Document ID: EPA-R10-OW-2008-0826-0025
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-04-24T04:00Z

Umpqua River, Oregon, 

Ocean dredged material disposal site Designations

Biological Assessment

For listed species including southern oregon/northern california Coast
CohO Salmon, Oregon coast coho salmon, Green Sturgeon,

mARINE MAMMALS, MARINE TURTLES,

and birds

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

For groundfish, coastal pelagic, 

and salmonid species

Prepared BY

U.S. Environmental protection agency

REgion 10, seattle, washington

June 5, 2008

Table of Contents

  TOC \o "1-2"  Biological Assessment	  PAGEREF _Toc200444877 \h  1 

Introduction	  PAGEREF _Toc200444878 \h  1 

Proposed Action	  PAGEREF _Toc200444879 \h  4 

History of EPA Interim Site and Corps’ Section 103 Disposal Site	 
PAGEREF _Toc200444880 \h  4 

Environmental Baseline	  PAGEREF _Toc200444881 \h  5 

Physical Characteristics	  PAGEREF _Toc200444882 \h  5 

Overview of Aquatic Resources	  PAGEREF _Toc200444883 \h  8 

ESA-Listed Species Status and Occurrence in the Vicinity of the Proposed
Umpqua ODMD Sites	  PAGEREF _Toc200444884 \h  15 

Assessment of Effects	  PAGEREF _Toc200444885 \h  24 

Coho Salmon	  PAGEREF _Toc200444886 \h  25 

Green Sturgeon	  PAGEREF _Toc200444887 \h  26 

Marine Mammals	  PAGEREF _Toc200444888 \h  26 

Marine Turtles	  PAGEREF _Toc200444889 \h  26 

Marbled Murrelet, Short-tailed Albatross, and Brown Pelican	  PAGEREF
_Toc200444890 \h  26 

Cumulative Effects	  PAGEREF _Toc200444891 \h  27 

Determination for ESA-Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat	 
PAGEREF _Toc200444892 \h  27 

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment	  PAGEREF _Toc200444893 \h  29 

Potential Effects of the Proposed Action on EFH	  PAGEREF _Toc200444894
\h  31 

Determination for Essential Fish Habitat	  PAGEREF _Toc200444895 \h  34 

Literature Cited	  PAGEREF _Toc200444896 \h  35 

 

LIST OF TABLES

  TOC \h \z \c "Table"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc200444897"  Table 1. 
ESA-listed Fish, Marine Mammals, Marine Turtles, Birds, and Plants in
the Vicinity of the proposed Umpqua ODMD sites	  PAGEREF _Toc200444897
\h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc200444898"  Table 2.  Densities and Diversity
Indices, Benthic Invertebrates, July 2007	  PAGEREF _Toc200444898 \h  10
 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc200444899"  Table 3.  Densities and Diversity
Indices, Benthic Invertebrates, September 2007	  PAGEREF _Toc200444899
\h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc200444900"  Table 4.  Relative Density of Major
Benthic Invertebrate Taxa	  PAGEREF _Toc200444900 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc200444901"  Table 5.  Trawl Data, Fish and
Epibenthic Species, July 2007	  PAGEREF _Toc200444901 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc200444902"  Table 6.  Trawl Data, Fish and
Epibenthic Species, September 2007	  PAGEREF _Toc200444902 \h  19  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc200444903"  Table 7.  Species with Designated EFH
Offshore from the Umpqua River as Provided by NMFS	  PAGEREF
_Toc200444903 \h  30  

 

LIST OF FIGURES

  TOC \h \z \c "Figure"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc200444904"  Figure 1. 
Umpqua River Proposed Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites	  PAGEREF
_Toc200444904 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc200444905"  Figure 2. Umpqua 2007 Sampling Locations
  PAGEREF _Toc200444905 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc200444906"  Figure 3.  Diversity (H’) of Benthic
Invertebrates at Umpqua ODMD Site Sampling Stations	  PAGEREF
_Toc200444906 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc200444907"  Figure 4.  Diversity (SDV) of Benthic
Invertebrates at Umpqua ODMD Site Sampling Stations	  PAGEREF
_Toc200444907 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc200444908"  Figure 5.  Evenness (J’) of Benthic
Invertebrates at Umpqua ODMD Site Sampling Stations	  PAGEREF
_Toc200444908 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc200444909"  Figure 6.  Species Richness (SR) of
Benthic Invertebrates at Umpqua ODMD Site Sampling Stations	  PAGEREF
_Toc200444909 \h  14  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc200444910"  Figure 7.  Densities of Benthic
Invertebrates at Umpqua ODMD Site Sampling Stations	  PAGEREF
_Toc200444910 \h  14  

 Biological Assessment

Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing final
designation under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act,
as amended, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1401 to 1445, (MPRSA), for two new Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal (ODMD) sites located north and south of the
mouth of the Umpqua River on the central Oregon Coast (Figure 1).  

The primary anticipated user of the proposed Umpqua North ODMD and South
ODMD sites is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), who anticipates
using the sites for disposal of dredged material from the federally
authorized Umpqua River navigation project, which is located near the
community of Winchester Bay and the city of Reedsport in Douglas County,
Oregon.  Persons or entities who want to use the proposed sites for
disposal of suitable dredged material must seek a permit, or in the case
of the Corps, meet the substantive requirements for a permit, including
EPA concurrence, before the sites may be used for disposal of dredged
material.  EPA’s proposed site designations do not authorize any
disposal activity.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provided a species list of
species in the Pacific Ocean near the vicinity of the proposed Umpqua
sites on August 3, 2007.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
provided a species list on June 12, 2007, which was confirmed using the
May 24, 2008 Douglas County, Oregon species list from the USFWS’s
website (http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Lists/).  This Biological
Assessment (BA) is being prepared pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 to 1544,
(ESA), to evaluate the effects of final designation of the proposed
North and South ODMD sites on the federally listed fish, mammals,
turtle, bird, and plant species that may occur in the area (Table 1).  

Under the ESA, “action area” means all areas to be affected directly
or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area
involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02).  Indirect effects are those
effects that are caused by or will result from the proposed action and
are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR
§402.02).  For this BA, the action area for the Umpqua River North and
South ODMD sites includes the proposed disposal sites, the water column
within the disposal sites, and an area 200 feet in every direction from
the boundaries of the disposal sites (see Figure 1).  Disposal of
material at the proposed North and South ODMD sites is an indirect
effect of site designation and the most likely aquatic impacts of
disposal (turbidity, physical disturbance, and benthic effects) would
generally be limited to this action area.  

Effects to essential fish habitat (EFH) are being assessed in that
attached Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, pursuant to the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law
94-265), as amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-479), (MSA).  The
species that have designated EFH in the vicinity of the proposed Umpqua
sites include five coastal pelagic species, numerous groundfish species,
and coho and Chinook salmon. The same general concept as described for
the ESA “action area” is used for the EFH Assessment.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  1 .  Umpqua River Proposed Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Sites

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 .  ESA-listed Fish, Marine Mammals,
Marine Turtles, Birds, and Plants in the Vicinity of the proposed Umpqua
ODMD sites

Species	Status	Federal Register (FR)

Listing	Critical Habitat

OC Coho Salmon

Oncorhynchus kisutch	Threatened	73 FR 7816; 2/11/2008	73 FR 7816;
2/11/2008

SONCC Coho Salmon

Oncorhynchus kisutch	Threatened	70 FR 37160; 6/28/2005	64 FR 24049;
5/5/1999

Southern DPS Green Sturgeon

Acipenser medirostris	Threatened	71 FR 17757; 4/07/2006	None designated

Eastern DPS Steller Sea Lion

Eumetopias jubatus	Threatened	62 FR 24345; 5/05/1997	58 FR 45269;
8/27/1993

Blue Whale

Balaenoptera musculus	Endangered	35 FR 18319; 12/02/1970	None designated

Fin Whale

Balaenoptera physalus	Endangered	35 FR 18319; 12/02/1970	None designated

Sei Whale

Balaenoptera borealis	Endangered	35 FR 18319; 12/02/1970	None designated

Sperm Whale

Physeter macrocephalus	Endangered	35 FR 18319; 12/02/1970	None
designated

Humpback Whale

Megaptera novaeangliae	Endangered	35 FR 18319; 12/02/1970	None
designated

Southern Resident Killer Whale

Orcinus orca	Endangered	70 FR 69903; 11/18/2005	71 FR 69054; 11/29/2006

Loggerhead Sea Turtle

Caretta caretta	Threatened	43 FR 32800; 7/28/1978	None designated

Green Sea Turtle

Chelonia mydas	Threatened	43 FR 32800; 7/28/1978	63 FR 46693; 9/02/1998

Leatherback Sea Turtle

Dermochelys coriacea	Endangered	35 FR 8491; 6/02/1970	44 FR 1771;
3/23/1979

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle

Lepidochelys olivacea	Threatened	43 FR 32800; 7/28/1978	None designated

Marbled murrelet

Brachyramphus marmoratus	Threatened	57 FR 45328; 10/01/1992	61 FR 26255;
05/24/1996

Brown Pelican

Pelecanus occidentalis	Endangered	35 FR 8491; 06/02/1970	None designated

Western snowy plover 

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus	Threatened	58 FR 12864; 03/05/1993	70 FR
56969; 09/29/2005

Short-tailed albatross 

Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus	Endangered	35 FR 8491; 06/02/1970	None
designated

Northern spotted owl 

Strix occidentalis caurina	Threatened	55 FR 26114; 06/26/1990	57 FR
1796; 01/15/1992

Gentner’s fritillary

Fritillaria gentneri	Endangered	64 FR 69195; 12/10/1999	None designated

Kincaid’s lupine

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii	Threatened	65 FR 3875; 01/25/2000	71
FR 63861; 10/31/2006

Rough popcornflower

Plagiobothrys hirtus	Endangered	65 FR 3866; 01/25/2000	None designated

Proposed Action

The proposed action consists of final designation of two proposed ocean
disposal sites situated in approximately 30 to 130 feet of water located
to the north and south of the entrance to the Umpqua River on the
southern Oregon Coast (see Figure 1).  The recommended dimensions of
each of the proposed ocean disposal sites are 5,800 by 4,000 feet.  The
corner coordinates of the proposed sites are (North American Datum (NAD)
1983):

Proposed North Umpqua ODMD Site 		Proposed South Umpqua ODMD Site

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

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

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

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

Use of the North and South ocean dredged material disposal sites would
be primarily for disposal of material dredged from maintenance of the
federal navigation project at the Umpqua River and, through separate
Section 103 permit evaluations pursuant to the MPRSA, for the disposal
of suitable dredged material from other dredging projects.  However, a
federal permit, or in the case of the Corps, a demonstration that
substantive permit requirements have been met, is necessary in order to
actually use a designated ocean dredged material disposal site.  

History of EPA Interim Site and Corps’ Section 103 Disposal Site 

The Umpqua Interim ODMDS was designated by EPA in 1977 but did not
receive final designation (see Figure 1 “interim site”).  A Portland
District site evaluation report completed in 1989 (Corps 1989)
recommended an “alternate” site to the north.  The Corps, under its
Section 103 authority, and with EPA’s concurrence, selected this
alternate site in 1991 and began site use in October 1991.  Upon
expiration of the 1991-selected Section 103 site, a second site was
selected by the Corps with EPA’s concurrence.  The currently selected
Section 103 site expires in 2009.  That site is located 2,800 feet
directly north of the interim site in an average water depth of 105 feet
(see Figure 1, “adjusted site”).  The lineal dimensions and water
depth variation for the current Section 103 ODMDS, i.e. adjusted site,
includes dimensions of :  3,600 feet by 1,400 feet; azimuth = 270(;
average depth = 105 feet.  

The Corps conducted annual bathymetric surveys at the interim site
beginning in 1979 and has also conducted annual surveys at the adjusted
site.  These surveys have included locations in the vicinity of the
interim and adjusted sites.  Consistent monitoring is necessary to track
bathymetric change at the dredged material disposal sites and to ensure
that dredged material is not placed outside of the site boundaries. 
Based on the bathymetric monitoring of the adjusted site, the specified
location for dredged material disposal has been shifted throughout the
site on an annual basis to avoid dumping material on high spots created
in previous years.  Despite the effort to evenly distribute dredged
material within the adjusted site, dredged material has accumulated to
undesirable levels.  Prior to 1996, the mound within the interim site
was for the most part dispersed by waves and currents to an elevation
consistent with the ambient seabed.  In 1996 however, shoaling and
breaking waves associated with mounding were reported.  Subsequently, a
site utilization study was conducted (Corps 1998).  The study found that
the size of the mound in 1998 was sufficient to warrant serious concern
regarding continual mound accumulation and further impact on the wave
environment near the Umpqua River entrance.  

The average annual volume of dredged material placed in the interim site
from 1968-1986 was 141,000 cubic yards (cy) per year, while the average
annual volume placed from 1987 through 1991 was 188,000 cy per year. 
The average annual volume placed at the site from 1992 to 1998 was
158,200 cy.  As a result of the mounding concern, the volume of dredged
material placed at the site was subsequently reduced and the adjusted
site was selected and used beginning in 1999.  From 1999 to 2007, the
average annual volume placed at the adjusted site was 108,000 cy.  The
average includes 5 years of dredged material disposal at the adjusted
site with volumes below 100,000 cy.  For example, in 2005 only 9,400 cy
were placed.  

As a result of the site utilization study and subsequent monitoring of
bathymetry at the adjusted site, the two new and larger disposal sites
are now proposed.  The size and location of the two proposed sites are
the result of careful analysis and physical modeling to ensure a
projected 20 year site lifetime.  Continued monitoring of the sites will
occur according to a Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP), which
is currently being drafted and will be available for public comment
before EPA finalizes its proposed action to designate the Umpqua River
ODMD sites. 

Environmental Baseline

Physical Characteristics

The estuary of the Umpqua River opens into the Pacific Ocean about 180
miles south of the mouth of the Columbia River.  It lies within the
Heceta Head littoral cell, which extends for about 56 miles from Heceta
Head south to Cape Arago.  The estuary is fed by two rivers, the Umpqua
and the smaller Smith.  The watershed encompasses part of the Coast
Range, with the Umpqua River extending into the Cascades.  The coastline
consists of a 1- to 2-mile wide plain covered by active and stabilized
sand dunes backed by the mature upland topography of the Coast Range. 
The lower portion of the Umpqua River, heading seaward, is bordered by
broad alluvial flats.  The continental shelf off the mouth of the Umpqua
is approximated to be 18.6 miles wide.  To the north, the continental
shelf bulges outward, forming the Heceta Bank.  Between the Siuslaw and
Yaquina Rivers, the shelf is at its widest along the Oregon Coast and is
approximated to extend over 43.5 miles offshore.  Sand covers the
seafloor at the Umpqua River mouth for approximately 1.9 miles seaward
of the shoreline.

The Heceta Head littoral cell is the largest on the Oregon Coast. 
Landward of the cell, the coast is primarily beach-fronting sand dunes. 
Headlands are located at the north and south landward ends of the cell. 
Three major river systems enter the cell.  From north to south these are
the Siuslaw, the Umpqua, which is the largest of the three, and the
Coos.

Ocean water circulation near the proposed Umpqua sites is directly
influenced by large-scale regional currents and weather patterns in the
northwestern Pacific Ocean.  During the winter, strong low pressure
systems with winds and waves predominantly from the southwest contribute
to strong northward currents.  During the summer, high pressure systems
dominate and waves and winds are commonly from the north.  In both
seasons there are short-term fluctuations related to local wind, tidal
and bathymetric effects.  Along the Oregon Coast there is a southerly
wind in summer which creates a mass transport of water offshore
resulting in upwelling of bottom water nearshore.

Umpqua River Sediments

Information and specific data regarding sediment quality for the Umpqua
River navigation project is available for 1980, 1981, 1986, 1987, 1989,
1991, 1992, 1996, 2001, and 2006 (available at
https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/ec/sqer.asp).  Results for 2006 are
summarized below (Abney 2006).  The analytical results for 2006 were
consistent with historical data.  Material represented by these samples
was determined to be suitable for unconfined, in-water placement without
further characterization.

Physical and Volatile Solids.  Eighteen sediment samples were submitted
for testing.  The physical analyses resulted in mean values of 0.37%
gravel (shell hash - 0.0%-1.2% range), 76.0% sand (15.0%-98.4% range),
and 23.7% silt/clay (1.3%-84.9% range), with 6.82% volatile solids
(1.67%-13.2% range only measured on 10 of the 18 samples).

Metals and Total Organic Carbon (TOC).  Seven sediment samples were
submitted for metals testing.  All samples were analyzed for TOC, which
ranged from 0.78% to 2.17% in Gardiner channel, 0.02% to 1.81% in the
Umpqua River main channel, and 2.5% to 4.86% in Winchester Bay.  Low
levels of all metals were detected in the three sampling areas.  No
sample concentrations approached their respective Dredged Material
Evaluation Framework (DMEF) (1986) or Sediment Evaluation Framework
(SEF) (2006) screening criteria.

Tributyltin [total (bulk) and pore-water].  Six sediment samples were
submitted for testing of bulk and pore-water organotin compounds.  Due
to insufficient pore-water recovery, only bulk analyses were performed. 
Tetrabutyltin was not detected above detection limits in any samples. 
Mono-, di- and tri-butyltins were detected at less than 5 ppb,
substantially below screening levels.

Pesticides/PCBs, Phenols, Phthalates, Miscellaneous Extractables,
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons and Phenols.  Seven sediment samples were
submitted for testing.  No PCBs were found at the method detection limit
(MDL) in any of the samples.  Most pesticides were not detected above
MDLs in any of the samples.  The pesticides 4,4’-DDD and 4,4’-DDT
were detected in four samples at estimated levels below laboratory
reporting limits and below DMEF (1986) and SEF (2006) screening levels. 
Di-n-butyl phthalate and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate were detected in
six samples at estimated levels below laboratory reporting limits. 
Di-n-butyl phthalate was detected above laboratory reporting limits in
one sample.  All phthalate concentrations were orders of magnitude below
the DMEF and SEF screening levels.  Of the miscellaneous extractable
compounds, only dibenzofuran was detected at estimated levels in one
sample.  The concentration was well below DMEF and SEF screening levels.
 No chlorinated hydrocarbons were found at the MDL in any samples.  The
phenols 4-methylphenol and phenol were each detected above laboratory
reporting limits in separate samples.  Phenol was detected at estimated
levels in all other samples.  All concentrations of phenols detected
were below DMEF and SEF screening levels.

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons.  Seven sediment samples were
submitted for testing.  Most samples contained estimated low levels of
some of the low molecular weight PAHs and high molecular weight PAHs. 
Three of the samples from Winchester Bay contained measurable quantities
of chrysene, pyrene, and fluoranthene.  The highest concentration of any
high molecular weight PAH in any samples was 33 ug/kg.  All PAH
concentrations were well below DMEF (1986) and SEF (2006) screening
levels.

Sediments at the ODMD Sites

In June 2007, sediment samples were collected by the Corps at 16
stations offshore from the mouth of the Umpqua River (Figure 2).  The
sediment samples were collected from offshore area at the “adjusted
site,” the proposed North ODMD and South ODMD sites, and in reference
areas.  The samples show the sediments to be uniform in texture and
characteristics.  The percent sand size and greater, including gravel,
had a narrow range from 95% to 98%.  Percent fines (percent passing a
230 sieve, silt and clay) ranged from 1.98% to 4.97% with a mean of
3.18%.  Organic content measured as percent total volatile solids (TVS)
ranged from 1.0% to 1.88% with a mean of 1.33%.  There was no
discernable difference in any of the stations located in the “adjusted
site”and those areas which have not received dredged material from the
Umpqua River navigation project.

Bulk chemical analyses were conducted on sediments from the 16 offshore
locations.  Analyses were conducted in accordance with the SEF (2006)
similar to the analyses conducted for the Umpqua River navigation
project.  These included analyses for metals (10 inorganic), TOC,
pesticides, PCBs, phenols, phthalates, miscellaneous extractables, and
PAHs.

Metals and Total Organic Carbon (TOC).  Sixteen sediment samples were
submitted for metals testing.  All sixteen samples were analyzed for TOC
which ranged from 0.06% to 0.59% with an average of 0.15%.  Low levels
of metals were detected in all sampling areas.  No sample had detectable
silver (Ag) or mercury (Hg) above their respective MDL of 0.02 ppm or
0.005 ppm.  Maximum metal concentrations are Antimony (Sb) 0.05 ppm at
UMPO070-BC-14, arsenic (As) 3.73 ppm at  UMPO070-BC-08, cadmium (Cd)
0.07 ppm at UMPO070-BC-11, and UMPO070-BC-13, chromium (Cr) 23.3 ppm at
UMPO070-BC-15, copper (Cu) 5.9 ppm at UMPO070-BC-11, lead (Pb) 2.35 ppm
at UMPO070-BC-13, nickel (Ni) 17.9 ppm at UMPO070-BC-11 and zinc (Zn)
22.0 ppm at UMPO070-BC-15.  All metal concentrations were well below
their respective SEF 2006 screening criteria and are considered typical
background levels.

Pesticides/PCBs.  Sixteen samples were submitted for pesticide and PCB
analysis.  Three sediment samples had detectable levels below method
reporting limits (MRLs) but above MDLs.  Sample UMPO0700-BC-11 had
detectable levels of aldrin (0.30 ppb) and gamma-chlordane (0.39 ppb). 
Samples UMPO0700-BC-02 and UMPO0700-BC-03 had detectable levels below
MRLs but above MDLs of 4,4’-DDT and 0.22 ppb and 0.15 ppb,
respectively.  No PCBs were found at the MDL in any of the samples.

Phenols, Phthalates, Miscellaneous Extractables, and Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons.  Phenol was detected above laboratory reporting limits in
all 16 samples.  Phenol was detected at estimated levels in all samples
except UMPO0707-BC-11 which had a level of 43 ppb.  All concentrations
of phenol detected were below DMEF and SEF screening levels.  The
chemical 4-methylphenol was detected in five samples.  Three samples
were low estimated values but two, UMPO0707-BC-03 and UMPO0707-BC-11 had
values of 190 ppb and 1,000 ppb, respectively.  Sample UMPO0707-BC-11
exceeds the SEF screening level for 4-methylphenol (670 ppb).  Stations
UMPO0707-BC-03 and UMPO0707-BC-11 are located in areas not affected by
past dredged material disposal.

Di-n-butyl phthalate was detected in all 16 samples at estimated levels
below laboratory reporting limits.  Concentrations ranged from 16JT to
37 ppb.  Note that Di-n-butyl phthalate is a common laboratory
contaminate and was detected at 19 ppb in the method blank.  All
phthalate concentrations were orders of magnitude below the SEF 2006
screening levels.  No miscellaneous extractable compounds except for low
levels of benzyl alcohol (ranging from 2.7 to 6.9 ppb) were detected. 
No chlorinated hydrocarbons were found at the MDL in any samples.

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons.  All 16 samples were submitted for
testing.  No PAHs were detected above the MDL in any sample.

Water Quality

Water column chemistry and physical characteristics offshore of the
Umpqua River were studied in the mid-1980s (Fuhrer and Rinella 1982). 
The water quality parameters fell within the normal ranges expected for
nearshore ocean waters off the Oregon Coast.  There is no reason to
expect significant chemical contamination in the water or sediments as
few industries are located along the estuary.

Overview of Aquatic Resources

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

Field surveys were conducted in July and September 2007 by Marine
Taxonomic Services (2008) to provide current information about the
benthic invertebrate species present in and in the vicinity of the
proposed North and South ODMD sites.  The benthic infaunal study (Task
I) used a 0.096 m2 modified Gray-O’Hara box core to take 5 biological
cores and 1 geological core at each of the 16 sampling sites (Figure 2).

The 2007 benthic invertebrate fauna in the vicinity of the proposed ODMD
sites was found to be typical of the nearshore, high-energy environment
found along the Oregon Coast.  The density distribution data represents
juvenile recruitment of most species from spring spawning.  This
recruitment includes both opportunistic short-lived species (Spiophanes
bombyx) and Owenia fusiformis) and longer-lived species (Siliqua sp.
juv. and Dendraster excentricus).  The crustaceans show some population
spikes throughout the sampling; however, different species showed spikes
at different sampling times.  Gammarid amphipods were often present but
also present were Diastylopsis dawsoni (Cumacea) and barnacles
(Cirripedia) which showed up on hard features such as snail shells and
the occasional rock.  The echinoderms were driven by Dendraster sp.
juveniles and Dendraster excentricus and the other miscellaneous groups
were largely populated by Nemertinea and juvenile holothuroids.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  2 . Umpqua 2007 Sampling Locations

 

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

Tables 2 and 3 show a summary comparing diversity (H’ and SDV),
evenness (J’) and species richness (SR) at the stations sampled in
July and September 2007, respectively (also see Figures 3 to 6).  The
tables also include the number of organisms, the calculated number per
meter squared (m2), and the number of species.  Table 4 shows the
relative densities of the major taxa at each station.  Figure 7 shows
the density of benthic invertebrates at each station.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2 .  Densities and Diversity Indices,
Benthic Invertebrates, July 2007

Station	# Organisms	# per m2	# Species	H’	SDV	J’	SR

1	556	1,156.48	42	2.39	0.7993	0.6394	6.4866

2	1,837	3,820.96	79	3.21	0.9253	0.7346	10.3780

3	435	904.80	32	2.04	0.7820	0.5886	5.1026

4	2,101	4,370.08	50	1.28	0.4334	0.3272	6.4051

5	1,461	3,038.88	67	2.97	0.9146	0.7064	9.0574

6	3,074	6,393.92	93	2.86	0.8998	0.6310	11.4560

7	1,987	4,132.96	81	3.10	0.9275	0.7054	10.5341

8	1,076	2,238.08	53	2.67	0.8805	0.6725	7.4488

9	2,470	5,137.60	65	1.83	0.6105	0.4384	8.1926

10	825	1,716.00	45	2.79	0.8983	0.7329	6.5521

11	717	1,491.36	50	2.77	0.8632	0.7081	7.4524

12	824	1,713.92	52	3.23	0.9415	0.8175	7.5959

13	23,853	49,614.24	79	1.63	0.6731	0.3730	7.7384

14	9,491	19,741.28	92	2.24	0.8159	0.4954	9.9366

15	1,554	3,232.32	59	1.37	0.4632	0.3360	7.8927

16	9,994	20,787.52	84	2.61	0.8488	0.5891	9.0122

Key:  Species diversity (H’ and SDV), evenness (J’) and species
richness (SR).

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  3 .  Densities and Diversity Indices,
Benthic Invertebrates, September 2007

Station	# Organisms	# per m2	# Species	H’	SDV	J’	SR

1	397	825.76	25	2.50	0.5368	0.7767	4.0107

2	1,340	2,787.20	87	3.57	0.9493	0.7994	11.9437

3	560	1,164.80	37	1.96	0.7491	0.5428	5.6891

4	896	1,863.68	47	2.01	0.6724	0.5221	6.7668

5	1,547	3,217.76	71	2.49	0.8001	0.5841	9.5315

6	1,976	4,110.08	71	2.90	0.9076	0.6803	9.2241

7	1,688	3,511.04	78	3.14	0.9393	0.7207	10.3616

8	2,785	5,792.80	58	2.92	0.9124	0.7191	7.1861

9	5,977	12,432.16	49	2.10	0.7943	0.5396	5.5200

10	2,649	5,509.92	53	1.62	0.6086	0.4080	6.5974

11	1,153	2,398.24	24	2.81	0.8862	0.6920	8.0850

12	5,277	10,976.16	68	1.27	0.4256	0.3010	7.8170

13	12,115	25,199.20	76	2.29	0.8345	0.5288	7.9769

14	6,755	14,050.40	98	2.73	0.8881	0.5954	11.0002

15	1,258	2,616.64	48	2.40	0.8174	0.6200	6.5851

16	3,947	8,209.76	86	2.70	0.8759	0.6061	10.2648

Key:  Species diversity (H’ and SDV), evenness (J’) and species
richness (SR).

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  4 .  Relative Density of Major Benthic
Invertebrate Taxa

POLYCHAETA

July 2007	POLYCHAETA

September 2007

MOLLUSCA

July 2007	MOLLUSCA

September 2007

Sta.	# Of

Org.	#/m2	Sta.	# Of

Org.	#/m2

Sta.	# Of

Org.	#/m2	Sta.	# Of

Org.	#/m2

1	105	218.4	1	9	18.7

1	34	70.7	1	5	10.4

2	1,032	2,146.6	2	619	1,287.5

2	197	409.8	2	153	318.2

3	27	56.2	3	28	58.2

3	13	27.1	3	34	70.7

4	83	172.6	4	103	214.2

4	48	99.8	4	128	266.2

5	776	1,614.1	5	469	975.5

5	270	561.6	5	728	1,514.2

6	1,454	3,024.3	6	897	1,865.8

6	892	1,855.4	6	594	1,235.5

7	870	1,809.6	7	680	1,414.4

7	418	869.4	7	500	1040

8	490	1,019.2	8	1,327	2,760.2

8	161	334.9	8	636	1,322.9

9	1,906	3,964.5	9	2,095	4,357.6

9	169	351.5	9	943	1,961.4

10	241	501.3	10	206	428.5

10	82	170.6	10	1,669	3,471.5

11	133	276.6	11	155	322.4

11	62	129.0	11	231	480.5

12	311	646.9	12	610	1,268.8

12	137	285.0	12	4,110	8,548.8

13	7,554	15,712.3	13	4,372	9,093.8

13	13,307	27,678.6	13	3,484	7,246.7

14	4,737	9,853.0	14	2,672	5,557.8

14	1,396	2,903.7	14	1,438	2,991.1

15	132	274.6	15	158	328.6

15	60	124.8	15	411	854.9

16	5,003	10,406.2	16	1,023	2,127.8

16	1,178	2,450.2	16	872	1,813.8

Table 4 (continued).  Relative Density of Major Benthic Invertebrate
Taxa

CRUSTACEA

July 2007	CRUSTACEA

September 2007

ECHINODERMATA

July 2007	ECHINODERMATA

September 2007

Sta.	# Of

Org.	#/m2	Sta.	# Of

Org.	#/m2

Sta.	# Of

Org.	#/m2	Sta.	# Of

Org.	#/m2

1	380	790.4	1	203	422.2

1	10	20.8	1	180	374.4

2	531	1,104.5	2	463	963

2	2	4.2	2	16	33.3

3	141	293.3	3	287	597

3	253	526.2	3	207	430.6

4	360	748.8	4	128	266.2

4	1,573	3,271.8	4	504	1,048.3

5	318	661.4	5	237	493

5	22	45.8	5	12	25.0

6	411	854.9	6	243	505.4

6	258	536.6	6	157	326.6

7	435	904.8	7	238	495

7	217	451.4	7	220	457.6

8	207	430.6	8	544	1,131.5

8	171	355.7	8	81	168.5

9	178	370.2	9	2,678	5,570.2

9	131	272.5	9	88	183.0

10	434	902.7	10	615	1,279.2

10	45	93.6	10	151	314.1

11	242	503.4	11	440	915.2

11	238	495	11	290	603.2

12	304	632.3	12	426	886.1

12	7	14.6	12	15	31.2

13	1,701	3,538.1	13	999	2,077.9

13	850	1,768	13	1,535	3,192.8

14	921	1,915.7	14	638	1,327

14	1,617	3,363.4	14	1,111	2,310.9

15	194	403.5	15	278	578.2

15	1,136	2,362.9	15	372	773.8

16	1,743	3,625.4	16	365	759.2

16	1,216	2,529.3	16	1,201	2,498.1

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  3 .  Diversity (H’) of Benthic
Invertebrates at Umpqua ODMD Site Sampling Stations



Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  4 .  Diversity (SDV) of Benthic
Invertebrates at Umpqua ODMD Site Sampling Stations

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  5 .  Evenness (J’) of Benthic
Invertebrates at Umpqua ODMD Site Sampling Stations



Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  6 .  Species Richness (SR) of Benthic
Invertebrates at Umpqua ODMD Site Sampling Stations

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  7 .  Densities of Benthic Invertebrates
at Umpqua ODMD Site Sampling Stations

Tables 5 and 6 show the demersal fish and epibenthic species captured
by otter trawl in the vicinity of the proposed Umpqua North and South
sites (see Figure 2 for trawl locations).  The trawl results show
several commercially important species present in the area.  The trawl
samples denote the nearshore area as a nursery ground with an abundant
food source.  Most of the species encountered in the trawl samples were
benthic feeders that tend to utilize the shallower waters, where there
tends to be abundant food and fewer predators.  The majority of the fish
and crabs captured in the trawls were juveniles and young-of-the-year. 
However, larger crabs and fish have the ability to avoid the trawl net
and so may have been underrepresented in the species captured.

ESA-Listed Species Status and Occurrence in the Vicinity of the Proposed
Umpqua ODMD Sites

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provided a species list for
the proposed Umpqua ODMD sites on August 3, 2007.  The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided a species list for the project on June
12, 2007, which was confirmed with the May 24, 2008 Douglas County, OR
species list from the USFWS
(http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Lists/).  Table 1 details all of
the listed species and designated critical habitat that were included in
the lists from both NMFS and USFWS.  Those species and critical habitat
are addressed further below.

Coho Salmon

Coho salmon are distributed throughout the Pacific Ocean north of
central California.  This anadromous salmonid exhibits a relatively
short 3-year life cycle.  Adults typically reenter freshwater in late
summer through fall, spawn by mid-winter, and die thereafter.  Variation
is exhibited between and within populations of coho salmon.  Depending
upon water temperature, incubation in river gravels requires 1.5 to 4
months.  Juvenile coho salmon rear in freshwater up to 15 months after
emerging from the gravel.  They undergo considerable instream migration
during this period in the upper tributaries to find suitable winter and
summer rearing habitat (Miller and Sadro 2003).  After rearing, smolts
outmigrate to the ocean in the spring as age 1+ juveniles.

Juveniles tagged by Miller and Sadro (2003) in Coos Bay, an estuary to
the south of the Umpqua River, showed that residence time in the lower
reach of South Slough in Coos Bay was brief, averaging 5.8 days with a
range of 4.2 to 6.2 days (based on a sample size of four fish). 
Residence time in the upper portion of Isthmus Slough of Coos Bay was
considerably longer.  Fish occurred in the upper area for up to 8 months
before becoming smolts and moving down into the lower portion of the
slough.  Although the fish appeared to have the capability of moving
through the lower portion of the slough and into the ocean in 24 hours
or less, their combined behavior of holding and occasionally moving
upstream with flood tides prolonged their residence.  This behavior may
be necessary for their final adaptation to salt water before entering
the ocean and is presumed to be representative of behavior along the
Oregon Coast.

For several months before they disperse into the open ocean, coho
typically stay in nearshore areas close to their natal streams (Groot
and Margolis 1991).  Juvenile coho from California to British Columbia
typically migrate northward along the coast, generally remaining over
the continental shelf within sight of land and at depths less than 90 to
150 meters (Groot and Margolis 1991).

Juvenile coho salmon feed primarily on aquatic invertebrates while in
freshwater, but fish become an important prey as they grow larger (Groot
and Margolis 1991).  In estuarine and marine environments, chum and pink
salmon fry, as well as larvae of pacific crab are important prey. 
Typically coho salmon spend two growing seasons (approximately 18
months) in the ocean before returning to their natal streams to spawn. 
However, precocious male ‘jacks’ return after 6 months.

NMFS announced listing of Oregon Coast coho salmon as a threatened
species on February 4, 2008 (73 FR 7816).  The listing includes all
naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in Oregon coastal streams
south of the Columbia River and north of Cape Blanco, including the Cow
Creek (ODFW stock # 37) coho hatchery program.  Critical habitat also
was designated.  The Umpqua River and estuary were designated as
critical habitat but the ocean waters off the Umpqua River were not. 
Therefore, there is no designated critical habitat for Oregon Coast coho
within the action area.

Fish spawning surveys conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW) in standard index areas along the Oregon Coast have been
used to assess the status and trends of coastal coho salmon populations.
 Annual estimates of adult coho salmon run size for the lower Umpqua
River and Smith River from 1990 to 2004 are shown below (  HYPERLINK
"http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/spawn/index.htm" 
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/spawn/index.htm ).

1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997

589	1,316	1,759	4,804	1,689	6,803	4,904	935

1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004

5,118	2,323	3,696	8,850	14,492	12,760	8,046

Oregon Coast Coho spawning primarily occurs during November and December
in coastal Oregon streams; coho spawning in the Umpqua Monitoring Area
show an early and compressed temporal spawning pattern (Jacobs et al.,
2002).  There is generally only one major component of the spawning run
for Umpqua coho stocks that typically spawn as soon as flows are
sufficient to allow access to spawning streams (Jacobs et al., 2002). 
However, because portions of the Umpqua Basin are more arid than other
parts of the coast, spawning timing can be delayed.  According to ODFW,
adults that enter the system early in the migration season (August) will
tend to stay lower in the system for a longer period of time than adults
that are coming into the river system after winter rains have begun
(Brick 2005).  Juvenile outmigration typically peaks in May, but may
extend from April through June.

The Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho ESU was
listed as threatened on May 6, 1997 and includes all naturally spawned
populations of coho salmon in coastal streams between Cape Blanco,
Oregon, and Punta Gorda, California (62 FR 24588).  A NOAA technical
memorandum (Good et al. 2005) found that recent data do not suggest any
marked change in the abundance or distribution of SONCC coho.  Critical
habitat was identified on May 5, 1999 (64 FR 24049).  In that final
rule, designated critical habitat, “consists of the water, substrate,
and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine and riverine reaches” in
specified hydrologic units of river reaches accessible to coho salmon
within the listed ESU (64 FR 24049).  The proposed Umpqua North and
South ODMD sites are not located within designated critical habitat for
the SONCC coho ESU.  SONCC coho, like other west coast coho ESUs,
typically migrate north along the coast.  Therefore, SONCC coho may
utilize the action area for migratory purposes.  

In 2005, SONCC coho ESA status was reaffirmed as threatened and three
artificial propagation programs were added as part of this ESU:  (1)
Cole Rivers Hatchery [Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
stock #52], Rogue River, Oregon; (2) Trinity River Hatchery, Trinity
River, California; and (3) Iron Gate Hatchery, Klamath River, California
(70 FR 37160).  NMFS determined that these artificially propagated
stocks are no more divergent relative to the local natural population(s)
than what would be expected between closely related natural populations
within the ESU (70 FR 37160).  

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  5 .  Trawl Data, Fish and Epibenthic
Species, July 2007

Species	Parameter	Trawl #1	Trawl #2	Trawl #3	Trawl #4	Trawl #5	Trawl #6
Trawl #7

Cancer magister - female

Dungeness Crab	number of individuals	11	20	2	2	41	--	24

	size range (mm)	94-125	81-106	94-100	106-106	63-119	--	75-113

	average size (mm)	107	96	97	106	90	--	92

Cancer magister - male

Dungeness Crab	number of individuals	6	13	4	10	40	2	21

	size range (mm)	75-134	81-150	88-113	75-119	63-163	150-163	81-136

	average size (mm)	99	109	98	99	96	156	97

Bothidae juvenile	number of individuals	8	5	4	4	4	--	--

	size range (mm)	30-49	29-44	35-54	31-46	31-44	--	--

	average size (mm)	40	38	44	39	36	--	--

Citharichthys sp.

Sanddab	number of individuals	29	13	13	6	12	--	11

	size range (mm)	80-130	40-111	35-161	31-148	46-122	--	42-115

	average size (mm)	110	87	93	69	91	--	82

Dendraster sp. juv

Sand Dollar	number of individuals	--	714	64	2	--	--	50

	size range (mm)	--	10-20	10-20	10-20	--	--	10-20

	average size (mm)	--	--	--	--	--	--	--

Eopsetta jordani

Petrale Sole	number of individuals	5	1	--	--	12	--	--

	size range (mm)	55-152	177	--	--	55-225	--	--

	average size (mm)	108	177	--	--	157	--	--

Gadidae

Cod	number of individuals	9	2	--	25	19	--	--

	size range (mm)	41-59	57-67	--	42-91	45-76	--	--

	average size (mm)	52	62	--	59	56	--	--

Isopsetta isolepis

Butter Sole	number of individuals	5	3	7	6	7	2	13

	size range (mm)	105-210	97-230	42-164	104-120	105-178	43-131	36-235

	average size (mm)	148	161	111	113	138	87	140

Leptocottus armatus

Staghorn Sculpin	number of individuals	1	2	2	2	10	2	4

	size range (mm)	94	107-127	115-135	109-128	105-165	120-154	99-128

	average size (mm)	94	117	125	119	122	137	109

Note:  Size range and average size = standard length of fish and
carapace width of crabs.

Table 5 (continued).  Trawl Data, Fish and Epibenthic Species, July 2007

Species	Parameter	Trawl #1	Trawl #2	Trawl #3	Trawl #4	Trawl #5	Trawl #6
Trawl #7

Liparis pulchellus

Showy Snailfish	number of individuals	--	--	--	6	--	--	1

	size range (mm)	--	--	--	15-35	--	--	22

	average size (mm)	--	--	--	21	--	--	22

Ophiodon elongatus

Lingcod	number of individuals	--	1	2	--	--	--	--

	size range (mm)	--	98	115-115	--	--	--	--

	average size (mm)	--	98	115	--	--	--	--

Osmeridae

Smelts	number of individuals	87	6	--	1	--	--	--

	size range (mm)	37-61	51-60	--	81	--	--	--

	average size (mm)	56	56	--	81	--	--	--

Pallasina barbata

Tubenose Poacher	number of individuals	--	--	--	--	3	--	--

	size range (mm)	--	--	--	--	69-88	--	--

	average size (mm)	--	--	--	--	82	--	--

Parophrys vetulus

English Sole	number of individuals	141	37	3	23	44	--	31

	size range (mm)	28-145	28-166	63-89	31-385	30-186	--	27-85

	average size (mm)	41	43	78	80	59	--	42

Pleurenectidae juvenile

Flounders	number of individuals	12	9	1	--	11	--	7

	size range (mm)	20-29	26-42	41	--	19-35	--	21-29

	average size (mm)	25	31	41	--	26	--	25

Psettichthys mjelanostictus

Sand Sole	number of individuals	14	1	--	--	--	--	--

	size range (mm)	40-330	372	--	--	--	--	--

	average size (mm)	156	372	--	--	--	--	--

Raja binoculata

Big Skate	number of individuals	--	--	1	1	--	--	1

	size range (mm)	--	--	241	260	--	--	460

	average size (mm)	--	--	241	260	--	--	460

Stellerina xyosterna

Pricklebreast Poacher	number of individuals	1	--	--	--	37	--	38

	size range (mm)	32	--	--	--	27-125	--	25-108

	average size (mm)	32	--	--	--	46	--	41

Note:  Size range and average size = standard length of fish and
carapace width of crabs.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  6 .  Trawl Data, Fish and Epibenthic
Species, September 2007

Species	Parameter	Trawl #1	Trawl #2	Trawl #3	Trawl #4	Trawl #5	Trawl #6
Trawl #7

Cancer magister - female

Dungeness Crab	number of individuals	3	1	--	2	10	2	14

	size range (mm)	81-131	86	--	94-106	81-113	86-100	63-106

	average size (mm)	108	86	--	96	96	94	93

Cancer magister - male

Dungeness Crab	number of individuals	2	1	1	--	1	2	2

	size range (mm)	88-94	106	100	--	106	75-86	81-94

	average size (mm)	91	106	100	--	106	81	88

Cancer productus – male

Rock Crab	number of individuals	--	--	--	1	--	--	--

	size range (mm)	--	--	--	56	--	--	--

	average size (mm)	--	--	--	56	--	--	--

Citharichthys sp.

Sanddab	number of individuals	16	45	5	4	4	5	6

	size range (mm)	25-130	28-131	30-128	40-100	40-68	28-60	50-120

	average size (mm)	87	82	81	83	53	58	86

Cottidae

Sculpins	number of individuals	--	--	--	1	--	--	--

	size range (mm)	--	--	--	104	--	--	--

	average size (mm)	--	--	--	104	--	--	--

Engraulis mordax

Northern Anchovy	number of individuals	28	4	--	--	--	--	--

	size range (mm)	38-56	41-50	--	--	--	--	--

	average size (mm)	45	46	--	--	--	--	--

Eopsetta jordani

Petrale Sole	number of individuals	3	1	--	--	--	--	--

	size range (mm)	112-138	128	--	--	--	--	--

	average size (mm)	126	128	--	--	--	--	--

Gadidae

Cod	number of individuals	4	2	--	--	4	--	18

	size range (mm)	55-80	40-49	--	--	53-120	--	82-50

	average size (mm)	66	45	--	--	78	--	69

Isopsetta isolepis

Butter Sole	number of individuals	1	4	--	1	7	2	7

	size range (mm)	120	115-235	--	195	86-220	150-178	120-194

	average size (mm)	120	173	--	195	169	164	156

Note:  Size range and average size = standard length of fish and
carapace width of crabs.

Table 6 (continued).  Trawl Data, Fish and Epibenthic Species, September
2007

Species	Parameter	Trawl #1	Trawl #2	Trawl #3	Trawl #4	Trawl #5	Trawl #6
Trawl #7

Leptocottus armatus

Staghorn Sculpin	number of individuals	4	4	--	--	1	--	1

	size range (mm)	110-135	110-170	--	--	100	--	102

	average size (mm)	123	135	--	--	100	--	102

Liparis pulchellus

Showy Snailfish	number of individuals	--	--	--	1	1	--	--

	size range (mm)	--	--	--	19	16	--	--

	average size (mm)	--	--	--	19	16	--	--

Ophiodon elongatus

Lingcod	number of individuals	1	--	--	--	--	--	--

	size range (mm)	148	--	--	--	--	--	--

	average size (mm)	148	--	--	--	--	--	--

Osmeridae

Smelts	number of individuals	40	3	--	--	73	14	196

	size range (mm)	42-111	54-100	--	--	45-82	48-66	35-107

	average size (mm)	65	83	--	--	57	56	57

Parophrys vetulus

English Sole	number of individuals	24	57	9	8	29	20	8

	size range (mm)	38-65	35-185	42-55	47-78	35-98	42-80	55-105

	average size (mm)	47	50	49	63	56	56	75

Pleurenectidae juvenile

Flounders	number of individuals	--	3	--	--	--	2	--

	size range (mm)	--	30-60	--	--	--	45-52	--

	average size (mm)	--	49	--	--	--	--	--

Psettichthys mjelanostictus

Sand Sole	number of individuals	5	11	--	--	1	1	1

	size range (mm)	147-180	105-225	--	--	242	400	320

	average size (mm)	166	161	--	--	242	400	320

Raja binoculata

Big Skate	number of individuals	1	--	--	--	--	--	1

	size range (mm)	265	--	--	--	--	--	270

	average size (mm)	265	--	--	--	--	--	270

Stellerina xyosterna

Pricklebreast Poacher	number of individuals	3	4	--	1	8	1	8

	size range (mm)	40-134	48-134	--	68	22-90	35	15-151

	average size (mm)	85	81	--	68	44	35	71

Note:  Size range and average size = standard length of fish and
carapace width of crabs.Green Sturgeon

The threatened Southern distinct population segment (DPS) of the green
sturgeon includes all green sturgeon that spawn within the
Sacramento-San Joaquin rivers.  No critical habitat has been designated
for the Southern DPS.  Green sturgeon that spawn to the north, primarily
in the Klamath and Rogue rivers, constitute the Northern DPS, which is
not federally listed.  The Northern DPS and the Southern DPS were found
to be genetically distinct.  Israel and others (2004) showed genetic
differences between one group of San Pablo Bay and Columbia River fish
and a second group of Klamath River and Rogue River fish.

Green sturgeon spend more time in the marine environment than other
sturgeon species (Adams et al., 2002).  Green sturgeon spawn in their
natal rivers and migrate downriver to the ocean after 3 to 5 years and
disperse along the coastline.  Green sturgeon have delayed sexual
maturity, somewhere from 13 to 20 years, and they apparently only spawn
every 2 to 5 years (Moyle, 2002).  Green sturgeon in the ocean can be
assumed to remain largely inside the 100-meter depth contour and
typically occupy depths of 40-70 m (Erickson and Hightower, 2007).  In
the Rogue River, green sturgeon spend approximately 6 months in fresh
water annually and have been captured as far upriver as river mile 65
(105 km) and emigrate to the ocean between October and January (Erickson
et al., 2002 and Erikson and Webb, 2007).  Southern DPS green sturgeon,
radio-tagged in the Sacramento River, have recently been shown to occur
seasonally in Willapa Bay, as well as other northern estuaries including
the Columbia River estuary during the summer and early fall (Moser and
Lindley, 2007).  Although there appears to be substantial spatial
overlap in the two DPSs, the Northern DPS appears to utilize smaller
river estuaries such as the Umpqua River estuary to a greater extent
than the Southern DPS (NMFS, 2007).

NMFS identified one of the major threats to the Southern DPS green
sturgeon as harvest in the spawning and natal areas of the
Sacramento-San Joaquin rivers and in more northern ocean, coastal, and
estuarine waters.  In the northern fisheries, it is during their
aggregation in estuaries that the greatest catch of Southern DPS green
sturgeon occurs.  In northern waters, green sturgeon are captured either
in directed sturgeon fisheries in estuarine waters, as by-catch in
salmon gillnet fisheries in estuaries and rivers, or in coastal trawl
fisheries along the West Coast (NMFS, 2007).  Historically, harvest came
predominately from the Columbia River (51%), coastal trawl fisheries
(28%), the Oregon fishery (8%), and the California tribal fishery (8%;
Adams et al., 2002).

Moser and Lindley (2007) propose that green sturgeon utilize northern
estuaries to optimize their growth potential in summer by foraging in
warm, saline estuaries and caution that altering the quality of
estuarine habitats could negatively affect this species throughout its
range.

Habitat use and food habits of green sturgeon in northern estuaries have
not been investigated in detail.  Digestive tract contents from 46
commercially caught Columbia River green sturgeon were found to contain
only algae (species unknown) and pebbles.  A digestive tract sample from
one Rogue River green sturgeon contained an exoskeleton of one crayfish
(Pacifasticus spp.) and algae (ODFW, 2005).  The Rogue River fish was
likely from the Northern DPS.  Collection of green sturgeon from Willapa
Bay showed that they fed on burrowing thalassinidean shrimp that are
abundant in the bay (Moser and Lindley, 2007).  Adults captured in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin delta were benthic feeders on invertebrates
including shrimp, mollusks, amphipods, and small fish (Houston, 1988;
Moyle et al., 1992).  Juveniles in the Sacramento River delta fed on
opossum shrimp, Neomysis mercedis and Corophium amphipods (Radtke,
1966).

Winchester Bay supports Oregon’s largest coastal green sturgeon
fishery, with an average of 124 green sturgeon harvested annually (Neill
et al., 2000).  In addition, Winchester Bay is Oregon’s third largest
coastal white sturgeon fishery, averaging 500 white sturgeon captured
annually by anglers (Whisler et al., 1999).  The ODFW conducted sturgeon
tagging operations in Winchester Bay in 1998.  Sampling took place over
two 5-day periods in early spring (March 16-20) and fall (August 24-28).
 A total of 163 white sturgeon and 10 green sturgeon were captured in
gill nets and tagged during the March sampling, with the majority of
sturgeon captured below RM 6 (Whisler et al., 1999).  In contrast to the
spring sampling, 16 white sturgeon and 205 green sturgeon were captured
during the August sampling.  No juvenile sturgeon were captured during
either sampling event.  

Marine Mammals

The Steller sea lion, listed as threatened in 1990 and reconfirmed as
threatened for the Eastern DPS in 1997 (58 FR 45269), breeds along the
West Coast of North America from California’s Channel Islands to the
Kurile Islands and the Okshotsk Sea in the western north Pacific Ocean. 
They are year-long residents along the Oregon Coast, and will occur as
migrants in the vicinity of the proposed North and South Umpqua sites. 
Steller sea lions are known to haul out at 10 sites along the Oregon
Coast:  Columbia River South Jetty (Clatsop County), Ecola State Park
(Clatsop County), Three Arch Rocks (Tillamook County), Cascade Head
(Tillamook County), Seal Rock (Lincoln County), Sea Lion Caves (Lane
County), Cape Arago (Coos County), Blanco Reef (Curry County), Orford
Reef (Curry County) and Rogue Reef (Curry County).  Of these sites,
Orford Reef and Rogue Reef are rookeries and are designated critical
habitat for Steller sea lion.  Designated critical habitat at both the
Rogue and Orford Reefs includes an air zone that extends 3,000 feet
above the site measured vertically from sea level and an aquatic zone
that extends 3,000 feet seaward in State and Federally managed waters. 
50 C.F.R. § 226.202(b)  Orford Reef and Rogue Reef are located
approximately 60 and 80 miles south of the action area respectively.
Therefore, the proposed Umpqua North and South ODMD sites are not
located in or near designated critical habitat for Steller sea lion.

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, and at Orford Reef
from 298 in 1990 to 382 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.  However, exchange between rookeries
by breeding adult females and males (other than between adjoining
rookeries) appears low (Angliss and Outlaw, 2004).  Steller sea lions
forage at river mouths and nearshore areas along the coast.  Roffe and
Mate (1984) determined that proximity to the mouth of a river was the
most important factor in determination of forage areas.

The blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, sperm whale, humpback whale, and
southern resident killer whale are all listed as endangered and occur as
migrants in waters off the Oregon Coast.  The population status of most
of these species is described in the U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock
Assessments: 2007 (Carretta et al. 2007).  According to Maser and others
(1981), blue whales occur off the Oregon Coast in May and June, as well
as August through October.  Blue whales typically occur offshore as
individuals or in small groups and winter well south of Oregon.  Fin
whales also winter far south of Oregon and range off the coast during
summer.  Whaling records indicated that fin whales are harvested off the
Oregon Coast from May to September.  Sei whales also winter south of
Oregon and probably occur in southward migration off the Oregon Coast in
late summer and early fall.  Sperm whales occur as migrants and some may
summer off the Oregon Coast.  Sperm whales forage in waters much deeper
than those in the vicinity of the proposed sites.  Humpback whales
primarily occur off the Oregon Coast from April to October with peak
numbers from June through August.  Green and others (1992) observed 35
humpback whales near Heceta Bank (approximately 15-30 miles off the
Oregon Coast in Lincoln and Lane counties) in June 1990.  They noted
that humpback whales were particularly concentrated in Oregon along the
southern edge of Heceta Bank and found this species primarily on the
continental shelf and slope.

The southern resident killer whale population contains three pods (or
stable family-related groups)—J pod, K pod, and L pod—and is
considered a stock under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.  Their range
during the spring, summer, and fall includes the inland waterways of
Puget Sound, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Southern Georgia Strait.  Their
occurrence in the coastal waters off Oregon has been documented.  Little
is known about the winter movements and range of the southern resident
stock.  The southern resident population is currently estimated at about
88 whales, a decline from its estimated historical level of about 200
during the mid- to late-1800s.  Critical habitat was designated for the
southern resident killer whale in 2006 (71 FR 69054), but is restricted
to Washington State.  

Marine Turtles

The occurrence of loggerhead sea turtles, green sea turtles, leatherback
sea turtles, and Pacific Ridley sea turtles have been recorded from data
collected from strandings along the Oregon and Washington coastline
since 1982 (Green et al., 1992).  The occurrence of sea turtles off the
Oregon Coast is associated with the appearance of albacore.  Albacore
occurrence is strongly associated with the warm waters of the Japanese
current that tends to approach the Oregon Coast in late summer. 
Critical habitat was designated for green sea turtle in Puerto Rico in
1998 (63 FR 46693) and for leatherback sea turtle in the U.S. Virgin
Islands in 1979 (44 FR 1771).  No critical habitat for marine turtles is
located within the action area.

Marbled Murrelet, Short-tailed Albatross, and Brown Pelican

The species list from USFWS identified all federally-listed and proposed
endangered and threatened species, candidate species and species of
concern that may occur in Douglas County, including some species
identified by NMFS.  From this list, EPA ascertained that the proposed
new sites are within the range of three endangered or threatened avian
species for which USFWS has primary responsibility.  These include: 
marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (Threatened); short-tailed
albatross (Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus) (Endangered); and brown
pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) (Endangered).  Critical habitat has
been designated for the marbled murrelet, but it is restricted to upland
areas and does not include any marine areas, such as the proposed
disposal sites.  The brown pelican was proposed for delisting in
February of this year and does not have any designated critical habitat.
 Likewise, no critical habitat has been designated for the short-tailed
albatross.  

Marbled murrelets are observed in small flocks or as individuals in the
ocean and near coastal embayments throughout the year.  Brown pelicans
are seasonally abundant (June to September) along the Oregon coast and
in the lower reaches of various estuaries.  Most brown pelicans on the
Oregon coast are immature birds but the population includes some
post-breeding adults that have dispersed northward from breeding
locations in California and Mexico.   Neither species is known to
utilize the sea floor at the proposed sites for foraging and feeding
although prey organisms might be present in the vicinity.   Marbled
murrelets and brown pelicans seem to prefer shallower waters (depth no
greater than 40 feet) to forage.  Because they have a preference for
shallower waters, they are unlikely to be affected by the accumulation
of disposed material on the ocean floor in the deeper portions of the
proposed sites. The shoreward portions of the disposal sites would be
located within approximately 30 feet of water and the physical
disturbance associated with disposal could result in temporary decreases
or displacement of foraging activity.  Brown pelicans are commonly
observed in and around human activities and appear to be habituated to
human activity.

The short-tailed albatross was historically hunted for feathers, but
currently, the primary threat to the continued existence to the species
is posed by a catastrophic volcanic or weather event at one of the small
handful of breeding locations in Japan.  The short-tailed albatross may
occur in the vicinity of the proposed sites during the summer months and
may utilize the waters for foraging and feeding.  

Terrestrial Birds and Plants

The USFWS identified three other listed bird species and three listed
plants in the vicinity of the proposed Umpqua North and South ODMD
sites: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Threatened), western snowy
plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) (Threatened), northern spotted
owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) (Threatened), Gentner’s fritillary
(Fritillaria gentneri) (Endangered), Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus
sulphureus ssp. Kincaidii) (Threatened), and Rough popcornflower
(Plagiobothrys hirtus) (Endangered) as occurring in Douglas County.  The
bald eagle was de-listed in July 2007.  The western snowy plover is
known to breed along the shorelines adjacent to the proposed disposal
area.  However, western snowy plover breeding and feeding occur on
beaches rather than in open water.  Therefore, the western snowy plover
would not be expected to be present within the action area.  The last
four species are not aquatic, would not be at the proposed sites, and
therefore, would not be affected by EPA’s action.  Critical habitat
has been designated for the western snowy plover (70 FR 56969) and the
northern spotted owl (57 FR 1796), but no designated critical habitat
for either species is located within the action area.

Assessment of Effects

In reviewing the potential effects of EPA’s action (final designation
of ocean dredged material disposal sites) on the species identified by
NMFS and USFWS, EPA finds that site designation itself has no direct
impact on any of the identified ESA-listed species or designated
critical habitat.  This finding is supported by EPA’s analysis that
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. The use of a site is managed through adherence
to the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) which must be
finalized prior to site designation.  The SMMP outlines site use
requirements, monitoring protocols, and incorporates adaptive management
principles for ongoing use of the site. 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.  Consequently, and consistent with the
Biological Opinions prepared by NMFS at other projects where ocean
disposal of dredged material occurs, EPA has considered that certain
ESA-listed species may potentially be affected by an actual disposal of
dredged materials at designated sites.   Actual disposal is an indirect
but reasonably certain outcome of site designation.

Dredging itself is not dependent on the site designation because other
disposal alternatives are available.  Other in-water sites could be
proposed by the Corps and/or material could be disposed of at upland
locations.  Therefore, the dredging is not caused by and will not result
from the proposed action (indirect effect), the dredging has independent
utility (interdependent effect), and the dredging does not depend on
site designation for its justification (interrelated effect).  
Therefore, EPA has not included the effects of dredging in the
assessment of effects of the proposed site designations.

Coho Salmon

EPA’s proposed site designation would not have a direct physical
effect on the proposed disposal site.  Disposal of dredged material at
the proposed North and South ODMD sites will have an effect on the water
column and the bottom habitat.  The disposal plume will pass through the
water column and create a turbid environment that may cause fish to move
out of or avoid the area.  The bottom habitat would be impacted in the
portion of the disposal area where the material hits bottom and buries
the existing benthic community at the site.  Loss of benthic
invertebrate populations on the bottom in portions of the disposal site
is not likely to have an effect on food resources for either adult or
juvenile Oregon Coast or SONCC coho salmon.  Both adults and juveniles
feed principally on pelagic species which are not associated with bottom
habitat.  The only exception is sand lance, which could be impacted in
the disposal site area if individuals are buried in the sand during
disposal operations. Though normally pelagic, sand lance bury in the
sand as a defense mechanism.  However, sand lance are very abundant in
the coastal inshore area and it is unlikely that the number of sand
lance impacted during disposal events would have a significant impact on
the size of sand lance populations.  

Adult and juvenile coho could potentially be migrating through the
action area during use of the proposed North and South ODMD sites.  The
Oregon Coast coho would be migrating through the site as they transit
between the Umpqua River and the ocean and vice versa, while the SONCC
coho would be transiting through the sites as part of their northward
coastal migration.  However, the proposed North and South ODMD sites do
not provide any unique or relatively higher value habitat for coho
salmon migration, rearing, resting, or foraging.  It is unlikely that
coho 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 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).  Any coho 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).  

The Oregon Coast coho ESU experienced a recruitment failure (recruits
failed to replace the parental spawners) in the late 1990s. However,
Good et al. (2005), found that the three year period from 2000 to 2002
produced a nearly fourfold increase in spawners for the entire ESU. 
That regional increase in spawners is mirrored in the Umpqua River,
where Oregon Coast coho spawners have increased from 3,737 in 1990 to
42,415 in 2002.  Good et al. (2005) also found that recent data do not
suggest any marked change in the abundance or distribution of SONCC
coho.  Given that disposal in the vicinity of the currently proposed
North and South Umpqua sites has occurred since 1977, is unlikely that
temporary disposal related impacts described above are resulting in any
long-term negative effects to the either Oregon Coast or SONCC coho
ESUs.  It is more likely that changes in the ESU populations are related
to much broader regional fluctuations.

Green Sturgeon

According to the NMFS analysis supporting the listing of the southern
DPS of green sturgeon, “the principle factor for decline of the
Southern DPS is the reduction of the spawning area to a limited area of
the Sacramento River.” (71 FR 17762)  No spawning habitat for the
Southern DPS is located in the vicinity of the proposed ODMD sites. 
Southern DPS green sturgeon may occur at or near the proposed North and
South ODMD sites as they migrate to estuaries further north, including
the Columbia River estuary during the summer and early fall.  Use of the
proposed sites would result in physical disturbance to the water column
and turbidity, which may cause green sturgeon to temporarily avoid the
disposal area during disposal events.  Since the adjacent area consists
of very similar habitat to that of the proposed Umpqua sites, the
avoidance of the disposal area would not result in increased predation
or decreased food availability for green sturgeon.  Therefore, no
long-term effects are expected to occur to Southern DPS green sturgeon.

Marine Mammals

For the Steller sea lion, the proposed North and South sites are not
located near identified haul out and rookery sites.  Disposal in the
vicinity of the proposed Umpqua River ODMD sites has occurred regularly
since 1977 and since that time, the Oregon population of Steller sea
lions has increased steadily.  Therefore, it is unlikely that disposal
activities at the site are negatively impacting the species.  It is
expected that sea lions would avoid the sites temporarily during
disposal of dredged material.

The blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, sperm whale, humpback whale, and
southern resident killer whale occur as migrants in waters off the
Oregon Coast typically farther from shore than the action area.  Whale
species would likely avoid the ocean disposal areas during disposal
operations.  As described above, any impacts to salmonid prey species
for killer whale would be expected to be temporary.  Current vessel
traffic already includes transit to similarly located disposal sites
since a site has been in use in the vicinity of the currently proposed
locations since 1977.  The proposed disposal site designations are not
expected to result in any increase in vessel traffic and therefore, no
effects to marine mammals associated with vessel transit (vessel
strikes, oil spills, etc.) are expected to result from the project.

Marine Turtles

The loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and
olive ridley sea turtle have all been recorded along the Oregon and
Washington coastline in association with the appearance of albacore. 
Albacore occurrence is strongly associated with the warm waters of the
Japanese current, which generally occur 30 to 60+ miles offshore from
the Oregon Coast.  Consequently, these sea turtle species do not
typically occur close to the Oregon shore and would not be expected to
be present in the action area during disposal events.  Any turtles in
the action area would be expected to avoid the proposed sites during
disposal operations.

Marbled Murrelet, Short-tailed Albatross, and Brown Pelican

The marbled murrelet, short-tailed albatross, and brown pelican are
known to occur in the vicinity of Oregon coastal estuaries and adjacent
ocean.  However, no critical habitat for these species has been
designated in the ocean.  Disposal activities are expected to create a
limited and temporary turbid environment which could cause prey fish to
move out of or avoid the immediate area during a disposal event. It is
also possible that minor behavioral changes by individual birds may
occur (e.g. individuals could be displaced a few dozen to several
hundred feet by the presence of the dredge/barge) to avoid the immediate
area during and immediately following any individual disposal event.  

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are defined as, “those effects of future State or
private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are
reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action
subject to consultation” (50 CFR §402.02).  The shoreline areas
adjacent to the proposed sites are relatively undeveloped as the Ocean
Dunes National Recreation Area is located north of the river mouth and
the Umpqua Lighthouse State Park is located to the South.  The small
communities of Winchester Bay, Reedsport, and Gardiner are located just
upstream of the mouth of the Umpqua River and may support future
development.  However, the action area encompasses a radius of 200 feet
from the two proposed sites and does not include any shoreline. 
Currently the only anticipated user of the disposal sites is the Corps. 
Neither EPA nor the Corps has identified any future non-federal actions
that would affect ESA-listed species or their habitat.

Determination for ESA-Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat

Coho Salmon

Based on the above assessment of the effects, it is concluded that the
proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Oregon
Coast coho salmon or SONCC salmon.  Critical habitat for Oregon Coast
coho salmon has been designated and the primary constituent elements
(PCEs) include “offshore marine areas with water quality conditions
and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting
growth and maturation.” However, NMFS did not designate any specific
areas based on these PCEs.  Therefore the proposed action would result
in no effect to designated critical habitat for OC coho salmon. 
Critical habitat has been designated and “consists of the water,
substrate, and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine and riverine
reaches” in specified hydrologic units of river reaches accessible to
coho salmon within the listed ESU (64 FR 24049).  Designated critical
habitat for SONCC does not include ocean waters and therefore, the
proposed action would result in no effect to SONCC critical habitat.

Green Sturgeon

Based on the above assessment of the effects, it is concluded that the
proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
Southern DPS green sturgeon.  Use of the North and South Umpqua ODMD
sites for disposal could result in temporary avoidance behavior in any
nearby green sturgeon.  According to the NMFS analysis supporting the
listing of the Southern DPS of green sturgeon, “the principle factor
for decline of the Southern DPS is the reduction of the spawning area to
a limited area of the Sacremento River.” (71 FR 17762)  The proposed
Umpqua North and South ODMD site designations would have no effect on
the spawning area for the Southern DPS and is only expected to result in
temporary and minor modifications to migratory pathways.  No long-term
effects are expected to occur to green sturgeon.

Marine Mammals and Marine Turtles

Based upon the above assessment of the effects, it is concluded that the
proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
Steller sea lion, blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, sperm whale,
humpback whale, southern resident killer whale, loggerhead sea turtle,
green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and olive ridley sea turtle. 
There is no designated critical habitat for the above listed species in
the action area and therefore, the proposed action will have no effect
on designated critical habitat for Steller sea lion, southern resident
killer whale, green sea turtle, or leatherback sea turtle.  Steller sea
lions are expected to avoid the sites during disposal activities.  The
six whale species generally occur as migrants much farther from shore
than the action area, and it is likely that they would avoid the ocean
disposal areas during intermittent disposal activities.  The four sea
turtle species do not typically occur close to the Oregon shore.

Marbled Murrelet, Short-tailed Albatross, and Brown Pelican

Based on the above assessment, marbled murrelets, short-tailed
albatross, and brown pelicans may temporarily avoid the disposal areas
during active disposal activities.  Therefore, the proposed action may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelet,
short-tailed albatross and brown pelican.  Since no marbled murrelet
critical habitat is located within the action area, the proposed action
will have no effect on designated critical habitat for marbled murrelet.

Terrestrial Birds and Plants

None of the other listed bird or plant species is likely to be present
in the action area.  Therefore, the proposed action would have no effect
on western snowy plover, northern spotted owl, Gentner’s fritillary,
Kincaid’s lupine, or Rough popcornflower.  The proposed action will
also have no effect on designated critical habitat for western snowy
plover, northern spotted owl, or Kincaid’s lupine.Essential Fish
Habitat Assessment

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Public Law 94-265), as amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-479),
(MSA), and its implementing regulations at 50 C.F.R. Part 600 Subpart K,
federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS with respect to any
action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized,
funded or undertaken, that may adversely affect  essential fish habitat
(EFH).  An “adverse effect” is defined as “any impact that reduces
quality and/or quantity of EFH.”  Adverse effects may include
“direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of
the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms,
prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such
modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH.”  50 C.F.R.
§ 600.910(a).  The objective of federal agency consultation is to
determine whether or not the federal agency’s proposed action “may
adversely effect” designated EFH, i.e. those waters and substrate
necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity, for fish species regulated under a Federal fisheries
management plan (FMP).    If, as a result of the consultation, NMFS
determines an action would adversely affect EFH, NMFS then determines
whether or not Conservation Recommendations are needed.  Conservation
Recommendations are non-binding measures designed to “avoid, minimize,
mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH resulting from
actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by [a
federal] agency.”  50 C.F.R. § 600.905(b).  If NMFS determines
Conservation Recommendations are needed, NMFS notifies the Federal
agency of the determination and of the recommendations.  Federal
agencies are required to provide a written response to NMFS after
receiving Conservation Recommendations.  MSA § 305(b)(4)(B).  The
Federal agency response must describe the measures the agency proposes
for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on
EFH or must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations
provided by NMFS.  50 C.F.R. § 600.920(k)(1).    

By letter dated August 3, 2007, NMFS provided EPA with a list of
species, with designated EFH in the vicinity of the proposed Umpqua
sites.  The list was based on NMFS’ general knowledge of the presence
of EFH as determined by studies conducted by NMFS for groundfish,
coastal pelagic species, and Pacific Coast salmon.  NMFS conducted
groundfish stock assessment studies in the areas offshore of California,
Oregon, Washington, and southern British Columbia triennially from 1977
to 2001 (Weinberg et al., 2002).  The 2001 assessment collected data
from depths ranging from 55 to 500 meters and provides useful
information on the distribution of groundfish species.  A detailed
discussion of EFH for groundfish is provided in Appendix B of Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan as amended through Amendment 19
(PFMC, 2006).  The report includes life history descriptions (Part 2),
EFH text descriptions (Part 3), and habitat suitability maps for
groundfish species of the Pacific Coast with associated life history
stages.  The most recent groundfish Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation document was published in 2006.  A detailed discussion of EFH
for coastal pelagic species is provided in Amendment 8 to the Coastal
Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan (PFMC, 1998) and a recent Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Document, June 2007.  The salmon EFH
is discussed in the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan as
revised through Amendment 14 (PFMC, 2003).  All of this information was
reviewed to assess the possible impacts to these species’ EFH from the
proposed action.  EPA reviewed the list of species provided by NMFS
against the areas EPA proposes to designate as the Umpqua sites and
assessed whether or not the proposed action to designate the sites may
adversely affect EFH for any of the species with designated EFH in the
action area.  

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  7 .  Species with Designated EFH Offshore
from the Umpqua River as Provided by NMFS

Groundfish Species	Common Name	Life Stage

Larvae	Juveniles	Adults

Rockfish Species

Sebastes melanops	Black Rockfish

X	X

Sebastes chrysomelas	Black-and-yellow Rockfish	X	X	X

Sebastes goodie	Chilipepper

X	X

Sebastes rastrelliger	Grass Rockfish

	X

Sebastes carnatus	Gopher Rockfish	X	X	X

Sebastes mystinus	Blue Rockfish

X	X

Sebastes caurinus	Copper Rockfish

	X

Sebastes paucispinis	Bocaccio

X

	Sebastes nigrocinctus	Tiger Rockfish

	X

Sebastes maliger	Quillback Rockfish

	X

Sebastes entomelas	Widow Rockfish

X	X

Sebastes saxicola	Stripetail Rockfish

X	X

Sebastes proriger	Redstripe Rockfish

	X

Sebastes miniatus	Vermillion Rockfish

	X

Sebastes rufus	Bank Rockfish

X	X

Sebastes rosaceus	Rosy Rockfish

	X

Sebastes ovalis	Speckled Rockfish

	X

Sebastes pinniger	Canary Rockfish

	X

Sebastes crameri	Darkblotched Rockfish

	X

Sebastes zacentrus	Sharpchin Rockfish

X	X

Sebastes diploproa	Splitnose Rockfish

X

	Sebastes levis	Cowcod

	X

Sebastes helvomaculatus	Rosethorn Rockfish

	X

Sebastes borealis	Shortraker Rockfish

	X

Sebastes flavidus	Yellowtail Rockfish

	X

Sebastes ruberrimus	Yelloweye Rockfish

	X

Sebastolobus alacanus	Short-spine Thornyhead

	X

Sebastes alutus	Pacific Ocean Perch

X	X

Flatfish Species

Atheresthes stomias	Arrowtooth Flounder	X

X

Platyichthys stellatus	Starry Flounder

X	X

Parophrys vetulus	English Sole

X	X

Psettichthys melanostictus	Sand Sole

X	X

Isopsetta isolepis	Butter Sole

	X

Citharichthys sordidus	Pacific Sanddab

	X

Eopsetta jordani	Petrale Sole

	X

Lepidopsetta bilineata	Rock Sole

	X

Glyptocephalus zachirus	Rex Sole

	X

Pleuronichthys decurrens	Curlfin Sole

	X

Hippoglassoides elassodon	Flathead Sole

	X

Other Species

Scorpaenichthys marmoratus	Cabezon

	X

Hexagrammos decangrammus	Kelp Greenling	X

X

Raja binoculata	Big Skate

	X

Ophiodon elongatus	Lingcod	X

X

Gadus macrocephalus	Pacific Cod	X	X

	Hydrolagus colliei	Spotted Ratfish

X	X

Squalus acanthias	Spiny Dogfish

	X

Anoplopoma fimbria	Sablefish	X	X	X

Triakis semifasciata	Leopard Shark

	X

Galeorhinus galeus	Soupfin Shark

X	X

Merluccius productus	Pacific Hake

X	X

Potential Effects of the Proposed Action on EFH

Selection of the proposed North and South ODMD sites at the Umpqua River
as the sites to propose for final designation was made using an
extensive coordination process with both federal and state agencies and
private interest groups.  The proposed sites have been selected to
minimize impacts to ocean resources by avoiding unique areas and areas
of greater biological productivity.  The proposed sites have been sized
large enough to handle disposal material for a 20-year period and will
be managed to minimize impacts within the sites.  In addition, both pre-
and post-disposal studies have been conducted to further characterize
the sites and help in their management and use.

Table 7, supra, shows the fish species with designated EFH in the
Pacific Ocean offshore from the Umpqua River.  Disposal of dredged
material at ocean disposal sites will have a temporary effect on the
water column and benthic habitat at the disposal sites.  Turbidity
resulting from disposal may persist within the water column for a period
of a few minutes to a half hour (Corps, 2008) and the benthic community
may take a few weeks to months to re-colonize.  However, the proposed
North and South Umpqua sites generally represent only a small portion of
the overall EFH for any of the species listed below.

Groundfish Species EFH

Rockfish Species.  Fourteen of the rockfish species shown in Table 7
(stripetail, redstripe, vermillion, bank, speckled, canary,
darkblotched, sharpchin, splitnose, rosethorn, shortraker, yelloweye,
Pacific ocean perch, and short-spine thornyhead) are expected to occur
at water depths deeper than those occurring at the proposed ODMD sites. 
Because the proposed sites do not provide suitable aquatic habitat, no
effects to EFH for these rockfish species are anticipated.

The remaining rockfish species shown in Table 7 rely on nearshore
habitats such as shallow bays and nearshore rocky areas, and many are
closely associated with kelp and eelgrass beds.  All life stages are
associated with some type of structure such as areas with vertical
relief, mixtures of rocks and boulders, rock ridges, crevices of rock
outcrops, pinnacles, and artificial reefs.  Because the proposed sites
do not provide the preferred aquatic habitat or habitat complexity, no
adverse impacts to EFH for these rockfish species are anticipated.

Flatfish Species.  Two of the flatfish species shown in Table 7 (rex and
flathead) are expected to occur at water depths deeper than those
occurring at the proposed Umpqua sites.  Because these sites do not
provide suitable aquatic habitat, no effects to EFH for these flatfish
species are anticipated.

The life stages of the remaining flatfish species (arrowtooth and starry
flounder; English, sand, butter, petrale, rock, and curlfin sole; and
Pacific sanddab) would likely be present in the water column over the
proposed sites and could potentially be impacted by disposal operations.
 The proposed Umpqua sites do provide suitable EFH for these flatfish
species.  Trawl data from July and September 2007 found English,
petrale, sand, and butter sole at the proposed sites.

Cabezon and Kelp Greenling.  Both of these species are abundant all year
in estuarine and subtidal areas.  Larvae and young juveniles are pelagic
and have been found offshore in waters over 300 meters in depth. 
Juveniles settle to the bottom and are found primarily in shallow-water
bays and estuaries.  Kelp greenling lay eggs on or between rocks or in
algae beds.  Rocky bottoms and cobble substrata are the most frequently
used habitats by cabezon.  Because the proposed Umpqua sites do not
provide the preferred aquatic habitat or habitat complexity for cabezon
and kelp greenling, no adverse impacts to EFH for these species are
anticipated.

Big Skate.  Big skates are relatively abundant in northern and central
California, but are not common south of Point Conception.  Records show
big skates inhabiting water as shallow as 3 meters, but in survey
catches in the North Pacific they are found most frequently on the outer
shelf in waters 50 to 200 meters deep.  Over their range, big skates
have been taken from waters up to 800 meters deep; however, few occur
deeper than 350 meters.  Juveniles are associated with soft bottom
sediments.  In an assessment of habitat types and associated fish
assemblages at Heceta Bank off the southern Oregon coast, adult skate
were most commonly found in habitat consisting of mud substrate and
populated by sea urchins.  They were evenly and sparsely distributed
over mud bottoms, and usually lay on the bottom.  The proposed Umpqua
sites provide suitable EFH for this species.  Trawl data from July and
September 2007 found a few big skates at the proposed sites.

Lingcod.  Lingcod are an estuarine mesobenthal species that occurs in
depths from 0 to 475 meters.  Spawning occurs from 3 to 10 meters below
mean lower low water over rocky reefs in areas of swift currents. 
Larvae occur in near shore areas from winter to late spring.  Larger
larvae are epipelagic, primarily found in the upper 3 meters of the
water column.  Juveniles settle in estuaries and shallow waters along
the coast while older juveniles move offshore as they grow but are most
common in waters greater than 150 meters.  Adults prefer slopes of
submerged banks 10 to 70 meters below the surface with sea weeds, kelp
and eelgrass beds that form feeding grounds for small prey fish.  They
also prefer channels in rocky intertidal areas with swift currents that
concentrate plankton and plankton feeding fish.  Based on these habitat
requirements, the proposed Umpqua sites would not provide suitable EFH
for lingcod.  

Pacific Cod.  Pacific cod are a member of the inner shelf-mesobenthal
community.  The majority of Pacific cod are found at depths from 50 to
300 meters with spawning occurring at depths from 40 to 265 meters.  The
eggs are demersal, adhesive, and are found sublittorally.  Larvae and
small juveniles are pelagic, with the highest abundance in the upper 15
to 30 meters of the water column.  Larvae are found over the continental
shelf from winter through summer.  Small juveniles occur in depths from
60 to 150 meters gradually moving to deeper water with increased age. 
Larger juveniles and adults are parademersal occurring over mud, sand
and clay, and occasionally coarse sand and gravel bottoms.  Based on
these habitat requirements, the proposed Umpqua sites would not provide
suitable EFH for Pacific cod.

Spotted Ratfish.  Ratfish are a middle shelf mesobenthal species that
occur in depths from 0 to 913 meters.  They are most abundant in depths
from 100 to 150 meters.  They also occur in estuaries during the winter
and early spring to feed and mate.  Ratfish are generally a deep water
species that prefer low relief, rocky bottoms or exposed gravel or
cobble.  They are not commonly found over sand or boulders.  Based on
these habitat requirements, the proposed Umpqua sites would not provide
suitable EFH for ratfish. 

Spiny Dogfish.  The spiny dogfish is an inner shelf-mesobenthal species
with a depth range of 0 to 1,236 meters.  From survey data, most dogfish
inhabit waters less than 350 meters deep.  They occur from the surface
and intertidal areas to greater depths, and are common in inland seas
such as San Francisco Bay and Puget Sound and in shallow bays from
Alaska to central California.  Adult females move inshore to shallow
waters during the spring to release their young.  Small juveniles (<10
years old) are pelagic while subadults and adults are mostly
sublittoral-bathyal.  Subadults are found on muddy bottoms when not
found in the water column.  The proposed Umpqua sites may provide
suitable EFH for spiny dogfish. 

Sablefish.  Sablefish are an inner shelf-bathybenthal species that
occurs in deep water.  Sablefish are most abundant in depths from 200 to
1,000 meters but have been reported to depths of 1,900 meters.  Spawning
occurs at depths greater than 300 meters.  Larvae and young juveniles
are pelagic and may move inshore and remain there for up to 4 years to
rear.  Older juveniles and adults inhabit progressively deeper water and
are benthopelagic on soft bottoms.  Based on these habitat requirements,
the proposed Umpqua sites would not provide suitable EFH for sablefish.

Leopard Shark.  Leopard sharks are found from southern Oregon to Baja
California.  This species is most abundant in northern California bays
and estuaries and along southern California beaches.  They are common in
waters less than 20 meters deep and use estuaries and shallow waters for
pupping and feeding/rearing grounds.  Leopard sharks are associated with
artificial structures such as piers and jetties and a variety of bottom
habitats such as hard, mixed, unconsolidated, and vegetated bottoms. 
Based on these habitat requirements, the proposed Umpqua sites would not
provide suitable EFH for leopard shark. 

Soupfin Shark.  Soupfin shark are an abundant coastal pelagic species
that ranges from Canada to Mexico.  They inhabit bays and muddy shallow
water areas where they are associated with the bottom.  They occur in
depths from 2 to 471 meters.  Adult males occur in deeper water in
northern California, while females occur closer to shore in southern
California.  Juveniles are also more abundant in the southern portion of
the range associated with the females.  Juveniles also occur in bays
such as San Francisco Bay to rear.  Soupfin shark exhibit large coastal
migrations; the population moves north in the summer and south in the
winter.  The proposed Umpqua sites may provide suitable EFH for soupfin
shark.

Pacific Hake.  Pacific hake is a migratory species that inhabits the
continental slope and shelf from Baja California to British Columbia. 
Juvenile hake usually reside in shallow coastal waters, bays, and
estuaries with adults occurring further offshore, usually at depths from
50 to 500 meters.  Along the Pacific Coast from British Columbia to
California, adults use a narrow band of feeding habitat near the shelf
break for 6-8 months per year.  Based on these habitat requirements, the
proposed Umpqua sites would not provide suitable EFH for Pacific hake.

Coastal Pelagic Species EFH

The nearshore area off the Umpqua River has the potential to provide EFH
for northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), Pacific sardine (Sardinops
sagax), Pacific (chub) mackerel (Scomber japonicus), jack mackerel
(Trachurus symmetricus), and California market squid (Loligo
opalescens).  The EFH for the four coastal pelagic fish species is the
water column except for the market squid, which spawns in specific
spawning grounds on the bottom.  The proposed Umpqua sites may provide
suitable EFH for these four pelagic fish species.

Market squid range from Mexico to Alaska, although they are most
abundant from Monterey Bay to Mexico.  Although they are considered
pelagic they actually occur from the surface to depths of 800 meters. 
They prefer ocean salinities and are rarely found in bays, estuaries, or
near river mouths.  Squid spawn in dense schools on the bottom in
spawning areas that range in depth from near shore shallow areas to
depths of 800 meters.  Known spawning areas are inshore protected areas
with sand or mud bottoms at depths from 5 to 55 meters.  Squid spawning
off Oregon has been observed from May to July.  No squid spawning areas
have been identified in the vicinity of the proposed Umpqua sites. 
Consequently, the proposed Umpqua sites do not provide suitable EFH for
market squid.

Salmon Species EFH

The nearshore area offshore from the Umpqua River has the potential to
provide EFH for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).  The proposed Umpqua sites may provide
EFH for Chinook and coho salmon as a migratory area for adults and
juveniles.  

Determination for Essential Fish Habitat

There is a potential to impact EFH for some flatfish species (arrowtooth
and starry flounder; English, sand, butter, petrale, rock, and curlfin
sole; and Pacific sanddab), big skate, spiny dogfish, Soupfin shark,
four coastal pelagic fish species (northern anchovy, pacific sardine,
pacific mackerel, and jack mackerel), and Chinook/coho salmon by use of
the proposed North and South ODMD sites near the Umpqua River.  The
amount of habitat potentially impacted by site use, however, is expected
to be very small compared to the total EFH habitat identified for each
of the species evaluated.  In no case does the habitat provided by the
proposed Umpqua sites represent any unique habitat that is limited in
distribution.  Therefore, although the designation of the Umpqua sites
may adversely affect EFH for the above listed species, those effects are
expected to be minor and temporary and are not expected to reduce the
quality and/or quantity in any significant way for any EFH for any of
the species listed above.  

The following measures have been considered by EPA as a way to mitigate
any adverse impacts to designated EFH at the proposed Umpqua sites.  EPA
expects to incorporate these measures into the site management and
monitoring plans for each of the proposed Umpqua sites.  

Dredged material to be disposed at the North and South Umpqua ocean
dredged material disposal sites must determined to be suitable for
unconfined, aquatic disposal.  In the event that any dredged material is
not suitable for unconfined, aquatic disposal, the dredged material
found unsuitable will not be disposed at the North and South Umpqua
ocean dredged material disposal sites, but will be placed at acceptable
upland disposal sites.

Bathymetry at the North and South Umpqua ocean dredged material disposal
sites will be monitored on a regular basis to ensure that mounding is
not occurring.  

Literature Cited

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

Adams, P.B., C.B. Grimes, J.E. Hightower, S.T. Lindley, M.L. Moser. 
June 2002.  Status Review for North American Green Sturgeon, Acipenser
medirostris.  National Marine Fisheries Service and North Carolina
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.

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.

Brick, J.D. (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife).  November 3, 2005.
 Coho run timing for Winchester Bay and Umpqua River (RM 1-5).  Email to
Carolyn B. Schneider, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Carlson, T.J., G.R. Ploskey, R.L. Johnson, R.P. Mueller, M.A. Weiland
and P.N. Johnson.  2001  Observations of the behavior and distribution
of fish in relation to the Columbia River navigation channel and channel
maintenance activities.  Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland WA.

Carretta, J. V., K.A. Forney, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B.
Hanson, and M.M. Muto.  2007.  U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock
Assessments: 2007.  US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical
Memorandum, NMFS-SWRSC-414.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Dawley, E.M. R.D. Ledgerwood, T.H. Blahm, C.W. Sims, J.T. Durkin, R.A.
Kirn, A.E. Rankis, G.E. Monan and F.J. Ossiander.  1986.  Migrational
characteristic, biological observations and relative survival of
juvenile salmonids entering the Columbia River estuary, 1966-1983. 
Final report to Bonneville Power Administration by National Marine
Fisheries Service, Seattle WA.

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

Emmett, R.L., T.C. Coley, G.T. McCabe Jr., and R.J. McConnell.  1987. 
Demersal Fishes and Benthic Invertebrates at Four Interim Dredge
Disposal Sites off the Oregon Coast.  National Marine Fisheries Service,
Seattle WA.

Erickson, D.L., J.A. North, J.E. Hightower, J. Weber, and L. Lauck. 
2002.  Movement and habitat use of green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris
in the Rogue River, Oregon, USA.  J. Appl. Ichthyol. 18:565-569.

Erickson, D. L. and J.E. Hightower.  2007.  Oceanic distribution and
behavior of green sturgeon.  American Fisheries Society Symposium. 
56:197-211.

Erikson, D. L. and M.A.H. Webb.  2007.  Spawning periodicity, spawning
migration, and size at maturity of green sturgeon, Acipenser
medirostris, in the Rogue River, Oregon.  Environ. Biol. Fish. 
79:255-268.

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

Good, T. P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams (editors).  2005.  Updated status
of federally listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead.  U.S. Dept.
Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.  NMFS-NWFSC-66, 598 p.

Green, G.A., J.J. Brueggeman, R.A. Grotefendt, and C.E. Bowlby.  1992. 
Cetacean distribution and abundance off Oregon and Washington,
1989-1990.  In Oregon and Washington marine mammal and seabird surveys,
J.J. Brueggeman, ed.  Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region,
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Camarillo CA.

Groot, C. and L. Margolis (editors).  1991.  Pacific salmon life
histories.  UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia.

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.

Houston, J.J.  1988.  Status of green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris,
in Canada.  Canadian Field Naturalist 102:286-290.

Israel, J.A., M. Blumberg, J. Cordes, and B. May.  2004.  Geographic
patterns of genetic differentiation among western U.S. collections of
North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris).  North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 24:922-931.

Jacobs, S., J. Firman, G. Susac, D. Stewart, and J. Weybright.  2002. 
Status of Oregon coastal stocks of anadromous salmonids, 2000-2001 and
2001-2002.  Monitoring Program Report Number OPSW-ODFW-2002-3.  Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland OR.

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

Maser, C., B.R. Mate, J.F. Franklin, and C.T. Dyrness.  1981.  Natural
History of Oregon Coast Mammals.  General Technical Report PNW-133,
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Forest
Service.

Miller, B.A. and S. Sadro.  2003.  Residence time and seasonal movements
of juvenile coho salmon in the ecotone and lower estuary of Winchester
Creek, South Slough, Oregon.  Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 132:546–559.

Moser, M.L. and S.T. Lindley.  2007.  Use of Washington estuaries by
subadult and adult green sturgeon.  Environmental Biology of Fishes (in
press).

Moyle, P.B., Foley, P.J., and Yoshiyama, R.M.  1992.  Status of green
sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, in California.  Final Report submitted
to National Marine Fisheries Service.  University of California at
Davis.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service).  2007 (June 29).  Letter to
the record.  Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz CA.

Neill, T., K. Melcher, and J. Whisler.  2000.  The 1998 NEAP funded
green sturgeon tagging project in Winchester Bay.  Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife.

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife).  2005.  Final summary
report, green sturgeon population characteristics in Oregon.

PFMC (Pacific Fisheries Management Council).  1998.  Coastal Pelagic
Species Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 8 to the Northern Anchovy
Fishery Management Plan).

PFMC (Pacific Fisheries Management Council).  2003.  Pacific Coast
Salmon Plan: Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational
Salmon Fisheries Off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon and California as
Revised through Amendment 14 (Adopted March 1999).

PFMC (Pacific Fisheries Management Council).  2006.  Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and
Washington Groundfish Fishery as Amended Through Amendment 19 Including
Amendment 16-4.

PFMC (Pacific Fisheries Management Council).  2006.  Status of the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery through 2005, Stock Assessment and
Fishery Evaluation: Stock Assessments and Rebuilding Analyses.

PFMC (Pacific Fisheries Management Council).  2007.  Status of the
Pacific Coast Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery and Recommended Acceptable
Biological Catches: Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation - 2007.

Radtke, L.D.  1966.  Distribution of smelt, juvenile sturgeon, and
starry flounder in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta with observations on
food of sturgeon, In Ecological studies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Estuary, Part II.  J.L. Turner and D.W. Kelly (ed.).  California
Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 136: 115-119.

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

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

Weinberg, K.L., M.E. Wilkins, F.R. Shaw, and M. Zimmermann.  2002.  The
2001 Pacific West Coast Bottom Trawl Survey of Groundfish Resources:
Estimates of Distribution, Abundance, Length, and Age Composition. 
Technical Memo NMFS-AFSC-128.

Whisler, J., T. Neill, and K. Melcher.  1999.  1998 Sturgeon Tagging
Project in Select Coastal Estuaries.  Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Clackamas OR.

 EPA’s Interim Designations were superseded by later statutory and
regulatory changes. 

  Pursuant to the Ocean Dumping Regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 227.13(b),
dredged material which meets the following criteria is environmentally
acceptable for ocean dumping without further testing:  (1) dredged
material composed primarily of sand, gravel, rock, or any other
naturally occurring bottom material with particle sizes larges than
silt, and the material is found in areas of high current or wave energy
such as streams with large bed loads, or coastal areas with shifting
bars and channels; or  (2) dredged material for beach nourishment or
restoration and is composed primarily of sand, gravel, or shell with
particle sizes compatible with material on the receiving beaches; or (3)
when the material is substantially the same as the substrate at the
proposed disposal site and the site from which the material is taken is
far removed from known existing and historical sources of pollution such
that there is a reasonable assurance that the material has not been
contaminated by such pollution.   The use of the DMEF and the SEF
screening levels provide additional safeguards for material that would
otherwise meet the regulatory criteria for environmentally acceptable
material for ocean dumping without further testing.   

 PAGE   18 

Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, Umpqua
River ODMD Site Designations

 PAGE   ii 

June 5, 2008

Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Umpqua River
ODMD Site Designations

 PAGE   17 

June 5, 2008

 PAGE   21 

June 5, 2008