, commercial and recreational fishing boats, industrial 13 trade vessels, and cruise ships. Therefore, potential disturbance to EFH in the 14 vicinity of Station Cape Disappointment during operations would be consistent 15 with existing conditions.

16 Invasive Species

17 Regional and international vessel traffic increases the risk of introduction and 18 spread of invasive species on the coastline of Washington. Further, while the 19 highly invasive zebra and quagga mussels are known to occur in Washington, 20 these species have not been documented within the lower Columbia River 21 estuary or Columbia River Basin (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 22 2019). The Proposed Action could potentially spread invasive species with in- 23 water construction equipment with fouling by living marine organisms. To avoid 24 the potential spread of invasive species, all in-water construction equipment 25 would be inspected for fouling by living marine organisms before use in water 26 and before being towed to another location (refer to Table 2-1). If any invasive 27 species are discovered, a plan to prevent such spread should be developed and 28 implemented. Implementation of such an inspection and – if required – 29 development of a containment and eradication plan for any invasive species 30 identified would ensure that any potential impacts related to invasive species 31 would be negligible.

4-12 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 4.1.3 Impacts from No-Action Alternative

2 Under the No-Action Alternative, the USCG would not take action to return the 3 mooring basin area at Station Cape Disappointment to its previously maintained 4 depth of 10 feet below the MLLW mark. No direct or indirect impacts to existing 5 birds or marine biological resources would occur as a result of the No-Action 6 Alternative and conditions would remain as described in Section 3.1, Biological 7 Resources.

8 4.2 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

9 4.2.1 Approach to Analysis

10 Determination of consistency with the CZMA is based on effects rather than 11 geographic boundaries. Effects are determined by assessing reasonably 12 foreseeable direct and indirect effects on any coastal use or resource.

13 4.2.2 Impacts from Proposed Action

14 Under implementation of the Proposed Action, dredging of sediments in the 15 Station Cape Disappointment mooring basin and in-water disposal of dredged 16 sediments as described in Section 2.1, Proposed Action, would not result in any 17 long-term changes to existing shoreside or in-water coastal uses. Dredging 18 elements of the Proposed Action would occur entirely within the boundaries of 19 Station Cape Disappointment, a federal facility with potential for “spillover” 20 activities associated with the planned sediment disposal outside of the federal 21 facility. However, as discussed above (Section 4.1, Biological Resources) and below 22 (4.3, Water Quality, and 4.4, Noise), implementation of the Proposed Action would 23 not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal human or environmental 24 resources. Similar dredging and disposal conducted at Station Cape 25 Disappointment in 1992, 2001, and 2015 each resulted in findings that the dredge 26 and disposal activities were consistent to the maximum extent practicable with 27 applicable local plans, policies, and standards, including with both the State of 28 Washington’s Coastal Zone Management Program and Oregon’s Coastal Zone 29 Management Program.

4-13 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 For the Proposed Action, the USCG will consult with Washington Department of 2 Ecology to apply for a Coastal Zone Certificate of Consistency noting that the 3 project will obtain a State Water Quality Certification, Shoreline Management 4 Act exemption or permit, and SEPA approval prior to construction. The USCG 5 will also consult with Oregon LCDC to apply for a Coastal Zone Certificate of 6 Consistency noting that the project will be consistent with Statewide planning 7 goals and will obtain a water quality certification and removal/fill permit from 8 the State. The Proposed Action is consistent with local comprehensive planning 9 policies and would result in negligible effects to water quality, water resources, 10 water dependent uses, habitat, and aquatic species. Therefore, the Proposed 11 Action would have no adverse effect on coastal zone uses or resources and 12 would be consistent with the goals and objectives of both the Washington 13 Coastal Zone Management Program and Oregon Coastal Zone Management 14 Program.

15 4.2.3 Impacts from No-Action Alternative

16 Under the No-Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and 17 there would be no change to coastal uses or resources from the existing 18 condition. Industrial activities currently being conducted in the area would 19 continue shoreside and use of USCG vessels would continue as existing within 20 the boat basin until such time that sediment builds up to the degree that vessels 21 cannot safety operate in the boat basin. Therefore, under the No-Action 22 Alternative, there would be no impacts to existing coastal uses or resources and 23 the No-Action Alternative would be consistent with the goals and objectives of 24 both the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program and Oregon Coastal 25 Zone Management Program.

26 4.3 WATER RESOURCES

27 4.3.1 Approach to Analysis

28 Significance of potential impacts to water resources is based on water 29 availability, quality, and use; existence of floodplains and wetlands; and 30 associated regulations. An impact to water resources would be significant if it 31 would: 1) reduce water availability or interfere with the water supply of existing

4-14 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 users; 2) create or contribute to overdraft of groundwater basins or exceed safe 2 annual yield of water supply sources; 3) adversely affect water quality or 3 endanger public health by creating or worsening adverse health hazard 4 conditions; 4) threaten or damage unique hydrologic characteristics; or 5) violate 5 laws or regulations that have been established to protect or manage water 6 resources of an area.

7 A floodplain impact would be significant pursuant to NEPA if it results in 8 notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. Significant 9 encroachment on a floodplain would occur if it would: 1) have a high probability 10 of loss of human life; 2) have substantial, encroachment-associated costs or 11 damage; or 3) cause adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values.

12 4.3.2 Impacts from Proposed Action

13 Bathymetry and Circulation

14 Dredging operations would temporarily increase water movement in the area 15 where dredging is taking place, but the effect would be strictly limited to the 16 duration of the dredging period and work area and would not affect overall 17 water circulation within the Baker Bay as a whole. Further, the minor changes in 18 bathymetry resulting from dredge material removal (approximately 3,726 cy of 19 sediment during the initial dredge event) would not be sufficient to affect 20 circulation patterns in Baker Bay. Therefore, dredging associated with the 21 Proposed Action would not have a significant impact to bathymetry and 22 circulation.

23 Freshwater Quality

24 The Proposed Action includes in-water marine dredging and disposal activities. 25 Potential impacts to marine water quality are discussed below. The Proposed 26 Action would not result in impacts to freshwater or surface water quality, other 27 than those described under “Marine Water Quality” below. The Proposed Action 28 would continue to comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 29 (NPDES) Permit requirements, with no proposed changes to surface water 30 management or discharge practices. The project would not have the potential to

4-15 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 alter or otherwise impact drainage patterns or surface water flows in the Project 2 Area. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action would not significantly 3 impact upland surface water quality.

4 Marine Water Quality

5 Dredging is planned to be completed using a barge-mounted clamshell bucket or 6 backhoe dredge or pipeline dredge. Potential sources of impacts to marine water 7 quality associated with dredging activities include accidental release of vessel 8 and equipment fuels or hydraulic fluids and increased turbidity as bottom 9 sediments become resuspended in the water column during the dredging 10 process.

11 Under the Proposed Action, dredging activities lasting approximately one week 12 would require the temporary operation of barge mounted pipeline, clamshell, or 13 backhoe dredges. Operation of such equipment would be a potential pollution 14 source that could adversely affect water quality in the event of accidental spill or 15 release of fuels or hydraulic fluids. Accidental releases from vessels and 16 equipment would be limited and prevented by proper maintenance, inspection, 17 and operation of vessels and equipment, and implementation BMPs including 18 spillage control and prepared spill / sheen response materials. See Table 2-1 for a 19 list of BMPs that would be implemented. Surface booms, oil-absorbent pads, and 20 similar materials would be maintained onsite to contain any sheen that may 21 occur on the surface of the water during dredging. In the event of an accidental 22 release, cleanup procedures would take place; booms and other spill containment 23 equipment kept on hand would be immediately deployed.

24 Under Section 401 of the CWA, a federal agency may not issue a permit or 25 license to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into waters of the 26 United States unless a Section 401 Water Quality Certification is issued, verifying 27 compliance with water quality requirements, or certification is waived. Section 28 10 of the RHA provides for USACE permit requirements for any in-water 29 construction, including dredging and any obstruction or alteration of navigable 30 waters; Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act 31 enables the USACE to regulate transportation of dredged sediments for dumping 32 into ocean waters. These permits would apply to all in-water components of the

4-16 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Proposed Action and the USCG would obtain all applicable permits and comply 2 with all permit conditions during dredging activities.

3 Given the short-term nature of activities associated with the Proposed Action 4 and the inclusion of BMPs and waste management procedures during all project 5 activities, potential for contaminated water runoff to enter marine waters would 6 be negligible.

7 Sediment sampling conducted in the Project Area in October 2020 indicated that 8 sediment is predominately sand. Because sands tend to settle out quickly, 9 sediments suspended by dredging are expected to resettle within a few hours. 10 The Action Area is not subject to fast-moving currents. For this reason, in 11 addition to the sandy composition of the sediment, the dredging plume is 12 expected to largely remain localized with minimal drifting. Additionally, BMPs 13 implemented during the Proposed Action would include installation of turbidity 14 curtains and thereby further prevent spread of sediment plume. Therefore, 15 increases in turbidity would be low because of the physical characteristics 16 (mainly sand) of the dredge sediments and would be limited to the immediate 17 vicinity of the operation.

18 Sediment disturbance may cause resuspension of sediment and has the potential 19 to release the pollutants. However, results from the 2020 sediment sampling 20 indicated that contaminant concentrations of sediments within the Action Area 21 are below known aquatic toxicity levels and would be suitable for unconfined 22 aquatic disposal following USEPA and USACE review. As a result, the in-water 23 disturbances are considered minor, temporary, and within background 24 conditions for an area that has been historically dredged and likely regularly 25 experiences sediment disturbance from marine vessel traffic within shallow 26 shoals. Therefore, impacts related to turbidity would be minor.

27 As discussed above (Section 4.1.2, Impacts from Proposed Action), increased 28 turbidity may result in temporary decreases in light penetration and levels of 29 dissolved oxygen. Because the material to be dredged is estimated to be mostly 30 sand and previous sampling conducted in the Project Area did not indicate 31 elevated levels of contaminants, it is unlikely that temporary turbidity associated 32 with dredging would mobilize significant levels of dissolved-phase

4-17 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 contaminants into the water column. Impacts to water quality due to increased 2 turbidity, therefore, would not be significant.

3 Two in-water disposal locations in Clatsop County, Oregon have been proposed: 4 1) Baker Bay Flowlane Disposal (BB-3), and 2) Flowlane Area D (see Figure 2). A 5 beneficial reuse site to be determined may be used for disposal if these sites are 6 deemed unsuitable. The sediment characterization report will be provided to 7 USEPA and USACE for review and comment on potential sediment disposal 8 options. It is anticipated that the sediment characterization and chemistry test 9 results will meet the allowable parameters for unconfined aquatic disposal since 10 physical characteristic of sediments (mostly sand) do not retain contaminants as 11 readily as silty fine material. USEPA and USACE have determined that 12 sediments are suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal for unconfined aquatic 13 disposal. Currently, the USCG is evaluating disposal options.

14 The Flow Lanes site is designated for disposal of dredged material that has been 15 evaluated by the permitting criteria of USACE and USEPA and authorized for 16 dumping under Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 17 Act. In-water disposal of dredged sediments would cause short-term impacts to 18 marine water quality in the immediate vicinity of the flow lanes at the time of 19 disposal. Currents would disperse the dredged material into a plume with 20 locally increased turbidity, and possibly decreased dissolved oxygen, but the 21 plume is anticipated to dilute to negligible concentration within a few hours. 22 Increased turbidity associated with ocean disposal of the project dredge 23 sediments would be short-term and spatially restricted. Thus, impacts associated 24 with dredging and disposal would not be significant.

25 In summary, procedures would be followed to reduce impacts to a level of 26 insignificance. Impacts to marine surface water quality from sediment dredging 27 and disposal would not be significant because of compliance with USACE and 28 USEPA permit requirements.

29 Wetlands

30 Baker Bay is largely mapped as marine and estuarine NWI mapped wetlands. 31 The footprint where dredging would occur (see Photo 1) is narrowly located

4-18 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 outside of the adjacent 1.52-acre estuarine and marine wetland. The Proposed 2 Action would involve dredging up to 12 feet below MLLW within the existing 3 mooring basin footprint. Dredging activities would remove approximately 4 3,726 cy of sediment which would then be disposed of at a separate site. Because 5 the wetlands overlap waters as described above, potential impacts to wetlands 6 are similar to those previously described. Implementation of BMPs listed in 7 Table 2-1 would support avoidance and minimization of potential adverse effects 8 on wetlands and other waters of the United States. Therefore, implementation of 9 the Proposed Action would have no impact on wetlands.

10 Groundwater Quality

11 The Proposed Action proposes in-water marine dredging activities only; no 12 coastal or upland ground-disturbing activities are proposed. Implementation of 13 the Proposed Action would not alter the permeability of ground surfaces or 14 otherwise affect groundwater recharge. No groundwater would be withdrawn 15 from a well or any other source for drinking water during or after 16 implementation of the Proposed Action. No septic systems or other sewage / 17 industrial discharges would be associated with the Proposed Action. 18 Additionally, implementation of the Proposed Action would not affect the 19 personnel levels or operation tempo at the Station; therefore, no new water 20 supply wells would be constructed, and no changes to groundwater withdrawal 21 are expected. Therefore, there is no potential for direct or indirect impacts to 22 occur relative to groundwater supplies or groundwater quality.

23 Floodplains and Flood Hazards

24 The Proposed Action would perform dredging to return the existing mooring 25 basin to its previously maintained depth of 10 feet below MLLW. No 26 improvements or modifications to land facilities or landforms would occur. As 27 described in Section 3.3, Water Resources, the Station is located within a 100-year 28 flood AE Zone. However, all activities under the Proposed Action would take 29 place offshore / in-water and would not be affected by floodplains. Therefore, 30 the Proposed Action would have no significant adverse impacts on floodplains 31 or flood hazard risk.

4-19 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 4.3.3 Impacts from No-Action Alternative

2 Under the No-Action Alternative, the USCG would not take action to return the 3 mooring basin area at Station Cape Disappointment to its previously maintained 4 depth of 10 feet below the MLLW mark. No direct or indirect impacts to water 5 resources would occur as a result of implementation of the No-Action 6 Alternative.

7 4.4 NOISE

8 4.4.1 Approach to Analysis

9 Noise impact analyses typically evaluate potential changes to existing noise 10 environments that would result from an action. Potential changes in the noise 11 environment can be beneficial (i.e., if they reduce the number of sensitive 12 receptors exposed to unacceptable noise levels), negligible (i.e., if the total area 13 exposed to unacceptable noise levels is essentially unchanged), or adverse (i.e., if 14 they result in increased exposure to unacceptable noise levels). An increase in 15 noise levels due to introduction of a new noise source can impact the 16 surrounding environment. Noise associated with a Proposed Action is compared 17 with existing noise to determine the magnitude of potential impacts. Noise 18 impacts as they relate to sensitive species are discussed in Section 4.1, Biological 19 Resources.

20 A noise impact would be considered significant if the action would cause noise- 21 sensitive areas to experience an increase in noise of 1.5 dB or more at or above 22 the 65 Day-Night Average A-weighted Sound Level (DNL) noise exposure when 23 compared with the noise level for the No-Action Alternative for the same 24 timeframe. As a general rule, a 3-dB change is necessary for noise increases to be 25 noticeable to humans (Bies and Hansen 1988).

26 4.4.2 Impacts from Proposed Action

27 As described in Section 3.4, Noise, ambient noise in the vicinity of the Station is 28 characteristic of a busy harbor environment, with sounds associated with boat 29 traffic (e.g., motors, sonar, etc.), as well as general USCG activities, including

4-20 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 horn blasts, public address system announcements, daily search and rescue 2 alarm testing, power washing and sanding of vessels, small arms firing, and 3 helicopter landings (USCG 2007).

4 Dredging activities under the Proposed Action would generate noise that may 5 include dredge engine and exhaust noise; crane engine and exhaust noise; rope 6 noise and bucket water splash; and various noises associated with the boom and 7 grab, the bucket hitting the bottom during dredge, and the bucket closing and 8 opening during operation. Based on a previous study conducted in both coarse 9 sand/gravel and unconsolidated sediment, the underwater noise associated with 10 bucket clamshell dredging operations is anticipated to range from 99 dB for the 11 bucket closing to 124 dB for the bucket contacting the bottom (Jones et al. 2015), 12 which is less than background ambient noise levels anticipated for the area. In 13 addition, the Proposed Action is expected to require the use of one or two 14 working barges that likely operate at a levels from 169 to 181 dB. This sound 15 level is comparable to the existing USCG vessels as well as commercial, 16 recreational, or fishing vessels traveling through the Project Area to and from the 17 marina in Ilwaco or in the larger Columbia River estuary.

18 Noise generated from implementation of the Proposed Action would be short- 19 term and temporary in nature, as the Proposed Action is expected to require only 20 one week to complete. After the proposed dredging operations are completed, 21 noise levels would immediately return to ambient levels presently found in the 22 area, as described in Section 3.4, Noise. No long-term noise effects would occur as 23 a result of implementation of the Proposed Action. Overall, the potential noise 24 effects from the Proposed Action would be minimal, short-term, consistent with 25 background noise levels, and less than significant.

26 4.4.3 Impacts from No-Action Alternative

27 Under the No-Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur and 28 there would be no change to baseline noise levels as described in Section 3.4, 29 Noise. Industrial activities currently being conducted in the area would continue, 30 and the area’s acoustical environment would remain unchanged. Therefore, no 31 significant impacts due to the noise environment would occur with 32 implementation of the No-Action Alternative.

4-21 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 This page intentionally left blank.

4-22 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 SECTION 5 2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

3 Cumulative impacts on environmental resources result from incremental impacts 4 of the Proposed Action, which, when combined with other past, present, and 5 reasonably foreseeable future projects in an affected area, may collectively cause 6 more substantial impacts. Cumulative impacts can result from minor but 7 collectively substantial actions undertaken over a period of time by various 8 federal, state, or local agencies or persons. In accordance with the NEPA, a 9 discussion of cumulative impacts resulting from projects that are proposed, 10 under construction, recently completed, or anticipated to be implemented in the 11 near future is required.

12 5.1 PROJECTS CONSIDERED

13 Because of the primarily localized coastal impacts anticipated from the Proposed 14 Action, the impact analysis of cumulative projects is limited to proposed or 15 recently approved (i.e., within the previous 5 years) projects within or along the 16 lower Columbia River and Baker Bay. Because the Proposed Action primarily 17 involves in-water work, only projects within 1 mile of the coast and within 18 5 miles of the project area were evaluated. A summary of each is provided in 19 Table 5-1.

5-1 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Table 5-1. Cumulative Projects and Plans

Implementation Project Address Description Status US Coast Guard (USCG) Maintenance and Repair of Station Cape Planned Repair and/or replace pier pilings and decking. Waterfront Facilities Disappointment Station Cape Repair outdated sewer lift and increase capacity to handle existing Sewage Lift Repair Disappointment Planned operational needs. No in-water or over-water work will be conducted to support this project. Station Cape Repair or replace existing electrical systems on the pier. No new Electrical Utility Repair Planned Disappointment transformers or power mounds will be added. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) A multi-year effort performing critical repairs to the North and South Jetties at the mouth of the Columbia River to ensure continued function Mouth of the Columbia of these structures. The jetties prevent sand deposition within the Mouth of the River Jetty Rehabilitation In-Process USACE’s maintained federal navigation channel. Construction on the Columbia River Project North Jetty began in 2018 and is expected to be completed in 2020 while work on the South Jetty began in 2019 and is expected to be completed in 2023. Port of Ilwaco Construction is complete and boat deconstruction is expected to begin on January 1, 2021. Structure includes 6,000 square foot facility located Port of Ilwaco Boat 165 Howerton Ilwaco, In-Process at a former boatyard in the Port. The facility will deconstruct and Deconstruction Facility Washington recycle derelict vessels including safe handling of oil. Lead, asbestos, or other toxic substances that may be associated with old vessels.

5-2 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 5.2 EVALUATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

2 The exact timing of the development for the projects in Table 5-1 is not yet 3 known; however, a number of these projects may be implemented concurrently 4 with the Proposed Action. Nevertheless, given the minor and negligible impacts 5 anticipated under implementation of the action alternatives the cumulative 6 environmental impacts to previously dismissed resources along with biological 7 resources, coastal zone management, water quality, and noise would also be less 8 than significant or negligible.

9 Biological Resources

10 As described in Section 4.1, Biological Resources, the implementation of the 11 Proposed Action would have negligible impacts to terrestrial biological 12 resources. Because of the distance from the Station to each of the cumulative 13 projects, cumulative impacts to terrestrial biological resources would not occur.

14 The Proposed Action would result in less than significant impacts to aquatic 15 biological resources with the implementation of BMPs identified in Table 2-1. Of 16 the cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1, only the future repair and/or 17 replacement of pier pilings at Station Cape Disappointment and the USACE 18 Mouth of the Columbia River Jetty System Rehabilitation Project, would involve 19 in-water work at or near the Station Cape Disappointment. This cumulative 20 project, specifically work on the North Jetty in closest proximity to the Station 21 could result in impacts to marine biological resources from water quality 22 degradation, including a temporary increase in turbidity and sedimentation, 23 which could temporarily disturb foraging activities of the California least tern, 24 special-status fish, and marine mammals. However, as described in Section 4.1, 25 Biological Resources, such disturbances are not expected to substantially impact 26 aquatic biological resources because of the implementation of BMPs that are 27 expected to be reasonably similar to those employed as part of the Proposed 28 Action. Consequently, cumulative impacts to aquatic biological resources would 29 be less than significant.

5-3 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Coastal Zone Management

2 All cumulative projects that would require compliance with the CZMA would be 3 required to comply and demonstrate consistency with the CZMA by obtaining a 4 Coastal Zone Certificate of Consistency from the Washington Department of 5 Ecology and Oregon LCDC. Given the location of the Proposed Action in a 6 federally controlled environment, those projects not anticipated within the 7 jurisdiction of the USCG at Station Cape Disappointment would not influence 8 coastal zone consistency there. Consequently, cumulative impacts to coastal 9 zone management – evaluated on a project-by-project basis by Washington 10 Department of Ecology or Oregon LCDC – would be negligible.

11 Water Resources

12 With the implementation of BMPs as well as compliance with all required permit 13 conditions (e.g., CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification and CWA Section 14 404 Nationwide Permit) impacts to water resources as a result of the Proposed 15 Action would be less than significant and limited to the duration of dredging.

16 The cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 would be required to comply with all 17 applicable federal, state, and local water resource protection requirements, 18 including requirements that construction activities that disturb 1 or more acres 19 are regulated under the NPDES. Similar to the Proposed Action, all cumulative 20 development would be required to implement BMPs for minimizing and 21 containing dust, debris, and fuels or other potentially hazardous materials 22 during construction, or in the case of the Boat Deconstruction Facility, for the life 23 of that project. Additionally, in-water demolition or construction activities would 24 require a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification and CWA Section 404 25 Permit. With implementation of BMPs and all required permit conditions, 26 cumulative impacts to water resources would be less than significant.

27 Noise

28 Depending on their individual timing, cumulative construction activities could 29 result in additional short-term temporary noise impacts. Nevertheless, as with

5-4 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 construction activities included in the Proposed Action, short-term temporary 2 noise would be compatible with that of the existing commercial and industrial 3 port land use types in the vicinity of Station Cape Disappointment. Cumulative 4 projects further afield from the Project Area, including ongoing USACE work at 5 the North and South Jetties at the mouth of the Columbia River, expected to 6 continue through 2023, would generate construction noise above ambient sound 7 levels that would be limited to individual construction timelines and would not 8 introduce new, permanent noise generating uses. Further, no significant long- 9 term operational noise impacts would be expected in the vicinity of the Station 10 because there would be no changes to operations at Station Cape 11 Disappointment.

5-5 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 This page intentionally left blank.

5-6 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 SECTION 6 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

3 A summary of environmental impacts anticipated to result from the Proposed 4 Action is provided in Table 6-1.

5 Table 6-1. Summary of Potential Impacts on Affected Environmental 6 Resources

Potential Impacts (Classification Environmental Resource and Duration) of the Proposed (with Subcategory as identified) Action Terrestrial Negligible; Short term Migratory Birds Negligible; Short term Biological Resources Aquatic Minor; Short term Threatened and Endangered Minor; Short term Species Coastal Zone Management No impact Freshwater Surface Waters Negligible; Short term Marine Surface Waters Minor; Short term Water Resources Wetlands Minor; Short term Groundwater Negligible; Short term Floodplains and Flood Hazards Minor; Short term Noise Minor; Short term 7 Key 8 Negligible: The action would result in no noticeable effects, beneficial or adverse, over existing conditions. 9 Minor: The action would result in a limited effect, beneficial or adverse, over existing conditions.

6-1 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 This page intentionally left blank.

6-2 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 SECTION 7 2 REFERENCES

3 Banner and Hyatt. 1973. Effects of Noise on Eggs and Larvae of Two Estuarine 4 Fishes

5 Bies, D. and Hansen, C. 1988. “Engineering Noise Control.”

6 Blackwell and Greene. 2002. Acoustic Measurements in Cook Inlet, Alaska, 7 During August 2001.

8 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2015. Technical Guidance for 9 Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on 10 Fish. November 2015.

11 Cox, M., and P.H. Rogers. 1987. “Automated Noninvasive Motion Measurement 12 of Auditory Organs in Fish Using Ultrasound.” Journal of Vibration, 13 Acoustics, Stress, and Reliability in Design 109 (1): 55–59.

14 DEFRA. 2003. A Review of Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and its 15 Effects Report for Defra by Dr Geoff Leventhall Assisted by Dr Peter 16 Pelmear and Dr Stephen Benton, May 2003

17 Enger, Per S. 1981. “Frequency Discrimination in Teleosts - Central or 18 Peripheral?” In Hearing and Sound Communications in Fishes, 243–55. 19 Proceedings in Life Sciences.

20 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON). 1992. “Federal Agency 21 Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues.” 1992. 22 https://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/reports_noise_analysis.pdf.

23 FEMA. 2020. FEMA Floodplain mapping. Accessed through: 24 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home, December 2020

25 Gable, C. 2010. Hazards of dredging: Baker Bay. Retrieved from: 26 https://www.chinookobserver.com/news/hazards-of-dredging-baker- 27 bay/article_c2855fac-0f83-5e72-b615-b6e8edebd7b3.html

28 Galli et al. 2003. Boat source-level noise in Haro strait: Relevance to Orca whales. 29 Orca vocalization and localization (OVAL),” accessed through: 30 http://www2.coloradocollege.edu/dept/ev/Research/Faculty/OVALIte 31 ms/FinalRptWeb/finalAll.html (Last viewed 12/3/12).

7-1 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB). 2000. The Columbia River 2 Estuary and the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. 3 Northwest Power Planning Council. National Marine Fisheries Service. 4 November 28, 2000. ISAB 2000-5.

5 Jones, D., K. Marten, and K. Harris. 2015. Underwater Sound from Dredging 6 Activities: Establishing Source Levels and Modelling the Propagation of 7 Underwater Sound. CEDA Dredging Days 2015: Innovative dredging 8 solutions for ports, Rotterdam, the Netherlands – Proceedings.

9 Judd, C., R. Thom, A. Borde, D. Woodruff, C. Roegner, J. Vavrinec, Z. Yang, and 10 J. Zhang. 2009. Eelgrass Enhancement and Restoration in the Lower 11 Columbia River Estuary. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 12 September 2009.

13 Lower Columbia Estuary Program (LCEP). 2020a. Facts About the River. 14 Retrieved from: https://www.estuarypartnership.org/learn

15 _____. 2020b. River Species. Retrieved from: 16 https://www.estuarypartnership.org/river-species

17 Matzner & Jones. 2011. Measuring Coastal Boating Noise to Assess Potential 18 Impacts on Marine Life, Sea Technology; Journal ID: ISSN 0093-3651, July 19 1, 2011. Accessed through: Measuring Coastal Boating Noise to Assess 20 Potential Impacts on Marine Life (Journal Article) | OSTI.GOV

21 McKenna. 2011. Underwater radiated noise from modern commercial ships, 22 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, 23 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, California 92093-0205. Accessed through: 24 untitled (ucsd.edu)

25 Meier and Horseman. 1977. The effects of man-made noise on the behavior of 26 marine animals. Environment International Volume 16, Issues 4–6, 1990.

27 Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2020. U.S. Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment - 28 Baseline Eelgrass Survey. September 2020.

29 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2017. West Coast Region Hood Canal 30 Summer-run Chum. Accessed through: 31 http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_ste 32 elhead/salmon_and_steelhead_listings/chum/hood_canal_summer_run/ 33 hood_canal_summer_run_chum.html

7-2 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2014. California 2 Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Implementing Guidelines.

3 NOAA. 2020a. Endangered Species Conservation. Lower Columbia River 4 Steelhead. Retrieved through: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west- 5 coast/endangered-species-conservation/lower-columbia-river- 6 steelhead#:~:text=DPS%20Description%3A%20This%20distinct%20popul 7 ation,and%20Hood%20Rivers%20(inclusive).

8 NOAA. 2020b. Endangered Species Conservation. Middle Columbia River 9 Steelhead. Retrieved through: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west- 10 coast/endangered-species-conservation/middle-columbia-river- 11 steelhead#:~:text=DPS%20Description%3A%20This%20distinct%20popul 12 ation,and%20including%20the%20Yakima%20River.

13 Nightingale, Barbara and Simenstad, Charles. 2001. “Dredging Activities: Marine 14 Issues.” University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105-4631: 15 Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC). 16 http://depts.washington.edu/trac/bulkdisk/pdf/507.1a.pdf.

17 Pacific Coast Joint Venture. 1994. “Joint Venture Implementation Plans for the 18 Lower Columbia River.” 1994. http://www.pacificbirds.org/wp- 19 content/uploads/2015/03/lower_columbia_river.pdf.

20 Popper, A.N., and N.L. Clark. 1976. “The Auditory System of the Goldfish 21 (Carassius Auratus): Effects of Intense Acoustic Stimulation.” 22 Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 53A: 11–18.

23 Reine et al. 2014. Characterization of underwater sounds produced by hydraulic 24 and mechanical dredging operations Kevin J. Reinea and Douglas Clarke, 25 Environmental Laboratory, Wetlands and Coastal Ecology Branch, U.S. 26 Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry 27 Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180

28 Richardson, W.J., C.R. Green Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine 29 Mammals and Noise, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

30 Sebastianutto et al. 2011. How boat noise affects an ecologically crucial 31 behaviour. October 2011, Environmental Biology of Fishes 92(2):207-215, 32 DOI: 10.1007

33 Sherwood C, D Jay, R Harvey, P Hamilton, and C Simenstad. 1990. Historical 34 Changes in the Columbia River Estuary. In: Progress in Oceanography (M 35 Angel and R Smith, Editors), pp. 299-311.

7-3 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Tetra Tech. 1992. Lower Columbia River Bi-State Program Reconnaissance 2 Survey of the Lower Columbia River. Task 4: Review of Biological 3 Indicators to Support Recommendations on a Biological Monitoring 4 Approach. February 1992.

5 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014. Biological Assessment 6 for the Continued Operations and Maintenance Dredging Program for the 7 Columbia River Federal Navigation Channel. March 2014.

8 U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 2007. “Construction Projects at Station Cape 9 Disappointment, Ilwaco, Washington. Biological Assessment.” April 2007.

10 _____. 2020. “Biological Assessment for the Maintenance Dredging Project at 11 USCG Station Cape Disappointment, Baker Bay, Ilwaco, Washington.” 12 November 2020.

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1973. “Impact Characterization 14 of Noise Including Implications of Identifying and Achieving Levels of 15 Cumulative Noise Exposure.”

16 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened 17 marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), USFWS Region 1.

18 _____. 2011. Marbled Murrelet Species Profile. 19 https://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/MM/m_murrelet.html

20 _____. 2020. “Listing and Critical Habitat Frequently Asked Questions.” January 21 30, 2020. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/critical- 22 habitats-faq.html.

23 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Eelgrass/Macroalgae 24 Habitat Interim Survey Guidelines. (Rev. June 16, 2008).

25 _____. 2019. Federal, state, and tribal governments join forces to practice 26 emergency response should invasive mussels infest Washington. Waters. 27 https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/partners-prepare-for-invasive-mussels

28 _____. 2020. “Aquatic Invasive Species of Greatest Concern.” 2020. 29 https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/invasive/greatest-concern.

30 Washington Department of Game. 1984. “Marine Mammals of the Columbia 31 River Estuary,” January, 93.

32 Washington Invasive Species Council. 2020. “Priority Species.” 2020.

7-4 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN). 2020. Columbia 2 River Estuary. Retrieved from: https://whsrn.org/whsrn_sites/columbia- 3 river-estuary/https://invasivespecies.wa.gov/find-a-priority-species/.

4 Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2020. Watershed look up 5 accessed through: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water- 6 supply/Water-availability/Watershed-look-up

7 Washington State Department of Transportation. 2014. “Marbled Murrelet 8 Effects Thresholds.” February 21, 2014. 9 https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2017/12/12/ENV-FW- 10 MamuThresholds.pdf.

11 Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network [WHSRN]. 2020. Accessed 12 through: https://whsrn.org/

7-5 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 This page intentionally left blank.

7-6 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 SECTION 8 2 LIST OF PREPARERS

3 This report was prepared for, and under the direction of, Gilda Barboza and 4 William Robinson with the USCG by Wood Environment & Infrastructure 5 Solutions, Inc. Members of the professional staff are as follows:

6 Project Manager

7 Erin Hale 8 B.S. Hydrology and Natural Resource Science

9 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control

10 Aaron Goldschmidt 11 M.A. Geography

12 Environmental Analysts

13 Sydnie Margallo 14 B.S. Environmental Management and Protection

15 Ashlyn Navarro 16 B.A. Environmental Studies

17 Production

18 Janice Depew 19 Document Management

20 Lana Cary 21 Graphics

8-1 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

1 This page intentionally left blank.

8-2 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

Appendix A

Agency Distribution List

Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

This page intentionally left blank.

DISTRIBUTION LIST

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Evan G. Carnes Senior Project Manager (541) 867-0522 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NWS [email protected] Regulatory Branch, SW WA Field Office Ryan McReynolds Office: (206) 316-3049 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey Cell: (360) 553-6978 WA [email protected] Consultation & Conservation Planning Division Theogene Mbabaliye, Federal Activities / Coastal, NEPA Reviewer Lowland Aquatics, and Marine US Environmental Protection [email protected] Agency Region 10 (Pacific Northwest) 1200 6 th Avenue Park Place Building Seattle, WA 98101 [email protected] (206) 553-6322

Elizabeth Babcock, Branch Chief, North Puget Sound NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 7600 Sand Point Way Northeast

Seattle, WA 98040

Public Involvement Plan for Environmental Assessment at USCG Station Cape Disappointment

STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES

Allyson Brooks Ph.D., Loree Randall, State Historic Preservation Officer & Federal Consistency Coordinator Director Washington State Department of Washington Department of Ecology Archaeology and Historic Coastal Zone Management Program Preservation 310 Maple Park Ave., Southeast 1110 S. Capitol Way, Suite 30 PO Box 47600 PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 Olympia, WA 98501 [email protected] [email protected] (360) 407-6068 O: (360) 586-3066 C: (360) 480-6922 Justin Zweifel, NEPA/SEPA Compliance Lisa Wood, Washington State Department of SEPA/NEPA Coordinator Transportation Washington Department of Fish and 310 Maple Park Ave., Southeast Wildlife Olympia, WA 98504 Habitat Program, Protection [email protected] Division (360) 705-7492 P.O. Box 43200 Olympia, WA 98504 Zane Johnson (Planner) and Tim [email protected] Crose (Director), (360) 902-2260 Pacific County 7013 Sandridge Road Meg Bommarito, Long Beach, WA 98631 Northwest Division Coordinator [email protected] Washington Department of Ecology [email protected] Environmental Review Section 300 Desmond Dr. Southeast Todd Phillips, Director Lacey, WA 98503 Washington State Department of [email protected] Health Office of Environmental Health and Safety Tumwater, WA 98501 243 Israel Road SE (360) 236-3302 [email protected]

Public Involvement Plan Environmental Assessment at USCG Cape Disappointment

Mary Verner, State-Federal Relations Coordinator, Program Manager Oregon Coastal Management Washington State Department of Program Ecology Oregon Department of Land Water Resources Program Conservation and Development PO Box 47600 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 Olympia, WA 98504 Salem, OR 97301-2540 [email protected] 503-956-8163 [email protected] Washington Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Resources Division John Pouley, State Archaeologist MS 47027 Oregon Parks and Recreation Olympia, WA 98504 Department (360) 902-1100 Oregon Heritage/State Historic [email protected] Preservation Office 725 Summer Street NE, Suite C

Salem, OR 97301 Lauren Bauernschmidt (503) 986-0690 Pacific County Habitat Biologist [email protected] Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife Office: (360) 249-1217 Mobile: (360) 480-2558 [email protected]

Jeff Brittain Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 401 Program Oregon DEQ (503) 229-5395 [email protected]

Robert Lobdell Oregon Department of State Lands Aquatic Resource Coordinator Oregon Department of State Lands Office – (503) 986-5282 Cell – (503) 580-2747 [email protected]

Deanna Caracciolo

Public Involvement Plan Environmental Assessment at USCG Cape Disappointment

TRIBES AND INTERESTED PARTIES

Kerry Tymchuk, Executive Director

Oregon Historical Society The Honorable Tony Johnson, Chair 1200 SW Park Ave Chinook Indian Nation Portland, OR 97205 PO Box 368

Bay Center, WA 98527

Dan Penn, Acting THPO

Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis

P.O. Box 536,

Howanut Rd

Oakville, WA 98568

Jordan Mercier, Cultural Protection

Confederated Tribes of the Grande

Ronde

8720 Grand Ronde Road

Grand Ronde, OR 97347

Roberta Kirk, Assistant THPO

Confederated Tribes of Warm Spring

PO Box 460

Warm Springs, OR 97761

Justine James, Cultural Resources Quinault Nation 124 Aalis Drive, Building C PO Box 189 Taholah, WA 98587-0189

Earl Davis, Cultural Resources Shoalwater Bay Tribe PO Box 130 Tokeland, WA 98590

Jennifer Kilmer, Director Washington State Historical Society 1911 Pacific Avenue Tacoma, WA 98402

Public Involvement Plan Environmental Assessment at USCG Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

Appendix B

Scoping Letter and Agency Response

Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

This page intentionally left blank.

Commanding Officer 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N United States Coast Guard Oakland, CA 94612-5203 Shore Infrastructure Logistics Staff Symbol: EMB Center Phone: (510) 637-5567 Email: [email protected]

16475 12 November 2020

Dear Interested Party:

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is proposing to conduct maintenance dredging at its USCG Station Cape Disappointment, located in Baker Bay, Washington. USCG Station Cape Disappointment’s missions include maritime homeland security, search and rescue, and maritime law enforcement; it is also home to the USCG’s Motor Life Boat School. The USCG proposes to dredge to maintain operational depth at the mooring basin, and will also expand its dredge footprint to include the boat haul out to be able to move vessels safety about and support the USCG missions. The USCG will be preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to address the potential environmental effects of the project. The purpose of this letter is to provide interested parties notification of the proposed project and provide an opportunity for input.

Dredging will return the mooring basin area at Station Cape Disappointment to its previously dredged depth of 10 feet below the mean lower low water (MLLW) mark (MLLW is the average height of the lowest tide recorded each day), plus an additional 2 feet of over depth allowance, bringing the total depth to -12 feet MLLW. The last maintenance dredge event of the mooring basin occurred in 2001, during which 10,000 cubic yards (CY) of sediment were dredged; emergency dredging in 2015 removed an additional 125 CY of sediment. In addition to restoring the original depth of the mooring basin, the project also includes the expansion of the total dredged area to 4.2 acres from 2.4 acres to include the adjacent boat haul out (see Enclosure 1). This will result in the removal of approximately 3,726 CY of sediment total.

The location for disposal of the dredged sediments will be finalized following suitability testing; prior evaluations suggest that sediments from the project area are suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal, but sediments will be sampled and tested prior to the beginning of dredging for this project. Two in-water disposal locations in Clatsop County, Oregon have been proposed: 1) Baker Bay Flowlane Disposal (BB-3), and 2) Flowlane Area D (see Enclosure 2). A beneficial reuse site to be determined may be used for disposal if these sites are deemed unsuitable. Only previously used and/or permitted

SUBJ: SCOPING LETTER – PROPOSED DREDGING AT USCG STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT, WASHINGTON

locations would be considered. Sediment disposal would adhere to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401, and River and Harbors Act Section 10 regulatory programs.

The USCG intends to prepare an EA that evaluates the potential effects on the environment for a range of alternatives and the No Action Alternative. The Draft EA is expected to be released for public review in February 2021. The EA will include the purpose and need for the project; a detailed description of alternatives under consideration; the affected environment; environmental consequences for each alternatives; and cumulative effects of the project.

The USCG respectfully requests your review of the project, as stated in this letter, and is soliciting input on the scope of the EA and environmental concerns or information that your agency or organization may have relevant to the action being considered. Please provide any comments by 5:00 pm on November 27, 2020 to Ms. Erin Hale by email at [email protected] or by mail at Erin Hale, Wood, 15862 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 150, Portland, OR 97224.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

David W. Stalters Chief, Environmental Management Branch By Direction of the Commanding Officer

Enclosure: Figure 1 – Proposed Dredge Locations at USCG Station Cape Disappointment Figure 2 – Proposed Dredge Disposal Locations at USCG Station Cape Disappointment

Page 2 of 2

Ilwaco Dredge Area Inset: LEGEND:

Dredge Area B a k e r B a y

0 250 500 B a k e r B a y Feet

Cape Disappointment

SITE C o l u m b i a R i v e r VICINITY ^_

0 1,250 2,500

Feet DATE UNITED STATES STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT NOVEMBER 2020

K SCALE H J

: ILWACO, WASHINGTON

Y COAST GUARD B

1 " = 2,500 feet D E K C

E PROJECT NO. H C Wood Environment & D 336010028 S

: PROPOSED Y B Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. FIGURE N

W 15862 SW 72nd Ave., Suite 150

A DREDGE LOCATION R

D Portland, OR 97224 1 K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_EA\Figure 1 - Proposed Dredge Location.mxd - stephane.descombes - 11/9/2020 - 7:32:53 AM LEGEND:

Dredge Area Dredge Disposal Site (approximate)

B a k e r B a y

Sand Island

Chinook

Washington Oregon Sand Island BB-3

W a s O h r i e n g g o to C o l u m b i a R i v e r n n

Area D

Clatsop Spit

0 2,000 4,000

Feet DATE UNITED STATES STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT NOVEMBER 2020

K SCALE H J

: ILWACO, WASHINGTON

Y COAST GUARD B

1 " = 4,000 feet D E K C

E PROJECT NO. H C Wood Environment & D 336010028 S

: PROPOSED IN-WATER DREDGE Y B Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. FIGURE N

W 15862 SW 72nd Ave., Suite 150

A DISPOSAL LOCATIONS R

D Portland, OR 97224 2 K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_EA\Figure 2 - Proposed In-Water Dredge Disposal Locations.mxd - stephane.descombes - 11/9/2020 - 7:25:33 AM The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Commanding Officer 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N United States Coast Guard Oakland, CA 94612 Civil Engineering Unit Oakland Staff Symbol: EMB Phone: (510) 637-5567

5090 20 November 2020 Dan Penn, Acting THPO Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation P.O. Box 536, Howanut Road Oakville, WA 98568

Dear Mr. Penn:

The US Coast Guard (USCG) intends to perform maintenance dredging at USCG Station Cape Disappointment near Ilwaco, Pacific County, Washington and to dispose of dredged material at an in- water site in Clatsop County, Oregon (see Enclosure 1 for a location map showing the location of the proposed undertaking and Area of Potential Effects [APE] for dredging; see Enclosure 2 for a location map showing the APE for dredged material disposal). We are soliciting your input on this undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and/or Oregon Parks and Recreation Department has identified your organization as having a potential interest in this area and has provided your contact information to USCG.

The location for disposal of the dredged sediments will be finalized following suitability testing; prior evaluations suggest that sediments from the undertaking area are suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal. Two in-water disposal locations in Clatsop County, Oregon are proposed: 1) Baker Bay Flowlane Disposal (BB-3), and 2) Flowlane Area D (see Enclosure 2). A beneficial reuse site to be determined may be used for disposal if these sites are deemed unsuitable. Only previously used and/or permitted locations would be considered. Sediment disposal would adhere to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401, and River and Harbors Act Section 10 regulatory programs.

Dredging will occur within the area of the Cape Disappointment Historic District. The Cape Disappointment Historic District includes numerous contributing elements: two lighthouses (Cape Disappointment and North Head), fortifications, gun emplacements, and associated buildings (within historic Fort Canby). These contributing elements of the district preserve a physical record of historical use of the land area of the cape between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries. The Historic District has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) since 1975. Though historic properties that are contributing elements of the Historic District exist throughout the land area of Cape Disappointment, none are present in the APE. This determination is based on a desktop review, conducted in October 2020, of publicly available information and of both the Washington and Oregon confidential cultural resource databases. As the portion of this proposed undertaking located within the Subj: U.S. COAST GUARD STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT DREDGING

Historic District involves only dredging below MLLW in an active USCG mooring basin, it will have no effect, either temporary or permanent, on the original location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association of any contributing elements of the District. Disposal will occur outside of the District. USCG therefore believes that both dredging and disposal activities associated with the proposed undertaking will have No Historic Properties Affected (either listed or that may be eligible for listing) and/or Native American cultural resources.

Sincerely,

DAVID W. STALTERS Chief, Environmental Management Branch U.S. Coast Guard By direction of the Commanding Officer

Enclosures: (1) Figure 1: Area of Potential Effect, Dredging Area (2) Figure 2: Area of Potential Effect, Proposed Disposal Locations

2 LEGEND:

Proposed Dredge Area Previously Dredged Area (2015)

B a k e r B a y

SITE VICINITY ^_

0 100 200

Feet

K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_APE\Figure 1 - Dredge Area.mxd - stephane.descombes - 11/18/2020 - 9:36:29 AM LEGEND:

Dredge Area Dredge Disposal Site (approximate)

B a k e r B a y

Sand Island

Chinook

Sand Island BB-3

Columbia River

Area D

^_ SITE VICINITY Clatsop Spit

0 2,000 4,000

Feet

DATE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT UNITED STATES NOVEMBER 2020 STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT COAST GUARD SCALE ILWACO, WASHINGTON 1 " = 4,000 feet Wood Environment & PROJECT NO. Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. PROPOSED 336010028 15862 SW 72nd Ave., Suite 150 DISPOSAL LOCATIONS FIGURE

DRAWN BY:SD CHECKED BY:SS Portland, OR 97224 2

K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_APE\Figure 2 - Proposed Disposal Locations.mxd - stephane.descombes - 11/17/2020 - 8:11:34 PM The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Commanding Officer 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N United States Coast Guard Oakland, CA 94612 Civil Engineering Unit Oakland Staff Symbol: EMB Phone: (510) 637-5567

5090 20 November 2020 The Honorable Tony Johnson, Chair Chinook Indian Nation P.O. Box 368 Bay Center, WA 98527

Dear Mr. Johnson:

The US Coast Guard (USCG) intends to perform maintenance dredging at USCG Station Cape Disappointment near Ilwaco, Pacific County, Washington and to dispose of dredged material at an in- water site in Clatsop County, Oregon (see Enclosure 1 for a location map showing the location of the proposed undertaking and Area of Potential Effects [APE] for dredging; see Enclosure 2 for a location map showing the APE for dredged material disposal). We are soliciting your input on this undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and/or Oregon Parks and Recreation Department has identified your organization as having a potential interest in this area and has provided your contact information to USCG.

The location for disposal of the dredged sediments will be finalized following suitability testing; prior evaluations suggest that sediments from the undertaking area are suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal. Two in-water disposal locations in Clatsop County, Oregon are proposed: 1) Baker Bay Flowlane Disposal (BB-3), and 2) Flowlane Area D (see Enclosure 2). A beneficial reuse site to be determined may be used for disposal if these sites are deemed unsuitable. Only previously used and/or permitted locations would be considered. Sediment disposal would adhere to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401, and River and Harbors Act Section 10 regulatory programs.

Dredging will occur within the area of the Cape Disappointment Historic District. The Cape Disappointment Historic District includes numerous contributing elements: two lighthouses (Cape Disappointment and North Head), fortifications, gun emplacements, and associated buildings (within historic Fort Canby). These contributing elements of the district preserve a physical record of historical use of the land area of the cape between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries. The Historic District has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) since 1975. Though historic properties that are contributing elements of the Historic District exist throughout the land area of Cape Disappointment, none are present in the APE. This determination is based on a desktop review, conducted in October 2020, of publicly available information and of both the Washington and Oregon confidential cultural resource databases. As the portion of this proposed undertaking located within the Subj: U.S. COAST GUARD STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT DREDGING

Sincerely,

DAVID W. STALTERS Chief, Environmental Management Branch U.S. Coast Guard By direction of the Commanding Officer

Enclosures: (1) Figure 1: Area of Potential Effect, Dredging Area (2) Figure 2: Area of Potential Effect, Proposed Disposal Locations

2 LEGEND:

Proposed Dredge Area Previously Dredged Area (2015)

B a k e r B a y

SITE VICINITY ^_

0 100 200

Feet

K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_APE\Figure 1 - Dredge Area.mxd - stephane.descombes - 11/18/2020 - 9:36:29 AM LEGEND:

Dredge Area Dredge Disposal Site (approximate)

B a k e r B a y

Sand Island

Chinook

Sand Island BB-3

Columbia River

Area D

^_ SITE VICINITY Clatsop Spit

0 2,000 4,000

Feet

DRAWN BY:SD CHECKED BY:SS Portland, OR 97224 2

5090 20 November 2020 Jordan Mercier, Cultural Protection Coordinator Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde 8720 Grand Ronde Road Grand Ronde, OR 97347

Dear Mr. Mercier:

The US Coast Guard (USCG) intends to perform maintenance dredging at USCG Station Cape Disappointment near Ilwaco, Pacific County, Washington and to dispose of dredged material at an in- water site in Clatsop County, Oregon (see Enclosure 1 for a location map showing the location of the proposed undertaking and Area of Potential Effects [APE] for dredging; see Enclosure 2 for a location map showing the APE for dredged material disposal). We are soliciting your input on this undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and/or Oregon Parks and Recreation Department has identified your organization as having a potential interest in this area and has provided your contact information to USCG.

The location for disposal of the dredged sediments will be finalized following suitability testing; prior evaluations suggest that sediments from the undertaking area are suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal. Two in-water disposal locations in Clatsop County, Oregon are proposed: 1) Baker Bay Flowlane Disposal (BB-3), and 2) Flowlane Area D (see Enclosure 2). A beneficial reuse site to be determined may be used for disposal if these sites are deemed unsuitable. Only previously used and/or permitted locations would be considered. Sediment disposal would adhere to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401, and River and Harbors Act Section 10 regulatory programs.

Dredging will occur within the area of the Cape Disappointment Historic District. The Cape Disappointment Historic District includes numerous contributing elements: two lighthouses (Cape Disappointment and North Head), fortifications, gun emplacements, and associated buildings (within historic Fort Canby). These contributing elements of the district preserve a physical record of historical use of the land area of the cape between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries. The Historic District has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) since 1975. Though historic properties that are contributing elements of the Historic District exist throughout the land area of Cape Disappointment, none are present in the APE. This determination is based on a desktop review, conducted in October 2020, of publicly available information and of both the Washington and Oregon confidential cultural resource databases. As the portion of this proposed undertaking located within the Subj: U.S. COAST GUARD STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT DREDGING

Sincerely,

DAVID W. STALTERS Chief, Environmental Management Branch U.S. Coast Guard By direction of the Commanding Officer

Enclosures: (1) Figure 1: Area of Potential Effect, Dredging Area (2) Figure 2: Area of Potential Effect, Proposed Disposal Locations

2 LEGEND:

Proposed Dredge Area Previously Dredged Area (2015)

B a k e r B a y

SITE VICINITY ^_

0 100 200

Feet

K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_APE\Figure 1 - Dredge Area.mxd - stephane.descombes - 11/18/2020 - 9:36:29 AM LEGEND:

Dredge Area Dredge Disposal Site (approximate)

B a k e r B a y

Sand Island

Chinook

Sand Island BB-3

Columbia River

Area D

^_ SITE VICINITY Clatsop Spit

0 2,000 4,000

Feet

DRAWN BY:SD CHECKED BY:SS Portland, OR 97224 2

5090 20 November 2020 Justine James, Cultural Resources Quinault Nation 124 Aalis Drive, Building C P.O. Box 189 Taholah, WA 98587-0189

Dear Ms. James:

The US Coast Guard (USCG) intends to perform maintenance dredging at USCG Station Cape Disappointment near Ilwaco, Pacific County, Washington and to dispose of dredged material at an in- water site in Clatsop County, Oregon (see Enclosure 1 for a location map showing the location of the proposed undertaking and Area of Potential Effects [APE] for dredging; see Enclosure 2 for a location map showing the APE for dredged material disposal). We are soliciting your input on this undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and/or Oregon Parks and Recreation Department has identified your organization as having a potential interest in this area and has provided your contact information to USCG.

The location for disposal of the dredged sediments will be finalized following suitability testing; prior evaluations suggest that sediments from the undertaking area are suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal. Two in-water disposal locations in Clatsop County, Oregon are proposed: 1) Baker Bay Flowlane Disposal (BB-3), and 2) Flowlane Area D (see Enclosure 2). A beneficial reuse site to be determined may be used for disposal if these sites are deemed unsuitable. Only previously used and/or permitted locations would be considered. Sediment disposal would adhere to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401, and River and Harbors Act Section 10 regulatory programs.

Dredging will occur within the area of the Cape Disappointment Historic District. The Cape Disappointment Historic District includes numerous contributing elements: two lighthouses (Cape Disappointment and North Head), fortifications, gun emplacements, and associated buildings (within historic Fort Canby). These contributing elements of the district preserve a physical record of historical use of the land area of the cape between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries. The Historic District has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) since 1975. Though historic properties that are contributing elements of the Historic District exist throughout the land area of Cape Disappointment, none are present in the APE. This determination is based on a desktop review, conducted in October 2020, of publicly available information and of both the Washington and Oregon Subj: U.S. COAST GUARD STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT DREDGING

confidential cultural resource databases. As the portion of this proposed undertaking located within the Historic District involves only dredging below MLLW in an active USCG mooring basin, it will have no effect, either temporary or permanent, on the original location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association of any contributing elements of the District. Disposal will occur outside of the District. USCG therefore believes that both dredging and disposal activities associated with the proposed undertaking will have No Historic Properties Affected (either listed or that may be eligible for listing) and/or Native American cultural resources.

Sincerely,

DAVID W. STALTERS Chief, Environmental Management Branch U.S. Coast Guard By direction of the Commanding Officer

Enclosures: (1) Figure 1: Area of Potential Effect, Dredging Area (2) Figure 2: Area of Potential Effect, Proposed Disposal Locations

2 LEGEND:

Proposed Dredge Area Previously Dredged Area (2015)

B a k e r B a y

SITE VICINITY ^_

0 100 200

Feet

K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_APE\Figure 1 - Dredge Area.mxd - stephane.descombes - 11/18/2020 - 9:36:29 AM LEGEND:

Dredge Area Dredge Disposal Site (approximate)

B a k e r B a y

Sand Island

Chinook

Sand Island BB-3

Columbia River

Area D

^_ SITE VICINITY Clatsop Spit

0 2,000 4,000

Feet

DRAWN BY:SD CHECKED BY:SS Portland, OR 97224 2

5090 20 November 2020 Earl Davis, Cultural Resources Shoalwater Bay Tribe P.O. Box 130 Tokeland, WA 98590

Dear Mr. Davis:

The US Coast Guard (USCG) intends to perform maintenance dredging at USCG Station Cape Disappointment near Ilwaco, Pacific County, Washington and to dispose of dredged material at an in- water site in Clatsop County, Oregon (see Enclosure 1 for a location map showing the location of the proposed undertaking and Area of Potential Effects [APE] for dredging; see Enclosure 2 for a location map showing the APE for dredged material disposal). We are soliciting your input on this undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and/or Oregon Parks and Recreation Department has identified your organization as having a potential interest in this area and has provided your contact information to USCG.

The location for disposal of the dredged sediments will be finalized following suitability testing; prior evaluations suggest that sediments from the undertaking area are suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal. Two in-water disposal locations in Clatsop County, Oregon are proposed: 1) Baker Bay Flowlane Disposal (BB-3), and 2) Flowlane Area D (see Enclosure 2). A beneficial reuse site to be determined may be used for disposal if these sites are deemed unsuitable. Only previously used and/or permitted locations would be considered. Sediment disposal would adhere to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401, and River and Harbors Act Section 10 regulatory programs.

Dredging will occur within the area of the Cape Disappointment Historic District. The Cape Disappointment Historic District includes numerous contributing elements: two lighthouses (Cape Disappointment and North Head), fortifications, gun emplacements, and associated buildings (within historic Fort Canby). These contributing elements of the district preserve a physical record of historical use of the land area of the cape between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries. The Historic District has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) since 1975. Though historic properties that are contributing elements of the Historic District exist throughout the land area of Cape Disappointment, none are present in the APE. This determination is based on a desktop review, conducted in October 2020, of publicly available information and of both the Washington and Oregon confidential cultural resource databases. As the portion of this proposed undertaking located within the Subj: U.S. COAST GUARD STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT DREDGING

Sincerely,

DAVID W. STALTERS Chief, Environmental Management Branch U.S. Coast Guard By direction of the Commanding Officer

Enclosures: (1) Figure 1: Area of Potential Effect, Dredging Area (2) Figure 2: Area of Potential Effect, Proposed Disposal Locations

2 LEGEND:

Proposed Dredge Area Previously Dredged Area (2015)

B a k e r B a y

SITE VICINITY ^_

0 100 200

Feet

K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_APE\Figure 1 - Dredge Area.mxd - stephane.descombes - 11/18/2020 - 9:36:29 AM LEGEND:

Dredge Area Dredge Disposal Site (approximate)

B a k e r B a y

Sand Island

Chinook

Sand Island BB-3

Columbia River

Area D

^_ SITE VICINITY Clatsop Spit

0 2,000 4,000

Feet

DRAWN BY:SD CHECKED BY:SS Portland, OR 97224 2

5090 20 November 2020 Roberta Kirk, Assistant THPO Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs P.O. Box 460 Warm Springs, OR 97761

Dear Ms. Kirk:

The US Coast Guard (USCG) intends to perform maintenance dredging at USCG Station Cape Disappointment near Ilwaco, Pacific County, Washington and to dispose of dredged material at an in- water site in Clatsop County, Oregon (see Enclosure 1 for a location map showing the location of the proposed undertaking and Area of Potential Effects [APE] for dredging; see Enclosure 2 for a location map showing the APE for dredged material disposal). We are soliciting your input on this undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and/or Oregon Parks and Recreation Department has identified your organization as having a potential interest in this area and has provided your contact information to USCG.

The location for disposal of the dredged sediments will be finalized following suitability testing; prior evaluations suggest that sediments from the undertaking area are suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal. Two in-water disposal locations in Clatsop County, Oregon are proposed: 1) Baker Bay Flowlane Disposal (BB-3), and 2) Flowlane Area D (see Enclosure 2). A beneficial reuse site to be determined may be used for disposal if these sites are deemed unsuitable. Only previously used and/or permitted locations would be considered. Sediment disposal would adhere to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401, and River and Harbors Act Section 10 regulatory programs.

Dredging will occur within the area of the Cape Disappointment Historic District. The Cape Disappointment Historic District includes numerous contributing elements: two lighthouses (Cape Disappointment and North Head), fortifications, gun emplacements, and associated buildings (within historic Fort Canby). These contributing elements of the district preserve a physical record of historical use of the land area of the cape between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries. The Historic District has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) since 1975. Though historic properties that are contributing elements of the Historic District exist throughout the land area of Cape Disappointment, none are present in the APE. This determination is based on a desktop review, conducted in October 2020, of publicly available information and of both the Washington and Oregon confidential cultural resource databases. As the portion of this proposed undertaking located within the Subj: U.S. COAST GUARD STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT DREDGING

Sincerely,

DAVID W. STALTERS Chief, Environmental Management Branch U.S. Coast Guard By direction of the Commanding Officer

Enclosures: (1) Figure 1: Area of Potential Effect, Dredging Area (2) Figure 2: Area of Potential Effect, Proposed Disposal Locations

2 LEGEND:

Proposed Dredge Area Previously Dredged Area (2015)

B a k e r B a y

SITE VICINITY ^_

0 100 200

Feet

K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_APE\Figure 1 - Dredge Area.mxd - stephane.descombes - 11/18/2020 - 9:36:29 AM LEGEND:

Dredge Area Dredge Disposal Site (approximate)

B a k e r B a y

Sand Island

Chinook

Sand Island BB-3

Columbia River

Area D

^_ SITE VICINITY Clatsop Spit

0 2,000 4,000

Feet

DRAWN BY:SD CHECKED BY:SS Portland, OR 97224 2

K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_APE\Figure 2 - Proposed Disposal Locations.mxd - stephane.descombes - 11/17/2020 - 8:11:34 PM Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

Appendix C

Compliance with Rules and Regulations

Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

This page intentionally left blank.

Draft EA Cape Disappointment February 2021

1 Appendix C 2 Compliance with Rules and Regulations

3 National Environmental Policy Act

4 NEPA requires that federal agencies consider potential environmental consequences of 5 proposed actions. The law’s intent is to protect, restore, or enhance the environment 6 through well-informed federal decisions. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 7 was established under NEPA to implement and oversee federal policies as they relate to 8 this process. In 1978, the CEQ issued Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 9 Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR §1500–1508 [CEQ 1978]).

10 In the case of the Proposed Action, it was determined early in the environmental planning 11 process that preparation of an Environmental Assessment would be required. To comply 12 with other relevant environmental requirements in addition to NEPA, and to assess 13 potential environmental impacts, the decision-making process for the Proposed Action 14 involves a thorough examination of all environmental issues pertinent to the proposed 15 modifications.

16 Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act

17 The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 (33 USC §§ 1251 et seq.) regulates pollutant 18 discharges that could affect aquatic life forms or human health and safety. The CWA 19 establishes federal limits, through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 20 (NPDES) program, on the amounts of specific pollutants that activities can discharge into 21 surface waters to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of 22 the water. The NPDES program regulates the discharge of point (i.e., end of pipe) and 23 nonpoint sources (i.e., stormwater) of water pollution. Waters of the U.S. include 24 (1) traditional navigable waters, (2) wetlands adjacent to navigable waters, (3) non- 25 navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where 26 the tributaries typically flow perennially or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., 27 typically 3 months), and (4) wetlands that directly abut such tributaries under Section 404 28 of the CWA, as amended, and are regulated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 29 (USEPA) and the USACE. The CWA requires that Washington establish a Section 303(d) 30 list to identify impaired waters and establish Total Maximum Daily Loads for the sources

B-1 Draft EA Cape Disappointment February 2021

1 causing the impairment. The Washington NPDES stormwater program requires 2 construction site operators engaged in clearing, grading, and excavating activities that 3 disturb 1 acre or more to obtain coverage under an NPDES Construction General Permit 4 for stormwater discharges. Construction or demolition that necessitates an individual 5 permit also requires preparation of a Notice of Intent to discharge stormwater and a 6 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). As part of the 2010 Final Rule for the 7 CWA, titled Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and 8 Development Point Source Category, activities covered by this permit must implement 9 non-numeric erosion and sediment controls and pollution prevention measures.

10 Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Corps 11 of Engineers, to issue permits for the discharge of dredge or fill into wetlands and other 12 Waters of the United States. Any discharge of dredge or fill into Waters of the U.S. 13 requires a permit from the USACE. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act provides for 14 USACE permit requirements for any in-water or over-water construction. The USACE 15 and some states require a permit for any in-water construction. The construction of piers, 16 wharfs, bulkheads, pilings, marinas, docks, ramps, floats, moorings, and like structures 17 requires permits from the USACE.

18 Clean Air Act

19 The Clean Air Act (CAA; 42 USC §7401–7671, as amended) provided the authority for 20 USEPA to establish nationwide air quality standards to protect public health and welfare. 21 Federal standards, known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),

22 were developed for six criteria pollutants: ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon

23 monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 2.5 and 10.0 microns in

24 diameter (PM2.5 and PM10), and lead (Pb). The CAA also requires that each state prepare 25 a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for maintaining and improving air quality and 26 eliminating violations of the NAAQS. Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, federal 27 agencies are required to determine whether their undertakings are in conformance with 28 the applicable SIP and demonstrate that their actions will not cause or contribute to a new 29 violation of the NAAQS; increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation; or 30 delay timely attainment of any standard, emission reduction, or milestone contained in 31 the SIP.

B-2 Draft EA Cape Disappointment February 2021

1 Cultural Resources Regulatory Requirements

2 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 USC §470) established the 3 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the Advisory Council on Historic 4 Preservation (ACHP), outlining procedures for management of cultural resources. 5 Cultural resources can include archaeological remains, architectural structures, and 6 traditional cultural properties such as ancestral settlements, historic trails, and places 7 where significant historic events occurred. NHPA requires federal agencies to consider 8 potential impacts on cultural resources that are listed, nominated to, or eligible for listing 9 on the NRHP; designated a National Historic Landmark; or valued by Native Americans 10 for maintaining their traditional culture. Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies 11 to consult with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) if their 12 undertaking might affect such resources. Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties 13 (36 CFR §800 [1986]) provides an explicit set of procedures for federal agencies to meet 14 their obligations under the NHPA, which includes inventorying resources and 15 consultation with SHPO.

16 Memorandum on Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 17 Governments (1994) directs agencies to consult with Native American tribal officials 18 regarding agency actions with tribal implications. Requires federal agencies to assess the 19 impact of plans, projects, programs, and activities on tribal trust resources and ensure 20 that tribal government rights and concerns are considered during the development of 21 such plans, projects, programs, and activities.

22 EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, directs federal land management agencies (i.e., those tasked 23 with management of any land or interests in land owned by the U.S., including leasehold 24 interests held by the U.S., except Native American trust lands) to accommodate access to, 25 and ceremonial use of, Native American sacred sites, provided that the tribe or 26 appropriately authoritative representative of a Native American religion has informed 27 the agency of the existence of such a site. Sacred sites are defined in EO 13007 as any 28 specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on federal land that is identified by a 29 Native American tribe as sacred by virtue of its established religious significance to, or 30 ceremonial use by, a Native American religion. The term Native American tribe refers to 31 a Native American or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, Pueblo, village, or community 32 that the Secretary of Interior acknowledges to exist as a Native American tribe pursuant

B-3 Draft EA Cape Disappointment February 2021

1 to Public Law No. 103-454, 108 Stat. 4791, and “Indian” refers to a member of such a 2 Native American tribe or Native American individual determined to be an appropriately 3 authoritative representative of a Native American religion.

4 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA; 42 USC §1996) established federal 5 policy to protect and preserve the rights of Native Americans to believe, express, and 6 exercise their traditional religions, including providing access to sacred sites. EO 13175, 7 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, charges federal departments 8 and agencies with regular and meaningful consultation with Native American tribal 9 officials in the development of policies that have tribal implications.

10 Coastal Zone Management Act

11 The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 creates a state-federal 12 partnership that allows states the opportunity to evaluate certain federal actions, 13 including federal activities and development projects, and/or projects that require a 14 federal license or permit, that may have an effect on a state’s coastal resources or uses.

15 In Washington, federal agencies or federal license or permit applicants must demonstrate 16 consistency with the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP) by 17 submitting to the Department of Ecology (Ecology) a Consistency Determination (if the 18 proponent is a federal agency) or a Consistency Certification (if the proponent is seeking 19 a federal license or permit). The Determinations must describe how the projects are 20 consistent with the policies of the WCZMP. Ecology will review the Consistency 21 documents and will issue a “concurrence,” a “conditional concurrence,” or an 22 “objection.” Ecology will look for a description of how the project is consistent with the 23 policies of the WCZMP found in the following four laws and their implementing 24 regulations:

25 • Shoreline Management Act

26 • Water Pollution Control Act

27 • Washington Clean Air Act

28 • Ocean Resources Management Act

B-4 Draft EA Cape Disappointment February 2021

1 Therefore, the actions analyzed in this EA require the USCG to submit a consistency 2 determination to Ecology and a response from the state in either agreement or 3 disagreement with that determination.

4 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

5 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended 6 (H16 USC 1801 et seq.) established: (1) a fishery conservation zone between the territorial 7 seas of the U.S. and 200 nautical miles offshore; (2) an exclusive U.S. fishery management 8 authority over fish within the fishery conservation zone (excluding highly migratory 9 species); (3) regulations for foreign fishing within the fishery conservation zone through 10 international fishery agreements, permits, and import prohibitions; and (4) national 11 standards for fishery conservation and management and eight regional fishery management 12 councils to apply those national standards in fishery management plans.

13 Congress enacted the 1996 amendments to the FCMA, known as the Sustainable Fisheries 14 Act (SFA) (Public Law [P.L.] 104-297), to address the substantially reduced fish stocks 15 that declined as a result of direct and indirect habitat loss. The SFA requires that agencies 16 consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries 17 concerning actions that may adversely impact Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). There is a 18 requirement for the USCG to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 19 per the EFH provision if there "may be adverse effect to EFH" from implementation of 20 the Proposed Action.

21 Endangered Species Act

22 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC §1531–1544, as amended) established 23 measures for protection of plant and animal species that are federally listed as threatened 24 and endangered and for conservation of habitats that are critical to the continued 25 existence of those species. Federal agencies must evaluate the effects of their proposed 26 actions through a set of defined procedures, which can include preparation of a Biological 27 Assessment and can require formal consultation with the NOAA NMFS and the United 28 States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the ESA.

B-5 Draft EA Cape Disappointment February 2021

1 Marine Mammal Protection Act

2 Similar to the ESA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits the “taking” 3 of marine mammals. In ratifying the MMPA in 1972, Congress agreed that all marine 4 mammal species offer great international significance as a natural resource and 5 implemented the MMPA to safeguard a sustainable population for these mammals. 6 Penalties, imprisonment, and fines are enforcement measures in instances of 7 noncompliance.

8 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

9 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful to take, pursue, hunt, capture, 10 kill, or sell birds listed as migratory birds without a permit and is intended to ensure a 11 sustainable population of migratory bird species. The Act also provides legal penalties 12 for noncompliance.

13 Other Regulatory Requirements

14 In addition to the requirements stated above, the USCG has prepared this EA based on 15 federal and state laws, statutes, regulations, and policies that are pertinent to the 16 implementation of the Proposed Action, including but not limited to the following:

17 • EO 11988, Floodplain Management

18 • EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands

19 • EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards

20 • EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 21 and Low-income Populations

22 • EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

23 • EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

24 • EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds

B-6 Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

Appendix D

Cultural Resource Technical Report Concurrence

Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

This page intentionally left blank.

January 7, 2021 Mr. W.A. Robinson III Environmental Management Branch USCG Department of HomeLand Security 1301 Clay Street, @700N Oakland, California 94612-5203

Re: USCG Maintenance Dredging Project Log No: 2020-10-06127-USCG

Dear Mr. Robinson III:

We concur with your findings of No Adverse Effect with the stipulation for an unanticipated discovery plan.

We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4).

Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. State Archaeologist (360) 890-2615 email: [email protected]

State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 www.dahp.wa.gov

Commanding Officer 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N United States Coast Guard Oakland, CA 94612 Civil Engineering Unit Oakland Staff Symbol: EM Phone: (510) 637-5567

5090 05 January 2021 Mr. John Pouley Oregon Heritage/State Historic Preservation Office 725 Summer Street NE, Suite C Salem, OR 97301

Dear Mr. Pouley:

Sincerely,

DAVID W. STALTERS Chief, Environmental Management Branch U.S. Coast Guard By direction of the Commanding Officer

2 LEGEND:

Proposed Dredge Area Previously Dredged Area (2015)

B a k e r B a y

SITE VICINITY ^_

0 100 200

Feet

B a k e r B a y

Sand Island

Chinook

Sand Island BB-3

Columbia River

Area D

Clatsop Spit

0 2,000 4,000

Feet

K:\USCG - Coast Guard\336010028 - Cape Disappointment - Dredge\DWG\_Permit\Figure 2 - Proposed Disposal Locations.mxd - stephane.descombes - 1/4/2021 - 9:03:40 AM

Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

Appendix E

ESA and EFH Concurrence

To be added once approved

Maintenance Dredging Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment EA – May 2021

This page intentionally left blank.

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Dr. S.E., Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503

In Reply Refer To: 01EWFW00-2021-I-0453

William A. Robinson U.S. Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit Oakland 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N Oakland, California 94612

Dear Mr. Robinson:

Subject: U.S. Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment 10-Year Maintenance Dredging

Project Description:

INTERIOR REGION 9 COLUMBIA–PACIFIC NORTHWEST

Idaho, Montana*, Oregon*, Washington *PARTIAL

William A. Robinson 2

• Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) • Bull trout designated critical habitat • Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus

EFFECTS TO BULL TROUT AND MARBLED MURRELET

I. Exposure

Exposures are extremely unlikely (discountable) because of the following:

• The action is located in the Lower Columbia River (downstream of Bonneville Dam), where, at present, bull trout occurrence is rare and exposure to this action is extremely unlikely.

• The action will occur during a time of year (November 1 to February 28) when few, if any, bull trout are present in the action area.

• Given the location and limited scope, scale, and duration of construction activities and resulting temporary effects, exposure of marbled murrelets is extremely unlikely.

II. Effects to Bull Trout and Marbled Murrelet Habitat and their Prey

William A. Robinson 3

• The action will result in temporary impacts to water quality, including potential temporary increases in turbidity and water column contaminant concentrations. These effects will be intermittent and limited in physical extent and duration.

• Construction activities and proposed permanent features may impact habitat that supports the species and/or their prey. These impacts will be limited in physical extent and/or duration and will not measurably degrade habitat functions, including prey resources that are important to the species within the action area:

• The action will result in limited impacts to water quality, including potential temporary increases in turbidity and water column contaminant concentrations. These effects will be intermittent and limited in physical extent and duration.

• The action will maintain or reestablish authorized channel depths and contours at a location(s) dredged in the past. Any in-water disposal of dredged material will comply with a current, valid Site Use Authorization approved under the Dredged Material Management Program. The action will not degrade habitat functions that are important to the species or their prey. The action will not diminish forage fish or salmonid production.

• The action will not result in shading, destruction, or long-term impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation, and there will be minimal loss of prey resources.

EFFECTS TO DESIGNATED BULL TROUT CRITICAL HABITAT

The following PCEs are present in the action area. Of the PCEs present, some will not be affected by the proposed action.

William A. Robinson 4

• The action may temporarily introduce an impediment or barrier within migration habitat; however, it will not preclude bull trout movement through the area, either during or after construction, and any effects will be temporary. The migration habitat will not be permanently altered, destroyed, or degraded.

PCE 3: An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.

• The action may temporarily reduce the food base via a small reduction of prey resources. However, the impacts will be temporary and/or components of the project design will avoid, reduce, or compensate for them.

• The action will have no effect on this PCE.

PCE 8: Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited.

• The action may impact water quantity and/or quality. However, the effects will be temporary; components of the project design include actions to avoid, reduce, or compensate for the effects; and/or we would be unable to measure, detect, or evaluate the effects.

CONCLUSION

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation Biologist(s): Mitchell Dennis, (360) 753-6038

Sincerely,

for Brad Thompson, State Supervisor Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Hale, Erin E

From: OWCO ConsultationRequest - NOAA Service Account Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 2:37 PM To: Hale, Erin E; Elizabeth Babcock - NOAA Federal; Donald Hubner - NOAA Federal Cc: William Robinson ([email protected]); [email protected] Subject: Re: USCG Station Cape Disappointment

CAUTION : External email. Please do not click on links/attachments unless you know the content is genuine and safe.

We have received your request for consultation and it has been logged into our database. The number that it has been issued is WCRO- 2021-00010. Please refer to that number in future correspondence with NMFS. I have included the branch chief in this email so you are aware of who the project has been given to initially, they will assign it to one of their project managers and that person will be in contact with you. Please send any additional information regarding this project directly to the project manager you are working with.

Frankie Johnson 253-278-1617

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 2:09 PM Hale, Erin E < [email protected] > wrote:

Good afternoon,

To initiate consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), The USCG has prepared a Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment to serve as the basis for

a determination of effects of the project on species and habitat listed by the Endangered Species Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the 1996 Sustainable

Fisheries Act (Enclosure 1).

Based on the analysis presented in the Enclosure 1 (attached) , the CG concludes that the proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect migrating salmonids, green sturgeon Southern DPS, eulachon, or designated critical habitat. No permanent adverse impacts to essential fish habitat for Pacific Coast Salmon, Pacific Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagic FMPs or designated HPACs are anticipated. The CG requests your concurrence with its determination. Please contact [email protected] or by phone at (510) 637- 5563 if you have any questions.

Regards,

Erin

This message is the property of John Wood Group PLC and/or its subsidiaries and/or affiliates and is intended only for the named recipient(s). Its contents (including any attachments) may be confidential, legally privileged or otherwise prote cted from disclosure by law. Unauthorized use, copying, distribution or disclosure of any of it may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. We assume no responsibility to persons other than the intended named recipient(s) and do not accept liability for any errors or omissions which are a result of email transmission. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply email to the sender and confirm that the original message and any attachments and copies have been destroyed and deleted from your system.

If you do not wish to receive future unsolicited commercial electronic messages from us, please forward this email to: [email protected] and include “Unsubscribe” in the subject line. If applicable, you will continue to receive invoices, project communications and similar factual, non-commercial electronic communications.

Please click http://www.woodplc.com/email-disclaimer for notices and company information in relation to emails originating in the UK, Italy or France.

As a recipient of an email from a John Wood Group Plc company, your contact information will be on our systems and we may hold other personal data about you such as identification information, CVs, financial information and information contained in correspondence. For more information on our privacy practices and your data protection rights, please see our privacy notice at https://www.woodplc.com/policies/privacy-notice

2 Commanding Officer 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N United States Coast Guard Oakland, CA 94612-5203 Civil Engineering Unit Oakland Staff Symbol: EMB Phone: (510) 637-5567

16475 January 6, 2021 J

Elizabeth Babcock Branch Chief, North Puget Sound NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 7600 Sand Point Way Northeast Seattle, WA 98040

Subject: U.S. COAST GUARD DREDGING AT STATION CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT

Sincerely,

W. A. Robinson III Acting Chief, Environmental Management Branch U.S. Coast Guard By direction of the Commanding Officer

Enclosures: (1) Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

Attachment D Washington State CWA Section 401 Application and CZMA Consistency Application

DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH WASHINGTON’S COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL ACTIVITIES

Federal Application Number:______

Federal Agency:______

Project Description:______

______

(attach site plans, location (county/city), proximity to waterbody (name)) or JARPA Application

This action under CZMA§307(c)(1) is for a project that will take place within Washington’s coastal zone, or which will affect a land use, water use, or natural resource of the coastal zone. (The coastal zone includes Clallam, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum and Whatcom counties.)

The project complies with the following enforceable policies of the Coastal Zone Management Program:

1. Shoreline Management Act (SMA): Is outside of SMA jurisdiction ( ) Applied for a shoreline permit ( )#______being reviewed by______Has a valid Shoreline Permit ( )#______Issued by______on______Has received an SMA Exemption ( )#______issued by______on______

2. State Water Quality Requirements: Does not require water quality permits ( ) Applied for water quality certification ( ) Has received water quality certification ( )#______issued on______Applied for stormwater permit ( )#______issued on______Has received stormwater permit ( )#______issued on______

3. State Air Quality Requirements: Does not require air quality permits ( ) Applied for Air Quality permit ( )#______being reviewed by ______Has an Air Quality permit ( )#______issued by______on______

4. State Environmental Policy Act: SEPA Lead Agency is:______Project is SEPA exempt ( ) SEPA checklist submitted ( )date______SEPA decision issued/adopted ( )DNS ( )MDNS ( )EIS ( )Other______date____ NEPA decision adopted by ( )SEPA#______date______Lead agency to satisfy SEPA

Public Notice for this proposed project was provided through:

( )notice mailed to interested parties using ______mailing list on ______(date) ( )publication in______(newspaper) on______(dates) ( )other (include dates)______

Therefore, I have determined that this project is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of Washington’s approved coastal zone management program.

(Signature) Date 25 February 2021

If you require this publication in an alternate format, please contact the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program at 360-407-6096, or TTY (for the speech or hearing impaired) 711 or 800-833-6388.

ECY 070-128 Request for Clean Water Act AGENCY USE ONLY Section 401 Water Quality Certification Date Received: WA State Department of Ecology Aquatics ID#: Team: Phone: (360) 407-6076 or E-mail: [email protected] Valid Request:

A. Identify the applicable federal license or permit: Permit or License Number (if known): ______Federal Agency triggering the Water Quality Certification (WQC): ☐ ☐ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Coast Guard ☐ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ☐ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ☐ Other: ______B. Project Information:

Name: ______County: ______

C. Documentation showing that the pre-filing meeting request was submitted at least 30 days prior to submitting this Section 401 WQC Request: ☐ Attached

D. Applicable Additional Information (Attached):

☐ Completed, signed, and dated Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) ☐ Water Quality Monitoring Plan or WQ Monitoring and Protection Plan ☐ Mitigation Plan ☐ Wetland Delineation Report and ratings ☐ Copy of the federal permit or license application, including all accompanying information ☐ Suitability Determination for dredging projects with in-water disposal ☐ Dewatering Plan ☐ Revegetation/Restoration Plan ☐ Erosion and Sediment Control Plan ☐ SEPA and/or NEPA decision

E. Certification Statements:

The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Initial ______

The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time. Initial ______

Signature: ______Date: ______

Print Name: ______

Submit this CWA §401 Certification Request form along with a JARPA and supporting information to [email protected] and cc the federal permitting agency.

To request an ADA accommodation, contact Ecology by phone at (360) 407-6076 or email at [email protected], or visit Accessibility & the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For Relay Service or TTY call 711 or 877-833-6341.

ECY 070-640 (Rev 11/2020)