![](media/image1.png){width="1.2798611111111111in"
height="1.1784722222222221in"}

![](media/image2.png){width="1.320138888888889in"
height="0.8993055555555556in"}

**DRAFT**

**Rogue River, Oregon**

**Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Evaluation Study and
Environmental Assessment**

**U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District**

**U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10**

**September 2008**

**Abbreviations and Acronyms**

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cy cubic yard(s)

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

DDT dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane

DPS Distinct Population Segment

EA Environmental Assessment

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit

FR Federal Register

mg/L milligram(s) per liter

MDL method detection limit

MLLW mean lower low water

MPRSA Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act

MRL method reporting limit

NAD North American Datum

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

ODMDS ocean dredged material disposal site(s)

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon(s)

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PCE primary constituent elements

RM river mile(s)

SMMP Site Management and Monitoring Plan

SONCC Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast

TOC total organic carbon

TBT tributyltin and other organotins

ug/kg micrograms per kilogram

ug/L micrograms per liter

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

ZSF Zone of Siting Feasibility

**Rogue River, Oregon**

**Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Evaluation**

**and Environmental Assessment**

Report Preparers

Wendy K. Briner Biologist CENWP-PM-E

Mark D. Siipola Civil Engineer CENWP-EC-HR

Timothy J. Sherman Biologist CENWP-EC-HR

Kim W. Larson Fishery Biologist CENWP-PM-E

Bert Rader Archaeologist CENWP-PM-E

Jonathan Freedman Ocean Dumping Coordinator EPA, Region 10

Jessica Winkler Biologist EPA, Region 10

Karen Bahus Biologist/Writer Consultant

**Rogue River, Oregon**

**Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Evaluation**

**and Environmental Assessment**

**Table of Contents**

[PURPOSE AND NEED 1](#purpose-and-need)

[Background 1](#background)

[Offshore Disposal History 3](#offshore-disposal-history)

[AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4](#affected-environment)

[Physical Resources 4](#physical-resources)

[*General* 4](#general)

[*Rogue River Sediments* 4](#rogue-river-sediments)

[*ODMDS Sediments* 5](#odmds-sediments)

[*Oceanographic Circulation* 6](#oceanographic-circulation)

[*Geology* 6](#geology)

[*Water Quality* 7](#water-quality)

[Biological Resources 7](#biological-resources)

[*Plankton and Fish Larvae* 7](#plankton-and-fish-larvae)

[*Benthic Invertebrates* 8](#benthic-invertebrates)

[*Fish and Epibenthic Species* 8](#fish-and-epibenthic-species)

[*Commercial and Recreational Fisheries*
9](#commercial-and-recreational-fisheries)

[*Wildlife* 9](#wildlife)

[*Endangered Species* 9](#endangered-species)

[Socio-Economic Resources 10](#socio-economic-resources)

[*Cultural Resources* 10](#cultural-resources)

[*Recreational Uses* 11](#recreational-uses)

[*Commercial Uses* 11](#commercial-uses)

[ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 11](#analysis-of-alternatives)

[No Action Alternative 11](#no-action-alternative)

[Upland Disposal Alternative 12](#upland-disposal-alternative)

[Estuarine Disposal Alternative 12](#estuarine-disposal-alternative)

[Ocean Disposal Alternatives 13](#ocean-disposal-alternatives)

[*Disposal off of the Continental Shelf*
13](#disposal-off-of-the-continental-shelf)

[*Continued Use of Existing ODMDS* 14](#continued-use-of-existing-odmds)

[*Designation of New ODMDS* 14](#designation-of-new-odmds)

[Need for Disposal Site Designation
14](#need-for-disposal-site-designation)

[ANALYSIS OF OCEAN DUMPING SITE DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
15](#analysis-of-ocean-dumping-site-designation-process-and-environmental-effects)

[Overview 15](#overview)

[Defining a Zone of Siting Feasibility
15](#defining-a-zone-of-siting-feasibility)

[Rogue River ODMDS Zone of Siting Feasibility
17](#rogue-river-odmds-zone-of-siting-feasibility)

[Regulatory Criteria for Ocean Disposal Site Selection
18](#regulatory-criteria-for-ocean-disposal-site-selection)

[*General Criteria* 18](#general-criteria)

[*Specific Criteria* 25](#specific-criteria)

[SUMMARY OF COORDINATION UNDER OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTES
34](#summary-of-coordination-under-other-applicable-federal-statutes)

[Federal Action 34](#federal-action)

[Endangered Species Act 35](#endangered-species-act)

[Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
35](#magnuson-stevens-fishery-conservation-and-management-act)

[Marine Mammal Protection Act 35](#marine-mammal-protection-act)

[Coastal Zone Management Act 35](#coastal-zone-management-act)

[National Historic Preservation Act
35](#national-historic-preservation-act)

[Tribal Coordination 35](#tribal-coordination)

[SELECTION OF OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE FOR FORMAL DESIGNATION
36](#selection-of-ocean-disposal-site-for-formal-designation)

[LITERATURE CITED 37](#literature-cited)

# 

**List of Tables**

[Table 1. Rogue River Project Dredging Volumes Placed in the ODMDS
3](#__RefHeading___Toc203876097)

[Table 2. Sediment Grain Size and Total Volatile Solids Data, 2007
6](#__RefHeading___Toc203876098)

**List of Figures**

[Figure 1. Rogue River ODMDS and Vicinity
2](#__RefHeading___Toc203876099)

[Figure 2. Overlay Evaluation of Individual Resources of Limited
Distribution 23](#__RefHeading___Toc203876100)

[Figure 3. Potential Navigation Hazards
32](#__RefHeading___Toc203876101)

**Technical Appendices**

Appendix A -- Living Resources

Appendix B -- Physical Processes and Geological Features

Appendix C -- Sediment and Water Quality

Appendix D -- Cultural Resources

Appendix E -- Recreational Resources

Appendix F -- Sediment Management and Monitoring Plan

# PURPOSE AND NEED

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

## Background

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

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

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

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc203876099 .anchor}Figure 1. Rogue River ODMDS and
Vicinity

![](media/image3.png){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="4.634027777777778in"}

## Offshore Disposal History

Multiple persons and/or entities may have utilized sites in the vicinity
of the Rogue River since 1962 for disposal of dredged material at
interim or Section 103 of the MPRSA selected sites. However, the primary
user has historically been the Portland District of the Corps, which has
used the site in its current location since 1977 (see table 1).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc203876097 .anchor}Table 1. Rogue River Project
Dredging Volumes Placed in the ODMDS

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Fiscal Year**                    | **Dredging**                    |
|                                    |                                 |
|                                    | **Volumes (cy)**                |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1976-1985                          | 474,900                         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1986                               | 0                               |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1987                               | 55,600                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1988                               | 36,400                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1989                               | 90,400                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1990                               | 70,300                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1991                               | 37,000                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1992                               | 32,200                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1993                               | 94,600                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1994                               | 120,000                         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1995                               | 95,700                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1996                               | 44,100                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1997                               | 71,100                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1998                               | 55,600                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1999                               | 0                               |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 2000                               | 44,800                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 2001                               | 52,300                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 2002                               | 35,100                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 2003                               | 51,000                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 2004                               | 31,000                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 2005                               | 60,800                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 2006                               | 20,100                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| 2007                               | 31,000                          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

Note: Data includes Corps and contract hopper dredging and mechanical
dredging.

The volume of dredged material deposited offshore and originating from
the Corps' Rogue River project from 1976-1985 ranged from zero to
142,260 cy with an annual average of 47,500 cy, all of which was from
the main channel. From 1986 to 1989 maintenance activity was less (no
dredging occurred in 1988) and Corps disposal volumes were reduced to an
annual average of 35,600 cy for the 3 years dredging did occur. From
1986 and 2006, approximately 1.1 million cy have been placed by the
Corps at the Rogue River ODMDS for a 20-year average annual loading
volume of 54,000 cy/year. From 2000 to 2007 the average annual placement
of material at the ODMDS by the Corps was 41,000 cy. Persistent mounding
has not occurred at the ODMDS. Other disposal activities may have been
approved, but would represent a small percentage of total disposal
volumes at the ODMDS.

The proposed Rogue River ODMDS received Interim EPA designation in 1977
(40 CFR 228.12)[^1] and has been in use since that time. EPA proposed to
designate the site as a final ODMDS in 1991. That proposed rule, 56
Federal Register (Fed. Reg.) 47173 (September 18, 1991), was never
finalized. As proposed, the site was estimated to be 1.75 miles
southwest of the Rogue River entrance (see Figure 1), with approximate
dimensions of 3,600 feet by 1,400 feet with an average depth of 60 feet.
The site occupied about 116 acres. The disposal site, placement area,
and drop zone were identical. This Environmental Assessment reviews the
statutory and regulatory criteria of the MPRSA to allow EPA to
re-propose the site for designation.

# AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

## Physical Resources

### *General*

The Rogue River estuary is surrounded by steep, rounded hills that gain
700 feet in elevation within 0.5 mile. Along the coastline, the beach
extends inland about 200 yards before rising sharply into hilly terrain.
Gold Beach, located on the Rogue River, acquired its name from the
placer gold found in gravels beneath the sandy beach that were exposed
by winter storm waves. Other metallic minerals located in the beach
sands of the area include chromite, magnetite, platinum, and zircon. The
three sources of sediment in the vicinity of the existing ODMDS are
fluvial, dredging disposal, and coastal erosion. The primary fluvial
source is the Rogue River which has a mean annual discharge of 7,800
cubic feet per second. Coastal erosion studies show that much of the
shoreline north of the Rogue River is unstable and contributes a
continuous amount of sediment to the littoral system.

The nearshore mean circulation is alongshore, closely paralleling the
bathymetric contours, with a lesser onshore-offshore component.
Circulation patterns are variable with season and weather conditions.
Monitoring of currents indicates that the predominant nearshore current
direction is to the south, with short 2- to 3-month periods each winter
of currents to the north. At the ODMDS measured currents are generally
north with slightly more of an onshore component in July. For the
April-May period, the strongest currents are usually north along the
bottom contours. The currents in July are mostly onshore, across bottom
contours and northward. No significant current southward has been
recorded.

### *Rogue River Sediments*

On August 8, 2007, six surface grab sediment samples were collected from
the Rogue River federal navigation channel and the inner channel leading
to the Gold Beach boat basin (see Appendix C). All six samples were
submitted for physical analyses including total volatile solids. Select
sample samples containing higher percent of fine-grained material were
analyzed for metals 10 (inorganic), TOC, pesticides, PCBs, phenols,
phthalates, miscellaneous extractables, and PAHs.

Physical analyses for material within the outer river channel consisted
of 82.5% sand, with shell hash (range 94.1% to 70.9%) and 17.5%
fine-grained material (range 29.1% to 5.9%); volatile solids on the one
sample analyzed from this area were 4.53%. Material from the inner
channel, leading to the boat basin, was 64.9% sand, with shell hash
(range 79.3% to 50.2%) and 35.1% fine-grained material (range 49.8% to
20.7%) with volatile solids content ranging from 10.5% to 5.8% (mean
7.5%). The TOC ranged from 0.73% to 2.5% in these samples.

The chemical analyses indicated only very low levels of contamination in
any of the samples and all were below the screening levels found in the
*Sediment Evaluation Framework* (Corps and others 2006), with the
exception of phenol, which was detected above the 420 ug/kg SEF
screening level at 1200 ug/kg, in the sample closest to the boat basin.
It is suspected that phenol is a possible laboratory
cross-contamination, but without being able to verify that with the lab,
the dredge material represented by that sample will not be dredged until
further characterization or re-sampling, to provide a weight of
evidence, can be accomplished.

Nickel (Ni) has historically been detected at levels higher than in most
Oregon coastal rivers. The levels of nickel detected at the Rogue
project are determined to be from natural sources and are considered
background levels; in-water disposal will not create significant
additional risk to the environment, beyond what naturally exists in the
area. Samples where nickel exceeded 200 mg/kg have supported a diverse
population of benthic organisms (one sample was collected in 2007 to
verify the diverse benthic population).

### *ODMDS Sediments*

Geological data collected in 2007 by Marine Taxonomic Services (2008)
showed that the sediments in the ODMDS are mostly medium-to fine-grained
marine sands with at least 99% of the material larger than 0.062
millimeters (mm) except at one station that was mostly coarse gravel
(Table 3). Shell debris was present at most stations. These sandy
sediments are common to the Oregon Coast with natural variations in
percent fines due to variations in current structures and riverine
input. Byrne and Panshin (1977) found the area around the ODMDS to be a
sandy area with an area of gravel near the east end of the site and the
possibility of rock out-crops in the area. Trawling in 2007 confirmed
that there are likely some submerged rock outcrops within the ODMDS that
may periodically covered with sand during some ocean conditions (Marine
Taxonomic Services 2008). Total volatile solids analysis showed low
total volatile solids (1.7% to 2.5%) at all stations.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc203876098 .anchor}Table 2. Sediment Grain Size and
Total Volatile Solids Data, 2007

+------------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+------------+
| **Sample I.D.**  | **Grain |       |         |       |            |
|                  | Size    |       |         |       |            |
|                  | Percent |       |         |       |            |
|                  | (%)**   |       |         |       |            |
+------------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+------------+
|                  | **G     | **S   | **Silt  | **    | **Mean     |
|                  | ravel** | and** | /Clay** | Volat | Grain-**   |
|                  |         |       |         | ile** |            |
|                  | *       |       |         |       | **size     |
|                  | *(shell |       |         | **Sol | (mm)**     |
|                  | hash)** |       |         | ids** |            |
+------------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+------------+
| 0807RODMDS-BC-01 | 0       | 97.4  | 2.6     | 2.1   | 0.16       |
+------------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+------------+
| 0807RODMDS-BC-02 | 0       | 96.2  | 3.8     | 2.3   | 0.16       |
+------------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+------------+
| 0807RODMDS-BC-03 | 88.3    | 7.4   | 4.3     | 1.7   | 9.68       |
+------------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+------------+
| 0807RODMDS-BC-04 | 0.1     | 97.7  | 2.2     | 2.5   | 0.16       |
+------------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+------------+
| 0807RODMDS-BC-05 | 0       | 95.4  | 4.6     | 2.4   | 0.16       |
+------------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+------------+
| Mean Value       | 96.5    |       | 3.5     | 2.2   | \-\--      |
+------------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+------------+
| RODMDS = Rogue   |         |       |         |       |            |
| Ocean Dredge     |         |       |         |       |            |
| Material         |         |       |         |       |            |
| Disposal Site;   |         |       |         |       |            |
| BC = Box core    |         |       |         |       |            |
| (surface-grab    |         |       |         |       |            |
| sampler).        |         |       |         |       |            |
|                  |         |       |         |       |            |
| \% passing 200   |         |       |         |       |            |
| sieve (0.075 mm) |         |       |         |       |            |
| = silt/clay      |         |       |         |       |            |
| fraction.        |         |       |         |       |            |
+------------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+------------+

There was no mound of disposal material apparent within the disposal
site, which indicated that most material is being dispersed by currents
and wave action. The coarseness of the Rogue River entrance sediments,
isolation from existing or historical sources of contaminants, and the
presence of strong hydraulic regimes allows the material to be deemed
suitable for ocean disposal and exempt from further testing according to
provisions of 40 CFR 227.13(b).

### *Oceanographic Circulation*

The nearshore mean circulation is alongshore, closely paralleling the
bathymetric contours, with a lesser onshore-offshore component.
Circulation patterns are variable with season and weather conditions.
Monitoring of currents over a 5-year period indicated that the
predominant nearshore current direction is to the south, with short 2-
to 3-month periods each winter of currents to the north. At the disposal
site, measured currents were generally north with slightly more of an
onshore component in July. For the April-May period, the strongest
currents were usually north along the bottom contours. The currents in
July are mostly onshore, across bottom contours and northward. No
significant current southward was recorded. Appendix B provides details
of the sediment transport processes for the Rogue River and the ODMDS.

### *Geology*

The geological data collected in 2007 showed that the sediments in the
ODMDS are mostly medium-to fine-grained marine sands with at least 99%
of the material larger than 0.062 millimeters (mm) except at one station
which was mostly coarse gravel. Shell debris was present at most
stations. These sandy sediments are common to the Oregon Coast with
natural variations in percent fines due to variations in current
structures and riverine input.

Sediments dredged from the Rogue River entrance channel are coarser than
the offshore sediments. Mean grain size ranges from 0.47 to 0.94 mm and
is classified as medium to coarse sand. Samples contain as much as 10%
gravel. The side channel leading to the boat basin consists of fine sand
(0.21 mm) while the boat basin contains silt. The finest material
traditionally has been disposed on land by pipeline dredge. A sample
taken at the edge of the site is identical with the other native
sediments.

### *Water Quality*

Water quality in the vicinity of the proposed Rogue River ODMDS is
expected to be typical for seawater of the Pacific Northwest. There is
no reason to expect significant chemical contamination in either the
water or sediments as few heavy industries are located along the
estuary. Basic water quality parameters are taken in field sampling
during collections of sediment samples from the entrance channel. All of
the values have been within normal ranges for the Oregon Coast.

## Biological Resources

This section summarizes biological conditions in the ocean environment
offshore of the Rogue River entrance. Additional information is provided
in Appendix A. The existing ODMDS site is located in the nearshore area
and is typical of oceanic habitat common to the nearshore Pacific Coast
off Oregon.

### *Plankton and Fish Larvae*

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

Auth and Brodeur (2006) examined ichthyoplankton off the central Oregon
coast (along the Newport hydrographic line). The dominant taxa collected
were northern anchovy (*Engraulis mordax*), slender sole (*Lyopsetta
exilis*), rockfishes (*Sebastes* spp*.*), northern lampfish
(*Stenobrachius leucopsarus*), and blue lanternfish (*Tarletonbeania
crenularis*). Total larval concentration increased from 49.3 per 1000
m^3^ in 2000 to 72.0 per 1000 m^3^ in 2002, with seasonal concentrations
highest in August 2000 (90.3 per 1000 m^3^) and April 2002 (151.2 per
1000 m^3^). Relatively few larvae were found at depths greater than 100
meters, while highest larval concentrations generally occurred from
depths of 0 to 50 meters. Larval diversity and concentration were higher
offshore (46-84 kilometers) than in coastal areas (9-28 kilometers).
Highest concentrations were normally found at an intermediate station 65
kilometers off the coast. Species designated as either coastal or
offshore species by previous studies were predominantly found in their
respective shelf regions. Most larval concentrations were positively
correlated with temperature and negatively correlated with salinity.

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

### *Benthic Invertebrates*

Field sampling in 1984 gathered information on benthic and epibenthic
invertebrates and demersal fish at the Rogue River ODMDS (Corps 1988).
The benthic infaunal community was dominated by gammarid amphipods and
polychaete annelids. Gastropods and cumaceans were also common. Snails
were the dominant epibenthic. No significant difference in species
diversity between the sampling stations located within the ODMDS and the
reference sites were observed. In general, benthic infauna densities
were lower as compared to other shallow-water ocean disposal sites.

Field surveys were conducted in August and November 2007 by Marine
Taxonomic Services (2008) to provide current information about the
benthic invertebrate species present at the Rogue River ODMDS. The
benthic invertebrate fauna was found to be typical of the nearshore,
high-energy environment found along the Oregon Coast. The benthic
community at the ODMDS was driven by the opportunistic polychaetes
*Magelona sacculata*, *Spiophanes bombyx* and *Chaetozone nr. setosa*
and the gammarid amphipods *Mandibulophoxus gilesi* and *Eohaustorius*
spp. The only commercially important benthic infaunal species (*Siliqua*
spp.) was not very abundant at the ODMDS. The benthos in the area is
typical of the communities found near other ocean disposal sites along
the Oregon Coast, such as Coos Bay areas E and F, Umpqua River, Siuslaw
River, and Chetco River (Hancock et al., 1981; Corps 1985, 1988a, 1988b,
1990, 1999). This benthic community, largely dominated by very mobile
organisms, provides an important link in the marine food web. These
organisms serve as a direct food source for other benthic organisms and
demersal fishes. They also play an active role in the breakdown of
organic debris and the tube-building species help stabilize the marine
sediments. Many benthic species in the area are able to survive in this
dynamic environment since they are either very mobile or are able to
react both to natural or human perturbations. The benthic community
would be expected to re-colonize within a period of a few weeks to
months after disposal (Corps, 1993).

### *Fish and Epibenthic Species*

The commercially and recreationally important epibenthic species in
inshore coastal areas of Oregon include shellfish and Dungeness crab.
Razor clam beds are located along the inshore beaches in the Rogue River
area. It is generally thought that recruitment of razor clams to the
inshore beaches comes from subtidal spawning areas. Gaper clams,
cockles, and Pittock clams likely occur near the mouth of the Rogue
River and upriver in the estuary proper. Dungeness crab adults occur on
sandflat habitat along the Oregon Coast. They spawn in offshore areas
and occur in the estuary when conditions are favorable in late summer
and fall.

As discussed previously, the nearshore area off the Rogue River supports
anadromous salmonids including coho salmon, winter steelhead, and spring
and fall Chinook salmon, as well as a variety of other pelagic and
demersal fish species.

### *Commercial and Recreational Fisheries*

Based on data from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2006),
landings delivered to Gold Beach in 2000 were in the following West
Coast fisheries (data shown represents landings in metric tons/monetary
value of said landings/number of vessels landing; NA = not available):
crab (30/\$133,107/5), groundfish (43/\$236,173/36), salmon (NA/NA/1),
and other species (131/\$173,950/17). The ocean charter season goes
year-round offshore of the Rogue River and targets lingcod and
rockfishes. The 2000 recreational salmonid catch in the ocean boat
fishery was 74 Chinook salmon. The recreational non-salmonid catch was a
total of 15,416 fish. The top species landed included black rockfish,
blue rockfish (*Sebastes mystinus*), canary rockfish (*Sebastes
pinniger*), and lingcod (NMFS 2006).

### *Wildlife*

As discussed previously, Steller sea lions, harbor seals, and California
sea lions are present most of the year in the Rogue River coastal area.
The Rogue River nearshore area and shoreline provides important habitat
for shorebirds, waterfowl, herons, bald eagles, hawks, and many other
species of birds. Pelagic birds likely use the Rogue ZSF and adjacent
waters for foraging. The wildlife areas offshore of the Rogue River
entrance (Hubbard Mound, Rogue Reef, and Hunter's Island) provide
nesting habitat for many seabird species.

### *Endangered Species*

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon is a federally
listed species that occurs in the vicinity of the proposed Rogue River
ODMDS. The Rogue River and estuary were designated as critical habitat
but the ocean area off the Rogue River was not. Coho salmon are present
in the area as both adults and juveniles. Adults hold in the offshore
area prior to entering the estuary to migrate up river to spawn.
Juveniles rear in the nearshore ocean area after migrating downstream
and transitioning to saltwater. Upstream migration of adult coho salmon
in the Rogue River ranges from mid-August through November, with a
distinctive peak in September to mid-October. Juvenile outmigration
extends from April through June and peaks in mid-May to mid-June.

The Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of green sturgeon
(*Acipenser medirostris*) is listed as a federally threatened species.
Green sturgeon that spawn primarily in the Klamath and Rogue rivers
constitute the Northern DPS, which is not federally listed. Southern DPS
green sturgeon may occur at or near the Rogue River ODMDS as they
migrate to northern estuaries during summer and early fall.

The federally threatened Steller sea lion inhabits the lower Rogue River
and coastal area. Steller sea lions forage at river mouths and nearshore
areas along the Oregon Coast. Rogue Reef is used as a rookery and
haul-out area for Steller sea lions. More than 1,800 threatened Steller
sea lions (45% of state total) use the reef, forming the largest pupping
site for this species in the United States south of Alaska (Hillmann
2006). Peak sea lion attendance at the reef occurs during May, June, and
July; sea lions begin to leave the rookeries in August.

Federally listed avian species in the Rogue River offshore area include
the marbled murrelet, brown pelican, and short-tailed albatross. Marbled
murrelets are observed in small flocks or as individuals in the ocean
throughout the year. Brown pelicans are seasonally abundant (June to
September) along the Oregon Coast and in the lower reaches of various
estuaries, including the Rogue River. Brown pelicans are often
associated with spits and offshore rocks in the Rogue River area. The
short-tailed albatross may forage in open ocean areas off the Oregon
Coast.

The blue, fin, sei, sperm, humpback, and southern resident killer whales
are all federally endangered and occur as migrants off the Oregon Coast
in waters typically farther from shore than the proposed Rogue River
ODMDS. The loggerhead, green, leatherback, and olive ridley sea turtles
have been recorded from strandings along the Oregon and Washington
coasts. The occurrence of sea turtles off Oregon is associated with the
appearance of albacore. Albacore occurrence is strongly associated with
the warm waters of the Japanese Current. Because these warm waters
generally occur 30 to 60+ miles offshore, these sea turtle species do
not typically occur in the nearshore area.

## Socio-Economic Resources

The Rogue River enters the Pacific Ocean at the City of Gold Beach,
Oregon, located approximately 1.5 miles from the proposed Rogue River
ODMDS. Gold Beach, which is the Curry County seat, had a population in
the 2000 census of 1,897 while Curry County's population in 2000 was
21,137. The town was named for the gold that was discovered there in the
early 1850s. Not long after its settlement, lumber manufacturing became
the primary economic activity. Today the wood products industry remains
valuable, but the tourist and fishing industries have become more
important.

### *Cultural Resources*

Appendix D provides detailed information concerning cultural resources
in the Rogue River ODMDS area. Prehistoric cultural resources are
unlikely to be found within the Rogue offshore area. It is possible that
prehistoric Native Americans may have used portions of the Rogue
offshore reefs as a fishery. Any remaining remnants of prehistoric
fishing activity are unlikely or not retrievable. Shipwrecks are the
most probable cultural resources expected to exist within the offshore
area. Historical review indicates several recorded shipwrecks in the
Rogue offshore area. A side-scan sonar survey was conducted over a large
area in and around the Rogue River ODMDS. No shipwrecks or other
historic remnants were detected from this survey.

### *Recreational Uses*

Recreational resources in the Rogue River ODMDS area are described in
Appendix E. The offshore area and the Rogue River itself are popular
with recreationists because of the coastal scenery and excellent fishing
and other recreation opportunities during all seasons of the year. The
primary activities include sightseeing, fishing, beachcombing, and
boating. The area is increasing in popularity as a small boat harbor and
has excellent facilities for the many anglers who fish the area
annually. Nearby beaches and entrance jetties receive a continual influx
of recreationists. The nearshore ocean area is used by recreational
anglers and boaters. Clamming is also a popular recreation activity
along local beaches. Fishing in the vicinity of the ODMDS is primarily
for salmonids and bottom fish.

### *Commercial Uses*

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

# ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

EPA and the Corps considered several alternatives for disposal of
dredged material generated from the Rogue River navigation project or
other authorized users. Those alternatives include no action, upland
disposal, and estuarine disposal. The alternatives considered for ocean
disposal include disposal off the continental shelf, continued use of
the existing ODMDS, and/or designation of a new ODMDS. Although other
users may require dredged material disposal options, the Corps'
navigation project is the largest and most regular source of dredged
material in the vicinity. In addition, other potential users of the site
would likely face many of the same constraints as the Corps in the
disposal of dredged material. Therefore, the discussion of alternatives
focuses primarily on the Corps' navigational dredging.

## No Action Alternative

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

## Upland Disposal Alternative

Potential upland disposal sites are available and are used for portions
of the material currently dredged from the boat basin access channel.
The material that is disposed of at upland locations is removed using a
clamshell dredge and stockpiled at an upland rehandling site prior to
sale or use by the Port of Gold Beach. The location of the boat basin,
the relatively small quantities of material removed from the boat basin,
and the use of mechanical dredging equipment make upland rehandling a
feasible option for this material.

Hopper dredges, self-propelled, seagoing vessels, are the only equipment
that can be used to dredge the navigation channel because they can move
quickly to minimize interference with navigation traffic and can adjust
to rapidly changing weather and sea conditions. Because hopper dredges
stockpile dredged material on-board and are designed to bottom dump that
material, they are most efficiently utilized in conjunction with an
in-water disposal area. Rehandling of material, moving it from the
hopper dredge to another location for disposal, introduces an additional
cost and logistical component to the process. An in-water sump would
need to be dredged and material bottom-dumped into it, then pumped
ashore with a pipeline suction dredge. In addition to increased costs,
this approach would have additional adverse environmental impacts
associated with the dredging of an in-water estuarine site to be used as
the sump. Estuarine sites are both highly valued and limited (see below
for additional discussion). Another adverse impact of upland disposal is
that naturally-occurring sediments would be removed from the littoral
system. Upland disposal of entrance material dredged from the Rogue
River project, is not considered feasible due to the economic and
environmental effects resulting from nearshore rehandling of dredged
material.[^2]

## Estuarine Disposal Alternative

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

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

The Corps has placed portions of the dredged material from the boat
basin in intertidal areas for beneficial purposes. Specifically, some of
the material dredged by clamshell and pipeline dredges has been placed
in an area adjacent to the Gold Beach airport on the beach in the South
Beach surf zone. Beneficial use of dredged material is possible in these
instances because of the proximal location of the beneficial use site in
relation to the dredge location, the type of dredging equipment
utilized, and the relatively small quantity of material dredged.

## Ocean Disposal Alternatives

Ocean disposal alternatives include disposal of the material off the
continental shelf, continued use of the existing ODMDS, and/or
designation of a new ODMDS.

### *Disposal off of the Continental Shelf*

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

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

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

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

Given the currently unanswered environmental concerns coupled with the
cost/logistical issues of both disposal and monitoring, disposal off of
the continental shelf is not currently a feasible alternative.
Substantial additional investigation would be required in order to
determine the scope of the possible environmental impacts of this
alternative. That investigation is not currently warranted given the
suitability of the existing site as discussed below.

### *Continued Use of Existing ODMDS*

The existing 103-selected Rogue River ODMDS has been used for disposal
of dredged material since at least 1977. From 1986 to 2006,
approximately 1.1 million cy of dredged material suitable for ocean
disposal have been placed in the 103-selected Rogue River ODMDS for a
20-year average annual loading volume of 54,000 cy/year. A uniform
placement strategy has been applied. The site is relatively small which
limits disposal options. However, regular bathymetric surveys have shown
that persistent mounding has not occurred at the site. Continued
management and monitoring of the site would take place in accordance
with the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) attached in appendix
F. Over the long-term, site capacity seems to be unlimited as material
placed redistributes out of the site, feeding the littoral cell.

There is a preference towards using sites that have been used
historically as expressed in the regulations at 40 CFR § 228.5(e). The
existing Rogue River ODMDS has been in use successfully for 30 years and
has not resulted in any mounding or associated environmental effects.
Given the problematic nature of other disposal options discussed above,
and the proven capability of this site to accommodate dredge material,
the following analysis will be limited to an evaluation of the existing
site according to the regulatory criteria, to determine its suitability
for continued use.

### *Designation of New ODMDS*

A new ODMDS could potentially be evaluated for designation. However,
there is an existing site that has been historically used and based on
EPA's general regulatory criteria at 40 CFR § 228.5(e), that site will
be evaluated for continued use before another location is identified or
evaluated.

## Need for Disposal Site Designation

EPA undertook its evaluation of whether to designate any dredged
material disposal sites near the mouth of the Rogue River pursuant to
its authority under MPRSA section 102(c) in response to several factors.
These factors include the following:

1.  The prohibition on further use of the existing Rogue Section 103
    disposal site following the close of the 2008-2009 dredging season
    pursuant to the Corps\' site selection authority under MPRSA section
    103(b), which allows the Corps to designate a Section 103 site for a
    period of 5 years with a maximum 5 year extension;

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

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

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

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

# ANALYSIS OF OCEAN DUMPING SITE DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

## Overview

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

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

## Defining a Zone of Siting Feasibility

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

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

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

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

## Rogue River ODMDS Zone of Siting Feasibility

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

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

In discerning a ZSF for the Rogue River ODMDS, certain factors are
relatively fixed. The 7-year average (2002-2008) volume dredged from the
Rogue River Navigation Project and currently disposed at the
103-selected disposal site is 34,138 cubic yards (CY). Under current and
foreseeable conditions at the project the estimated volume of material
to be dredged and disposed of annually is expected to remain at the
current average of 34,138 CY. Based upon work load, available funding
and other constraints, the government-owned hopper dredge YAQUINA is
typically available 6.4 days (according to latest 7 year average) at the
Rogue River navigation project or, in its absence, a contract dredge is
available for a similar length of time. This equates to equipment
available for dredging and disposing of, on average, 5427 CY per day.
The rated capacity for the YAQUINA is 1,042 CY per load. However, the
authorized depth for the Rogue River Navigation Project is shallow, only
13 ft, and the YAQUINA, with a draft of 8 ft, cannot be fully loaded
without grounding. Therefore, for the purposes of calculating the ZSF, a
partial load was assumed. Load time is typically around 45 minutes at
the mouth of the Rogue River. Depending on conditions set in the SMMP,
environmental conditions at the disposal site, and characteristics of
the dredged material, dump time once at a site ranges from 2 to 5
minutes. The dredge typically operates 24 hours per day except when
crews are changed. The ZSF, as determined by haul distance, can be
calculated as follows:

Assume 10 partial (1/2) loads per day (5427 CY ÷ (1042 ÷ 2) CY/load =
10.41 loads)

Load time (.77 hr) + Dump time (0.053 hr) = .82 hr/load X 10 loads or
8.2 hr/day

24 hr/day -- 8.20 hr/day = 15.80 hr/day for transit to and from the
disposal site

15.8 hr/day ÷ 10 loads/day = 1.58 hr transit time for one round trip

1.58 hr ÷ 2 = 0.79 hr transit one way

0.79 hr X 6 kts (vessel speed) = 4.74 nm

Thus the outer limit of the ZSF for the Rogue River ODMDS, as limited by
the capacity of the available dredging plant, average annual dredging
quantity, and limited dredging time period is 4.74 nm from the Rogue
River navigation project. This is the area within which potential sites
will initially be evaluated according to the MPRSA statutory
requirements and regulatory criteria.

## Regulatory Criteria for Ocean Disposal Site Selection

EPA evaluated the five general (40 CFR 228.5) and 11 specific (40 CFR
228.6) regulatory criteria for site designation in reviewing the
currently proposed Rogue River ODMDS. A conflict matrix format is
utilized in Table 3 to simplify and consolidate scoring for the general
and specific site criteria review process. Each area of consideration on
the conflict matrix addresses at least one general or specific
criterion. A legend defining the matrix categories follows the table.

### *General Criteria*

**Minimize Interference with Other Activities (a.)**. The first of the
five general criteria requires that a determination be made as to
whether the proposed site or its use will minimize interference with
other uses of the marine environment. This determination was made by
overlaying individual uses with the resources presented in the *Rogue
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Evaluation* (Corps 1988) and the
more recent appendices prepared for this evaluation. The report presents
the overlays on a base map, giving bathymetry and location of the ODMDS
and ZSF. The more interactions between various uses and limited
resources exist, the more critical the area. The overlay process was
used to minimize interference with other uses of the ocean. The
selection of features to use for this determination was dependent on
whether the resource was considered limited. The following were selected
to be included in the evaluation of resources of limited distribution:

1\. Navigation Hazards Area/Other Recreation Areas

2\. Shellfish Areas

3\. Critical Aquatic Resources

4\. Commercial and Sport Fishing Areas

5\. Geological Features

6\. Cultural, Historically Significant Areas

Figure 2 is a composite of all of the above areas and indicates by
various patterns, the relative amount of total usage in the vicinity of
the proposed Rogue River ODMDS. The Rogue River ODMDS lies south of the
most navigationally and environmentally critical area, the reefs in the
northwestern part of the ZSF. These reefs represent valuable habitat for
fish such as black and yellow rockfish and lingcod. They are extensively
fished. Commercial and recreational salmon fishing occurs in ZSF but it
is not limited to that area, occurring (as it does) over a wide
nearshore area. Disposal operations and the salmon fishing season do
overlap; however, coordination with Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife personnel indicate no observable conflicts between the two
uses. Appendix A discusses all potential conflicts with living resources
and concludes that there have been no major conflicts in the past, and
no predictable conflicts are expected in the future.

**Minimizes Changes in Water Quality (b)**. The second of the five
general criteria requires changes to ambient seawater quality levels
occurring outside the disposal site to be within water quality criteria,
and that no detectable contaminants reach beaches, shoreline,
sanctuaries, or geographically limited fisheries or shellfisheries. The
primary impact of disposal activities on water quality is expected to be
the temporary turbidity caused by the physical movement of sediment
through the water column. Based on modeling completed by the Corps,
water column turbidity would be expected to dissipate within a few
minutes for 97% of the dredged material disposed (sandier material), and
within a half hour for finer grained sediments, which comprise about 3%
of dredged material (Corps, 2008).

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

**Interim Sites Which Do Not Meet Criteria (c)**. There are no existing
interim sites which fail to meet the criteria in the vicinity of the
proposed site. No studies indicate that the proposed site, which was
designated on an interim basis, is unsuitable for continued use as an
ODMDS. The data, which are more fully discussed below, show that the
proposed site is environmentally acceptable for the types and quantities
of dredged material it currently receives and is suitable for continued
use as an ODMDS designated on a final basis and subject to site
management pursuant to the SMMP.

Table 3. Conflict Matrix for the Proposed Rogue River ODMDS

+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| **AREA OF**        | > | > | > | > | **COMMENTS**    | **R     | **R     |
|                    |   |   |   |   |                 | ELEVANT | ELEVANT |
| **CONSIDERATION    | * | * | * | * |                 | S       | GE      |
| ^1/^**             | * | * | * | * |                 | PECIFIC | NERAL** |
|                    | C | P | N | B |                 | FA      |         |
|                    | O | O | O | E |                 | CTORS** | **CRI   |
|                    | N | T | > | N |                 |         | TERIA** |
|                    | F | E |   | E |                 | **11    |         |
|                    | L | N | C | F |                 | S       | **5     |
|                    | I | T | O | I |                 | pecific | General |
|                    | C | I | N | C |                 | Factors | C       |
|                    | T | A | F | I |                 | ^3/^**  | riteria |
|                    | > | L | L | A |                 |         | ^4/^**  |
|                    |   | > | I | L |                 | **(40   |         |
|                    | ^ |   | C | > |                 | CFR     | **(40   |
|                    | 2 | C | T |   |                 | 2       | CFR     |
|                    | / | O | * | U |                 | 28.6)** | 2       |
|                    | ^ | N | * | S |                 |         | 28.5)** |
|                    | * | F |   | E |                 |         |         |
|                    | * | L |   | * |                 |         |         |
|                    |   | I |   | * |                 |         |         |
|                    |   | C |   |   |                 |         |         |
|                    |   | T |   |   |                 |         |         |
|                    |   | * |   |   |                 |         |         |
|                    |   | * |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 1\. Unusual        |   |   | X |   |                 | 1, 6,   | a       |
| Topography/Unique  |   |   |   |   |                 | 8, 11   |         |
| Bottom Features    |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 2\. Physical       |   |   | X |   |                 | 3, 4, 9 | b, c, d |
| Sediment           |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
| Compatibility      |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 3\. Chemical       |   |   | X |   |                 | 3, 4,   | a, b,   |
| Sediment           |   |   |   |   |                 | 7, 9    | c, d    |
| Compatibility      |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 4\. Influence of   |   |   | X |   |                 | 5, 7,   | a, b, d |
| Past Disposal      |   |   |   |   |                 | 9, 10   |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 5\. Living         |   |   | X |   |                 | 2, 3,   | a, b, d |
| Resources of       |   |   |   |   |                 | 6, 8,   |         |
| Limited            |   |   |   |   |                 | 11      |         |
| Distribution       |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 6\. Commercial     |   | X |   |   |                 | 2, 8    | a, b    |
| Fisheries          |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 7\. Recreational   |   | X |   |   | Salmon          | 2, 8    | a\. b   |
| Fisheries          |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 8\.                |   |   | X |   | Pelagic Birds,  | 2, 8    | a, b    |
| Breeding/Spawning  |   |   |   |   | Northern Sea    |         |         |
| Areas              |   |   |   |   | Lions           |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 9\. Nursery Areas  |   | X |   |   | English Sole    | 2, 8    | a, b    |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 10\. Feeding Areas |   |   | X |   | Harbor Seals,   | 2, 8    | a, b    |
|                    |   |   |   |   | Brown Pelicans, |         |         |
|                    |   |   |   |   | Pelagic Birds,  |         |         |
|                    |   |   |   |   | Northern &      |         |         |
|                    |   |   |   |   | California Sea  |         |         |
|                    |   |   |   |   | Lions           |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 11\. Migration     |   | X |   |   | Juveniles &     | 2, 8    | a, b    |
| Routes             |   |   |   |   | Adults for      |         |         |
|                    |   |   |   |   | Pelagic Birds,  |         |         |
|                    |   |   |   |   | Whales,         |         |         |
|                    |   |   |   |   | Pinnipeds       |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 12\. Critical      |   |   | X |   | Brown Pelicans, | 2, 8    | a\. b   |
| Habitat of         |   |   |   |   | Peregrine       |         |         |
| Threatened or      |   |   |   |   | Falcon,         |         |         |
| Endangered Species |   |   |   |   | Migrants,       |         |         |
|                    |   |   |   |   | Forage in Area  |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 13\. Spatial       |   |   | X |   |                 | 2, 8,   | a\. b   |
| Distribution of    |   |   |   |   |                 | 10      |         |
| Benthos            |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 14\. Marine        |   |   | X |   | Harbor Seals,   | 2, 8    | a\. b   |
| Mammals            |   |   |   |   | Northern &      |         |         |
|                    |   |   |   |   | California Sea  |         |         |
|                    |   |   |   |   | Lions, Whale    |         |         |
|                    |   |   |   |   | Migration Route |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 15\. Mineral       |   | X |   |   | Offshore Placer | 1, 8    | a\. b.  |
| Deposits           |   |   |   |   | Deposits        |         | c       |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 16\. Navigation    |   |   | X |   |                 | 1, 8    | a, b, d |
| Hazard             |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 17\. Other Uses of |   |   | X |   |                 | 8       | a, b, d |
| Ocean              |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
|                    |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
| (cables,           |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
| pipelines, etc)    |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 18\. Degraded      |   |   | X |   |                 | 4, 6, 7 | a, b, d |
| Areas              |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 19\. Water Column  |   |   | X |   |                 | 4, 6, 9 | a, b, d |
| Chemical/Physical  |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
| Characteristics    |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 20\. Recreational  |   | X |   |   | Salmon/Reef     | 2, 8,   | a, b,   |
| Uses               |   |   |   |   | Fish            | 11      | c, d    |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 21\.               |   |   | X |   |                 | 11      | b       |
| Cultural/Historic  |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
| Sites              |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 22\. Physical      |   |   | X |   |                 | 1, 3,   | a, b, d |
| Oceanography -     |   |   |   |   |                 | 6, 7    |         |
| Waves/Circulation  |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 23\. Direction of  |   | X |   |   | To Offshore     | 1, 3,   | a, b, d |
| T                  |   |   |   |   | Rocks           | 6, 7    |         |
| ransport/Potential |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
| for Settlement     |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 24\. Monitoring    |   |   | X |   |                 | 5       | c       |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 25\. Shape/Size of |   |   | X |   |                 | 1, 4, 7 | d       |
| Site               |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 26\. Size of       |   | X |   |   | Offshore Rocks  | 2, 3,   | b, d    |
| Buffer Zone        |   |   |   |   | Adjacent to     | 4, 7,   |         |
|                    |   |   |   |   | Site            | 11      |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+
| 27\. Potential for |   |   | X |   |                 | 4, 7    | c, d    |
| Cumulative Effects |   |   |   |   |                 |         |         |
+--------------------+---+---+---+---+-----------------+---------+---------+

*Conflict Matrix Legend*

**1/ Definition of "Areas of Consideration"**

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

2\. [Physical Sediment Compatibility]{.underline}: Does the candidate
site have similar sediment characteristics to anticipated dredged
material?

3\. [Chemical Sediment Compatibility]{.underline}: Does the candidate
site have similar chemical characteristics to anticipated dredged
material?

4\. [Influence of Past Disposal]{.underline}: Would placement of
material in this candidate site be affected by previous disposal of
dredge material?

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

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

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

8\. [Breeding/Spawning Areas]{.underline}: Would placement of material
in this candidate site affect breeding and spawning areas of any
species?

9\. [Nursery Areas]{.underline}: Would placement of material in this
candidate site affect nursery areas of any species?

10\. [Feeding Areas]{.underline}: Would placement of material in this
candidate site affect feeding areas of any species?

11\. [Migration Routes]{.underline}: Would placement of material in this
candidate site affect migration routes of species?

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

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

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

15\. [Mineral Deposits]{.underline}: Would any known mineral deposits be
affected by the placement of material?

16\. [Navigation Hazard]{.underline}: Would the placement of material
create a navigation hazard?

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

18\. [Degraded Areas]{.underline}: Would disposal in this candidate site
continue to affect or improve the degraded area?

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

20\. [Recreational Uses]{.underline}: Would placement of material affect
recreational uses?

21\. [Cultural/Historic Sites]{.underline}: Would placement of material
in this candidate site impact or protect a cultural/historic site?

22\. [Physical Oceanography, Waves/Circulation]{.underline}: Would
placement of material affect wave/circulation patterns?

23\. [Direction of Transport/Potential for Settlement]{.underline}:
Would placement of material affect direction of sediment transport
and/or potential for settlement?

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

25\. [Shape/Size of Candidate Site]{.underline}: Is the candidate site
suitable for the operation of a dredge?

Maneuverability of the dredge?

Is it orientated so the dredge can place material while heading into the
waves? Is the depth of water sufficient to open the hopper doors/dump
scow? Can the dredge operate safely?

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

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

27\. [Potential for Cumulative Effects]{.underline}: Would placement of
material contribute to cumulative affects from other activities?

*Conflict Matrix Legend (continued)*

**2/ Definition of Degrees of Conflict**

[Conflict]{.underline}: There will definitely be an adverse impact on
the resource or the use.

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

[No Conflict]{.underline}: There will definitely not be an adverse
impact on the resource or the use.

[Beneficial Use]{.underline}: There will be a positive impact on the
resource or the use.

**3/ Eleven Specific Factors for Ocean Disposal Site Selection**

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

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

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

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

5\. Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c\. If at any time during or after disposal site evaluation studies, it
is determined that existing disposal sites presently approved on an
interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet criteria for site selection
set forth in Sections 228.5-228.6, the use of such sites will be
terminated as soon as suitable alternative disposal sites can be
designated.

d\. The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize, for identification and control, any 1 immediate adverse
impacts and to permit the implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance programs to prevent adverse, long-range impacts. The size,
configuration, and location of any disposal site will be determined as a
part of the disposal site evaluation or designation study.

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

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc203876100 .anchor} Figure 2. Overlay Evaluation of
Individual Resources of Limited Distribution

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.9944444444444445in" height="8.2in"}

**Size of Sites (d)**. The fourth general criterion requires that the
size, configuration, and location of the site be evaluated as part of
the study and the size to be limited. Ocean disposal sites are sized to
localize, for identification and control, any immediate adverse impact
and permit the implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance
programs. The size, configuration, and location of the proposed Rogue
River ODMDS was evaluated as part of the 1988 evaluation (Corps 1988).
The proposed ODMDS is 3,600-feet long by 1,400-feet wide. The site is
dispersive and of appropriate size to handle the volumes of material it
receives annually without resulting in mounding or any associated
concerns, as evidenced by the lack of mounding during the 30 years of
disposal activities at the Existing ODMDS. Public notices issued for
specific, proposed ocean disposal operations, as required by MPRSA, have
not generated concerns about undue impacts from the site's use.

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

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

In addition, the haul distance to a site beyond the shelf is much
greater than the 4.74 nautical mile limit of the Rogue Zone of Siting
Feasibility, making the site economically and logistically infeasible
for the Corps navigation project, which is the primary expected user of
the site. The additional cost/time associated with the increased haul
distance, monitoring difficulties, and environmental concerns regarding
disposal in such areas makes off-shelf disposal undesirable.

Lastly, criterion "e" provides a preference for disposal off the
continental shelf, or in "other such sites that have been historically
used." The existing Rogue site has been in the same location for over 30
years and has not resulted in any known long-term impacts to the
environment or other uses of the area. Therefore, in proposing to
designate the existing site, EPA is utilizing a site that has been
historically used.

### *Specific Criteria*

**Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography, and Distance
from the Coast (1)**. The Rogue River ODMDS is approximately 1.75 miles
southwest from the entrance to the Rogue River (see Figure 1). Appendix
B contains a detailed discussion of the bottom topography of the site.
In general, the site lies on bottom contours sloping at a rate of 8/1000
feet to the west-southwest. The designated site would be used for
disposal of dredged material from the Rogue River navigation project and
other permitted projects. Site coordinates (NAD 83) and dimensions of
the proposed Rogue River ODMDS are as follows:

> A. 42° 24' 15.40", 124° 26' 52.39" *Dimensions:*
>
> B. 42° 24' 03.40", 124° 26' 39.39" 1,400-feet wide by 3,600-feet long

C. 42° 23' 39.40", 124° 27' 17.40" 116 acres

> D. 42° 23' 51.40", 124° 27' 30.40" Depth: 50 to 90 feet

Based upon consideration of the location, depth of water, bottom
topography, and distance from the coast, the proposed ODMDS has been
demonstrated to be suitable for the disposal of dredged material when
placed in accordance with the SMMP.

**Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or
Passage Areas of Living Resources in Adult of Juvenile Phases (2)**.
Aquatic resources of the oceanic region off the mouth of the Rogue River
are described in detail in Appendix A. In addition, EPA has evaluated
possible impacts to species and critical habitat listed under the
Endangered Species Act in the *Rogue River, Oregon: Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation Biological Assessment* (BA), dated
June 5, 2008. The proposed ODMDS is located in the nearshore area and
many nearshore pelagic organisms occur in the water column over the
site. These include zooplankton (copepods, euphausiids, pteropods, and
chaetognaths) and meroplankton (fish, crab, and other invertebrate
larvae). These organisms generally display seasonal changes in
abundance. Since they are present in the oceanic region off of most of
the Pacific Coast, those directly off the Rogue River are small compared
to the overall coastal population.

The Rogue River mouth contains several neritic reefs within it. These
reefs are unusual features along the Pacific Coast and support a variety
of aquatic organisms, including bull kelp (*Nereocystis luetkeana*) and
its associated fish and invertebrate community. The ODMDS is located
approximately 2 nautical miles southeast of the Rogue Reef as shown on
Figure 1. Since the disposal material is clean sand that settles quickly
within the ODMDS, any movement of the disposed sand into reef areas
would occur through natural littoral transport. Also, since the disposal
quantity is relatively small compared to the longshore transport,
disposal at the ODMDS should not adversely affect marine aquatic
communities in the reef areas.

Benthic samples are discussed in Appendix A. Based on the analysis of
benthic samples collected in both 1984 and 2007 from the Rogue River
ODMDS area, the ocean disposal site contains benthic fauna common to
nearshore sandy, wave-influenced regions that exist along much of the
Pacific Coast in Oregon and Washington.

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

[]{.mark}

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

The nearshore area off the Rogue River supports anadromous salmonids
including winter steelhead (*Oncorhynchus mykiss*), spring and fall
Chinook salmon (*Oncorhynchus tshawytscha*), and federally threatened
coho salmon (*Oncorhynchus kisutch*), as well as a variety of other
pelagic and demersal fish species. Common pelagic species include the
Pacific herring (*Clupea harengus pallasi*), northern anchovy
(*Engraulis mordax*), and surf smelt (*Hypomesus pretiosus*). Demersal
species present in the inshore area are mostly residents and include a
number of sculpins, sea perch, and rockfish species that are associated
with Rogue Reef, as well as flatfish species occurring predominantly
over open sandflats. Common flatfish species include English sole
(*Parophrys vetulus*), sanddab (*Citharichthys* spp.), and starry
flounder (*Platichthys stellatus*). English sole and starry flounder,
along with the sand sole (*Psettichthys melanostictus*) spawn in the
inshore coastal area in the summer and juveniles of these, as well as
other marine species, may rear in the estuary.

Three species of seals and sea lions inhabit the lower Rogue River and
coastal area. Steller sea lions (*Eumetopias jubatus*), a federally
threatened species, and harbor seals (*Pusa vitulina*) are year-long
residents, while California sea lions (*Zalophus californianus*) are
present most of the year. Harbor seals breed in the estuary and on
nearshore rocks. Steller sea lions forage at river mouths and nearshore
areas along the Oregon Coast. Rogue Reef is used as a rookery and
haul-out area for Steller sea lions and is designated as critical
habitat under ESA. Many harbor seals and California sea lions are also
found at the reef. More than 1,800 threatened Steller sea lions (45% of
state total) use the reef, forming the largest pupping site for this
species in the United States south of Alaska (Hillmann 2006). Steller
sea lion population counts for Oregon have increased since 1977, when
the statewide non-pup population totaled 1,431, to 4,169 in 2002, an
annual rate of increase of about 3.7% (Brown et al. 2002). Brown, et al.
(2002), also found that the pup counts for the Rogue Reef have increased
over time, from 492 in 1990 to 746 in 2002, although the pup counts have
not been completed annually. Steller sea lion numbers appear to be lower
off Oregon in the winter than summer with peak presence occurring June
and July (Roffe and Mate, 1984).

Wildlife areas offshore of the Rogue River entrance include Hubbard
Mound, Rogue Reef, and Hunter's Island. Hubbard Mound to the north is a
nesting area for oystercatchers, gulls, Brandt's cormorants
(*Phalacrocorax penicillatus*), pelagic cormorants (*Phalacrocorax
pelagicus*), and common murres (*Uria aalge*). Sea lions also haulout on
Hubbard Mound. To the northwest, Rogue Reef provides nesting habitat for
many pelagic birds including about 4,000 common murres and more than 500
Brandt's cormorants (Hillmann 2006). Hunter's Island to the south
provides nesting habitat for storm petrels, cormorants, and gulls. Other
seabird species that congregate and nest on the island include Cassin's
auklets (*Ptychoramphus aleuticus*), oystercatchers, pigeon guillemots
(*Cepphus columba*), rhinoceros auklets (*Cerorhinca monocerata*), and
tufted puffins (*Fratercula cirrhata*). Harbor seals use the island as a
rookery.

Federally listed avian species that may be present in the Rogue River
offshore area include the marbled murrelet (*Brachyramphus marmoratus*,
threatened), brown pelican (*Pelecanus occidentalis*, endangered), and
short-tailed albatross (*Phoebastria albatrus*, endangered). Marbled
murrelets are observed in small flocks or as individuals in the ocean
throughout the year. Brown pelicans are seasonally abundant (June to
September) along the Oregon Coast and in the lower reaches of various
estuaries, including the Rogue River. Brown pelicans are often
associated with spits and offshore rocks in the Rogue River area. On
February 20, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to remove
the brown pelican from the federal list of endangered and threatened
wildlife due to recovery (73 *Federal Register* 9407). The short-tailed
albatross may forage in open ocean areas off the Oregon Coast.

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

In general, the location of the proposed ODMDS does not provide any
unique breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage habitat. It is
unlikely that any of the larger organisms (fish, marine mammals,
turtles, etc.) would experience physiological effects as a consequence
of disposal because the resulting turbidity plume and physical
disturbance to the water column would likely cause them to avoid the
area. Based on modeling completed by the Corps, water column turbidity
would be expected to dissipate within a few minutes to half hour (Corps,
2008). Any avoidance behavior would be limited to the duration of this
physical disturbance. Indirect impacts could occur if disposal
operations changed the value of the habitat by burying the existing
benthic community where dredged material is deposited. The benthic
community would be expected to re-colonize within a period of a few
weeks to months after disposal, limiting any effects to forage fish
(Corps, 1993). Lastly, evaluation of past disposal activities have not
indicated that any long-term adverse impacts to living resources have
occurred. Therefore, EPA concluded in the BA that the site designation
was not likely to adversely affect any listed species or critical
habitat.

**Location in Relation to Beaches and other Amenity Areas (3)**. The
northwest corner of the interim ODMDS is just over 2,000 yards from the
end of the South Jetty. The inshore comer of the site lies approximately
1,500 yards offshore. South Beach is located immediately west of Gold
Beach and is approximately 7 miles long, spanning from the Rogue River
south to Cape Sebastian. Bailey Beach, approximately 3 miles long, is
located immediately north of Gold Beach.

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

The majority of the dredged material disposed in the ocean traditionally
comes from shoals in the Rogue River entrance channel. They consist
primarily of marine sand transported into the entrance. The material is
clean, with the exception of nickel contains no contaminants of concern
above screening levels, is far removed from known sources of
contaminants, and has been characterized under the Northwest Regional
Sediment Evaluation Framework (SEF) as suitable for unconfined
open-water disposal. Sediments in the Rogue River and offshore do have
elevated levels of nickel compared to other drainage basins along the
Oregon Coast. Because of their consistency and lack of known local
sources, these levels are believed to be background in the river system.
Material dredged from the boat basin access channel is finer but has
been evaluated under the SEF and also found suitable for unconfined
open-water disposal. Material dredged from the boat basin access channel
may at times be placed in either the ODMDS, an upland rehandling area
that is a beneficial use site for the Port of Gold Beach, or adjacent to
the Gold Beach airport in the South Beach surf zone. The ODMDS has been
sized to accommodate the quantity of material to be placed.

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

**Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing Characteristics of
the Area Including Prevailing Current Direction and Velocity, if Any
(6)**. Appendix B provides a detailed discussion regarding this
criterion. The material dredged from the Rogue River navigation channel
is medium to coarse sand. The Rogue River ODMDS is exposed to normal
wave action as described in Appendix B. For the range of depths and
grain sizes found at the Rogue River ODMDS, there is nearly constant
mobilization of bottom sediment due to wave action. This wave-induced
motion is not responsible for net transport, but, once in motion, bottom
sediments can be affected by other forces such as gravity or directional
currents.

The nearshore circulation patterns at Rogue are unclear. Their
complexity is perhaps due to the rocky reefs in the northern part of the
ZSF. The prevailing currents at the depth of the disposal site seem to
be towards the north. Figure B-6 in Appendix B illustrates the sediment
transport system assumed to be active. Although the Rogue River must
deliver a large sediment load, the bottom contours suggest a rapid
distribution offshore. While there is shoreline accretion 1 to 2 miles
to the north, the shoreline to the south seems to be in equilibrium,
suggesting littoral transport to the south is balanced by offshore
transport. Disposal of dredged material at the ODMDS does not appear to
contribute significantly to coastal processes.

**Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and Dumping
in the Area including Cumulative Effects (7)**. Due to coarser sediments
being deposited on finer ones at the disposal site, theoretically there
is a potential for mounding to occur. Bathymetric surveys, however, have
shown no signs of mounding at the ODMDS from past disposal. These
surveys actually show erosion of the seafloor in the area of the ODMDS
(see Appendix B). Periodic monitoring will continue to evaluate
potential mounding and erosion.

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

**[Commercial and Recreational Fishing]{.underline}**. The major
commercial fishing areas in the vicinity of the proposed Rogue River
ODMDS are discussed in Appendix A. Based on data from the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2006) for commercial fishing, a total of
50 vessels, all commercially registered, delivered landings to Gold
Beach in 2000. Landings were in the following West Coast fisheries (data
shown represents landings in metric tons/monetary value of said
landings/number of vessels landing; NA = not available): crab
(30/\$133,107/5), groundfish (43/\$236,173/36), salmon (NA/NA/1), and
other species (131/\$173,950/17). There were no fish processors
operating in Gold Beach in 2000. Gold Beach residents owned 20 vessels
in 2000, seven of which participated in the federally managed groundfish
fishery. On May 1, 2008, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez
declared a commercial fishery failure for the West Coast salmon
fishery because of historically low salmon returns and accordingly, NMFS
closed the 2008 salmon fishery in Oregon south of Cape Falcon. The
primary concern prompting the declaration was the decline in the
Sacramento Chinook population.

The major recreational fishing areas in the vicinity of the proposed
Rogue River ODMDS are discussed in Appendices A and E. Based on data
from the NMFS (2006) for recreational fishing, Gold Beach had at least
27 outfitter guide businesses in 2003. Ten licensed charter vessel
businesses were located in the community (two had their homeport in
Brookings). There were about 28 sport fishing businesses in 2003. The
ocean charter season goes year-round and targets lingcod and rockfishes.
Gold Beach has nine licensing vendors and in 2000, the number of
licenses sold was 3,566 at a value of \$60,984. The 2000 recreational
salmonid catch in the ocean boat fishery was 74 Chinook salmon. The
recreational non-salmonid catch totaled 15,416 fish. The top species
landed included black rockfish, blue rockfish (*Sebastes mystinus*),
canary rockfish (*Sebastes pinniger*), and lingcod.

The length of the salmon fishing season varies each year depending upon
the established quota; however, it normally extends from July to
September. During this period, the potential exists for conflicts
between the dredge and fishing boats. The Coast Guard and the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife indicate that they are not aware of any
instance where this has been a problem. The Dungeness crab season is
from December 1 to August 15; however, most of the fishing is done prior
to June and usually ends early because of the increase in unmarketable
soft shell crabs in the catch. As a result, most crab fishing is done
outside of the normal dredging season and it is unlikely that a conflict
would result. There are no commercial fish or shellfish aquaculture
operations that would currently be impacted by final designation of the
Rogue River ODMDS.

**[Mineral Extraction]{.underline}**. The Rogue River and its
tributaries flow through bedrock containing mineralized zones and have
several reaches containing gold placer deposits. Beach placers at Gold
Beach have been mined in the past for gold and platinum. Mining was done
in the winter when the sand was stripped from the beaches, exposing the
mineral rich gravels. Some placers were also found on uplifted marine
terraces (Ramp 1973, Gray and Kulm 1985). Historically the most
prominent and extensive zones of heavy mineral concentrations identified
on the continental shelf of the Oregon Coast were believed to occur off
the mouth of the Rogue River. Chromite, ilmenite, and magnetite make up
the bulk of the concentration according to Kulm (1988). The most
extensive deposits were thought to be located off the Rogue River with
heavy mineral concentrations ranging from 20% to 30%. These deposits
were identified as approximately 37 km long extending from the nearshore
zone to water depths of 90 meters. It has been suggested that the
magnetic anomalies found off the Rogue and Sixes rivers were caused by
mineral deposits having dimensions and mineral characteristics similar
to those of deposits located onshore in adjacent beach and terrace
deposits (Kulm 1988, Peterson and Binner 1988).

The Oregon Placer Minerals Technical Task Force commissioned a
reconnaissance-level field investigation of heavy mineral placer
deposits offshore of the Rogue River in September and October 1990
(Oregon 1991). The study did not find any heavy mineral deposits that
could be mined in the Rogue River area. Previous reports of magnetic
anomalies were attributed to near-surface masses of bedrock. Offshore
deposits are not currently being mined nor are any currently proposed
for mining. While there have been several historical attempts to find
oil and gas along the Oregon Coast, test wells have not found
significant quantities of oil or gas. As of 2007, no test wells have
been drilled south of Cape Blanco on the Oregon Coast. The State of
Oregon currently has a moratorium on leasing for purpose of exploration,
development, or production of oil, gas, or sulfur up to 3 miles off the
Oregon Coast until January 2, 2010.

**[Desalination]{.underline}**. There are no desalination plants in the
area of the Rogue River.

**[Wave Energy]{.underline}**. With the increased interest in
alternative energy sources, various wave energy projects have been
proposed off the coast of Oregon. The Governor of the State of Oregon,
in a November 2007 news release to the Oregon Fishing Industry, stated
that he was asking the Federal Energy Regulation Commission to limit the
permitting of wave energy to five to seven sites. These projects will
involve numerous generating buoys moored offshore with transmission
lines running to shore distribution facilities. At present all proposed
projects are north of Cape Blanco. The closest if permitted would be
located offshore of Bandon, Oregon. No wave energy projects are
currently proposed off the Rogue River.

**[Fish and Shellfish Culture]{.underline}**. There are no fish or
shellfish culture operations in the area of the Rogue River ODMDS.

**[Shipping and Other Legitimate Uses]{.underline}**. No conflicts with
commercial navigation traffic have been recorded in the more than
60-year history of hopper dredging activity. The likely reason for this
is the light commercial traffic at the Rogue. Navigation hazards do
exist within the ZSF. Figure 3 shows potential navigation hazards in the
area. Ships cannot navigate in the northwest part of the ZSF due to the
exposed reefs.

**[Marine Reserves]{.underline}**. The State of Oregon has initiated
efforts to establish a network of marine reserves as part of an overall
strategy to manage its marine waters and submerged lands. The overall
purpose would be to protect, sustain, or restore the nearshore marine
ecosystem, its habitats, and species. A marine reserve is an area within
Oregon's state territorial sea or adjacent intertidal area that is
protected from all extractive activities including the removal or
disturbance of living and non-living marine resources. Marine reserves
are intended to provide lasting protection. In a November 2007 news
release to the Oregon Fishing Industry, Governor Ted Kulongoski stated
that he was asking the Federal Energy Regulation Commission to limit the
number of reserve sites to less than 10 sites. The governor further
stated that these reserve sites be large enough to provide for
scientifically testing the ecological benefits they produce, but small
enough to avoid economic or social impacts such as loss of significant
fishing opportunities. Dredging and disposal are identified as
disturbances and would be banned from areas designated as marine
reserves. At this time, no marine reserves have been designated as the
state is still developing the marine reserve selection process. Ocean
disposal sites will need to avoid any marine reserve areas.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc203876101 .anchor}There are no intertidal or
subtidal marine protected areas within the proposed Rogue River ODMDS.
Rogue Reef is included in the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge
and is listed as a priority offshore rock/reef within Oregon's Ocean
Plan. However, Rogue Reef is located approximately 2 nm northwest of the
proposed disposal site.

**[Special Scientific Importance]{.underline}**. There are no known
transects or other scientific study locations that would be impacted by
disposal at the Rogue River ODMDS.

**[General Discussion of Other Uses.]{.underline}** There has not been a
demonstrated conflict with any of the above listed uses of the existing
Rogue River disposal site, which has been in use at the same location
under various authorities since 1977. There is a low potential for
future conflicts given that the area of the site is not of any unique
value, is relatively small, and there are few potential conflicting uses
in the vicinity. Since the site has been in use at the existing location
for over 30 years, EPA's designation of the proposed Rogue River ODMDS
would not result in any change to the existing uses of the area, by any
individuals or groups, or any associated economic benefit of those uses.

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

Figure 3. Potential Navigation Hazards

![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.948611111111111in"
height="8.124305555555555in"}

**Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance Species in
the Disposal Site (10)**. Nuisance species are considered as any
undesirable organism not previously existing at the disposal site. They
are either transported or recruited to the site because the disposal of
dredged materials created an environment where they could establish.
Materials dredged and transported to the ODMDS historically have been
classified as uncontaminated marine sands similar to the sediment at the
site. Potential material dredged from the boat basin access channel and
other permitted in-bay projects may include fine-grained material.
Limited quantities of fine-grained material form the boat basin access
channel have been placed in the ocean. Any material proposed for ocean
disposal would be subject to sediment quality evaluation. Therefore, it
is highly unlikely that any nuisance species could be established at the
disposal site since habitat or contaminant levels are unlikely to change
over the long-term.

**Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of any Significant
Natural or Cultural Features of Historical Importance (11)**. The
neritic reefs off the Oregon Coast comprise a unique ecological feature.
They support a wide variety of invertebrates and fish species, as well
as bull whip kelp communities. These areas are sheltered from wave
action and receive nutrients from both the ocean and the estuaries and
are usually highly productive. The disposal site is located about 2
nautical miles south-southeast from the Rogue Reef complex. Since the
disposal material is clean sand that settles quickly, any movement of
the disposed sand into the reef area would occur through natural
littoral transport. Since the disposal quantity is relatively small
compared to the longshore transport, disposal at the Rogue River ODMDS
is not expected to adversely affect the aquatic community in the reef
areas.

In spite of the heavy ship traffic supplying gold fields in the late
1800s, there do not appear to be any shipwrecks of cultural significance
that would be affected by continued use of the Rogue River ODMDS.
Documented shipwrecks, as well as potential shipwreck areas are shown
and evaluated in Appendix D. However, there are no observed or
documented shipwrecks within the proposed Rogue Rover ODMDS.

# SUMMARY OF COORDINATION UNDER OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTES

## Federal Action 

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

## Endangered Species Act

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

## Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

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

## Marine Mammal Protection Act

EPA determined that the proposed action to designate the Site would not
result in take or incidental take of any protected marine mammal under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA), 16 U.S.C.
Sections 1361 to 1389. The Biological Assessment, which evaluated the
possible effects on ESA listed marine mammals including Stellar Sea Lion
and whales, was provided the NMFS Office of Protected Resources for
review on June 5, 2008.

## Coastal Zone Management Act

EPA made a consistency determination pursuant to the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. Sections 1451 to 1465, and will provide
that determination to Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and
Development by letter following informal coordination.

## National Historic Preservation Act

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), 16 U.S.C.
Sections 470 to 470a-2, which requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effect of their actions on districts, sites, buildings,
structures, or objects, included in, or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register. EPA determined that no historic properties would be
affected the proposed undertaking, the designation of the Rogue River
ODMDS. EPA provided that determination and supporting evaluation to the
State Historic Preservation Officer in the Oregon Parks and Recreation
Department by letter dated August 28, 2008. The below listed Tribal
Governments were copied on the letter as consulting parties.

## Tribal Coordination

Coordination letters dated August 28, 2008, were sent to the Coquille
Indian Tribe, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians, the Confederated
Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes
of the Siletz, and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and
Siuslaw. Tribal comments were also solicited during the NHPA process.

# SELECTION OF OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE FOR FORMAL DESIGNATION

Based upon the evaluation of the criteria contained in 40 CFR Parts 220
through 228, the Corps and EPA have determined that the Rogue River
ODMDS would be suitable for designation. The ODMDS is proposed for
designation by EPA through formal rulemaking adopting this Environmental
Assessment/MPRSA Criteria Evaluation and the appendices to support this
action.

# LITERATURE CITED

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

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

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

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

Brown, R. F., S. D. Reimer, and B. E. Wright. 2002. Population status
and food habits of Steller sea lions in Oregon. Marine Mammal Research
Program, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, OR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). December 2002. Rogue River
Sediment Quality Evaluation. Portland District, Portland OR.

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

Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). May 2008. Umpqua River, Oregon
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Evaluation Study and Environmental
Assessment Draft Report. Appendix B: Physical Processes and Geologic
Features, Umpqua River, Oregon. Prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland District and Environmental Protection Agency, Region
10.

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

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). August 1991. Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, Rogue Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site (ODMDS) Designation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
10, with Technical Assistance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Portland District.

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

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

Hillmann, L.G. July 2006. Rocky Shore Management in Oregon: Status and
Trends of Resources, Uses and Management. Oregon Parks and Recreation
Department.

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

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

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

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

Kulm, L.D. 1988. Potential heavy mineral and metal placers on the
southern Oregon continental shelf. *Marine Mining* 7(4):361-395.

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

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

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

Peterson, C.D. and S.E. Binner. 1988. Compositional variations of
coastal placers in the Pacific Northwest, USA. *Marine Mining*
7(4):397-416.

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

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

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

Roffe, T.J. and B.R. Mate. 1984. Abundances and feeding habits of
pinnipeds in the Rogue River, Oregon. *Journal of Wildlife Management*
48(4):1262-1274.

Siipola, M.D., R.L. Emmett, and S.A. Hinton. 1993. Tongue Point
Monitoring Program 1989-1992, Final Report. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland District, Portland OR.

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

[^1]: EPA's Interim Designations were superseded by later statutory and
    regulatory changes. The site's current status is as a Section 103(b)
    Corps-selected site. EPA concurred on the selection and extended its
    approval of site use on April 15, 2003, allowing use of the site to
    continue through 2008.

[^2]: Upland disposal of dredged material may be necessary if the
    material is characterized under the requirements of the Interim
    Final Northwest Regional Sediment Evaluation Framework (SEF) and
    found not suitable for open-water disposal (Corps of Engineers 2006)