Opinion ID: 3038513
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: As a preliminary matter, we reject the Corps’ and the Sponsor Ports’ arguments that NWEA somehow waived its challenge to the Dredged Material Management Plan and Supplemental Impact Statement or that it is moot. The district court addressed the Dredged Material Management Plan and Supplemental Impact Statement in its summary judgment order and NWEA refers to this document throughout its brief. Furthermore, the channel deepening project does not necessarily supersede the channel maintenance project or render challenge to it moot; if the Corps does not pursue channel deepening, it is presently slated to pursue channel maintenance as the “No Action Alternative.” Likewise, the record clearly indicates that NWEA raised the issue of deep water disposal in the context of cumulative impact both in the administrative proceedings and the district court. Therefore, NWEA has not waived these objections and we review them on the merits.
We reject NWEA’s principal claim that the Corps violated NEPA by failing to take a hard look at the cumulative impact on coastal erosion of removing significant amounts of sand from the littoral region. The Corps conducted numerous analyses spanning two environmental impact statements to address the problem of coastal erosion. The Corps responded to concerns from interested parties with additional studies and with those concerns in mind structured its disposal plan to minimize coastal erosion. The Corps took the requisite hard look at this issue. [1] As we have repeatedly held, NEPA imposes procedural requirements on agencies and does not mandate substantive 10080 NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS outcomes. Natural Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 421 F.3d 797, 811 (9th Cir. 2005); see Klamath-Siskiyou, 387 F.3d at 993; Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 756-57 (2004); Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 435 U.S. 519, 558 (1978). For “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C), NEPA requires an agency to prepare an environmental impact statement. KlamathSiskiyou, 387 F.3d at 993. An environmental impact statement “shall provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decisionmakers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1. [2] Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(c)(3), an environmental impact statement must consider a proposed project’s “cumulative impact,” which 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 defines as: the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. We have held that an environmental impact statement must “catalogue adequately past projects in the area” and provide a “useful analysis of the cumulative impact of past, present, and future projects.” City of Carmel-By-The-Sea, 123 F.3d at 1160; see Lands Council, 395 F.3d at 1027. [3] Given this framework, we agree with the district court that the Corps’ cumulative impact analysis satisfied NEPA’s “hard look” requirement. NWEA’s main concern is that the cumulative impact of the channel deepening and Mouth of the NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS 10081 Columbia River projects, including the former’s plans for disposal of dredged sediment at the Deep Water Site, will remove a significant amount of sand from the littoral system. This in turn will exacerbate the estuary’s function as a “sand sink” that draws sand away from shorelines, thus accelerating coastal erosion. Within this model, the Corps adequately addressed the two mechanisms that could potentially lead to sediment loss. First, the Corps considered direct sediment loss from disposing of sand in the Deep Water Site, which lies outside of the littoral system. The Corps recognized that unfettered use of the Deep Water Site would have adverse environmental consequences, and structured its plans to minimize disposal there. Second, the Corps examined whether deepening the navigation channel may change river hydraulics, thus altering the rate of sediment flow within the river and to the estuary. The Corps concluded that channel deepening would not have this effect. Consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7, the Corps’ analyses considered not just the channel deepening project, but also its relationship with other projects. The FSEIS states: Although the Congress has authorized the channel improvement project and the MCR project as two separate projects, the Corps and . . . [the Environmental Protection Agency] have, where appropriate, coordinated the review of relevant impacts. For example, the 1999 IFR/EIS reviews the long-term disposal plan and its impacts for both the channel improvement and MCR. 10082 NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS
Disposal of Dredged Material
Project In challenging the Corps’ actions, NWEA misplaces its focus on the 2004 FSEIS and fails to consider the Corps’ extensive treatment of deepwater disposal in the 1999 Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement. As the 1999 document demonstrates, the Corps was clearly aware of the environmental ramifications of disposing of all of the dredged sediment from the MCR project in the Deep Water Site.7 That document states: If the deepwater site is used as intended (4.5 mcy [million cubic yards] of MCR sand placed per year for 50 yrs), the implications on the littoral sediment budget at MCR and adjacent coastal areas could be profound. The removal of 225 mcy of sand from MCR (via dredging) and subsequent placement at the “deepwater” site would be equivalent to removing the above and below portions of Peacock spit. The result of such a mass removal of littoral sand would likely be adverse: Local and possible regional coastal erosion may result. The stability of MCR jetties may be reduced due to increased toe scour, resulting from such a littoral sediment deficit. 7 Because the MCR project involves a significantly greater volume of dredged material potentially available for ocean disposal than channel deepening and maintenance (225 million cubic yards versus 37 million cubic yards), Appendix H focuses on the ramifications of deepwater disposal of material from the MCR project. The Corps later modified the channel deepening project to reduce overall dredging as well as the amount of channel deepening sediment to be placed in ocean sites. The 2003 FSEIS, and in particular Exhibit J, extensively examines the impact of removing material from channel deepening and maintenance from the littoral cell, and concludes that it is negligible. NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS 10083 As this statement reveals, the Corps was fully aware of the potential erosion effects entailed by deepwater disposal. Acting upon this knowledge, the Corps evaluated potential sites and structured its plans to minimize such disposal. In weighing numerous options for ocean disposal of dredged material, the Corps consistently considered the potential for coastal erosion due to sediment loss. In evaluating ten candidate sites for ocean disposal, the Corps gave “great weight” to the assumption that “[n]earshore sites have the greatest potential to keep material in the littoral zone.” Based on its analysis, the Corps ultimately recommended Site E, the North Site, and the South Site (these latter two sites ultimately became the Deep Water Site) for EPA designation as Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites. The Corps further proposed disposing of material at the North Jetty Site, a non-ocean site which lies within the littoral region. Recognizing that the “quantity of dredged material that will be placed in proposed Site E and the North Jetty Site is uncertain due to the dynamics of the sites,” the Corps proposed a Deep Water Site that could accommodate excess dredge spoils. The Corps conducted a “conflict matrix” analysis comparing disposal at Site E and the Deep Water Site. Ultimately, it concluded that the benefits of limited dumping at Site E, which would preserve that site’s dispersive nature and prevent wave amplification due to mounding, outweighed the costs of placing some amount of sediment at the Deep Water Site. As we have held before, our role is not to substitute our “judgment for that of the agency concerning the wisdom or prudence of a proposed action. Once satisfied that a proposing agency has taken a ‘hard look’ at a decision’s environmental consequences, the review is at an end.” State of Cal. v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 761 (9th Cir. 1982). Here, it is not our province to assess the wisdom of placing some amount of sediment in the Deep Water Site. Our role is simply to ensure that the Corps considered all relevant factors—including the potential 10084 NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS for such disposal to exacerbate erosion—in arriving at its decision. The Corps clearly did so. [4] The Corps not only considered sediment loss, it conscientiously structured its disposal plan to minimize it as much as possible. Exhibit H to Appendix H of the 1999 Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement presents a Management and Monitoring Plan which identifies five objectives, one of which emphasizes keeping sand within the littoral system and counteracting erosion. Consistent with the Corps’ finding that placing dredged material at water depths shallower than 60 feet maximizes its dispersion back into the littoral environment, the Plan requires disposal of dredged material at Site E and the North Jetty Site first, with the Deep Water Site representing a non-preferred last option. While the Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement states elsewhere that the “intended” use of the Deep Water Site is to accommodate all 225 million cubic yards (“mcy”) of dredged material, that term is a misnomer. As the Management and Monitoring Plan reveals, the Corps must first exhaust the dynamic capacity of Site E and the North Jetty Site before placing any sediment in the Deep Water Site, which will ultimately contain far less than 225 mcy of sediment. Accordingly, in denigrating the Corps’ analyses, NWEA exaggerates the maximum amount of sediment that the Corps will place in the Deep Water Site. The most conservative estimate of the long-term dispersive capacity of Site E and the North Jetty Site is 2 mcy per year, meaning that the Corps will only have to place 2.5 mcy per year in the Deep Water Site.8 Other estimates of the dispersive capacity of Site E and 8 This figure appears in the 1999 Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement and includes the dispersive capacity of Site E. Presumably, the dispersive capacity of the Shallow Water Site is even greater than that of Site E because of the Shallow Water Site’s larger area. NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS 10085 the North Jetty Site are much higher, and the Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement states that “it is possible that the majority (and perhaps all) of the average annual volume of material could be placed in the North Jetty Site and Site E.” It is illustrative in this regard that between 1973 and 1997, continual use of Site E had not resulted in any persistent mounding. While the Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement as well as the FSEIS propose authorization to dispose of all of the MCR dredged material at the Deep Water Site, the Corps clearly presents this option only for “contingency planning purposes” and as representing a “worst case” scenario. The Corps has never planned to place all of the material from the MCR project in the Deep Water Site. Because of how the Corps has structured its disposal plans, it is not reasonably probable that it will use the entire capacity of the Deep Water Site. This calls into question whether NEPA even requires the Corps to analyze the environmental effects of placing all 225 mcy of sediment in the Deep Water Site. See California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 761 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that an environmental impact statement must contain “a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences” of a proposed action) (quoting Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. Morton, 509 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir. 1974)) (emphasis added). Nevertheless, as discussed above, the Corps did take a hard look at this remote possibility, and recognized the “profound” implications of using the entire authorized capacity of the Deep Water Site. Consequently, the Corps took the additional step of acting upon this knowledge to ensure that it will dispose of an amount nowhere near 225 mcy at that site. Strict regulations governing ocean disposal ensure that the Corps will not dispose of all 225 mcy of sediment in the Deep Water Site. The 1999 Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement proposes designating two Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites, Site E (later, the 10086 NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS Shallow Water Site) and the Deep Water Site. However, the EPA maintains final authority to designate these sites for ocean dumping. See 33 U.S.C. § 1412. As part of this process, sites must have a management and monitoring plan which defines and limits dumping practices allowed there. See 40 C.F.R. § 228.3. As discussed, the Management and Monitoring Plan for the channel deepening project, which is part of the 1999 Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement, clearly establishes that the Corps will dispose of dredged material in the littoral sites first, reserving the Deep Water Site only for excess spoils. Here, the Corps’ “preference” for disposing in the littoral system is much more than that term implies. Because the Management and Monitoring Plan establishes that the Corps will dispose of material in the littoral system first, deviation from that practice may lead to de-designation of the Deep Water Site. Furthermore, the Plan itself outlines several options for potentially altering disposal practices based upon an ongoing review of environmental impact: operational changes, changes in site location, and discontinuing disposal at a particular site. Thus, in addition to establishing a plan to minimize sediment loss, the Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement proposes a plan to monitor, alter, and perhaps even terminate dumping at the Deep Water Site in order to minimize negative environmental impacts. Further demonstrating the Corps’ hard look, in addition to present and future plans to mitigate sediment loss, the Corps has changed past disposal practices to maintain the maximum amount of sediment within the littoral cell. In 1997, the Corps temporarily expanded Site E because of its “high dispersion rate” and the potential for dredged material placed there to be “re-introduced into the littoral environment of the Washington coast.” This move arose in part from a request by the Washington Department of Ecology in order to retard erosion of coastal beaches. The record clearly reveals that the Corps considered the potential for coastal erosion due to sediment loss. The Corps NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS 10087 even structured disposal plans to minimize this possibility as much as possible. We thus hold that the Corps took a hard look at the effects of removing MCR sediment from the littoral system.
Channel Deepening Project Similarly, the 2003 FSEIS took a hard look at the effects of removing sediment from channel deepening, and concluded that such practice would not diminish sediment availability in the littoral cell. Further undermining NWEA’s concerns, between the 1999 Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement and the 2003 FSEIS, the Corps altered the proposed project, reducing both the volume of proposed dredging as well as the amount of material from channel deepening slated for ocean disposal. As reflected in the 2003 FSEIS, the Corps concluded that, as altered, the channel deepening project simply would not remove enough sediment to make an environmental difference. Construction and 20 years of maintenance of the proposed 43-foot navigation channel would remove an estimated 70 mcy of sand from the Columbia River and place it in upland disposal sites. Approximately 40 mcy of dredged sand would be disposed of back along the navigation channel or in ecosystem restoration sites in the estuary. Critically, the analysis reveals that the volume of sand removed by dredging would not reduce the available sand supply in the riverbed. The FSEIS concludes: [T]he removal of sand from the river will not alter sediment transport to the estuary (Exhibit J). The volume to be dredged over the life of the project is only a tiny fraction of the total volume of sand in the riverbed. In addition, transport potential, rather than sand supply, is the limiting factor in sediment supply to the estuary. 10088 NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS SER 295. Ultimately, by considering the disposal of material dredged from both the MCR and the navigation channel, the Corps took a hard look at the effects of directly removing sediment from the littoral cell through operation of the channel deepening project.
Hydraulics and Sediment Transport Rates The Corps also took a hard look at the second mechanism by which channel deepening could potentially reduce sediment availability in the estuary: changes to river hydraulics and sediment transport rates. Exhibit J to the 2003 FSEIS thoroughly analyzes this dynamic and concludes that channel deepening will have no appreciable impact on sediment transport. The Corps prepared Exhibit J in direct response to concerns from Washington and Oregon in 2000 regarding sediment transport. Thus throughout numerous years of study, the Corps did not simply stake out a position and attempt to defend it; consistent with the dictates of a “hard look,” the Corps remained open to input from stakeholders and conducted new analyses to address their concerns. See Friends of the Payette v. Horseshoe Bend Hydroelectric Co., 988 F.2d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 1993). [5] As a threshold matter, Exhibit J scrupulously considers the cumulative impact of the channel deepening project on sediment availability in conjunction with other projects, including the MCR project, jetties, and the Federal Columbia River Power System. The FSEIS reveals that river flow rate mediated by the Federal Columbia River Power System dams —not any past or future dredging in the navigation channel— is the overwhelming driver of changes to sediment availability in the estuary: “The reduction in the Columbia River’s net sand discharge to the MCR since the early 1900’s is related to lower Columbia River flood discharges and not the navigation channel or the MCR jetties.” Regarding the MCR jetties, the FSEIS notes that they have had some impact on sediment NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS 10089 availability, by reducing sand movement from the MCR into Baker Bay and across Clatsop Spit into the south channel and by causing a large discharge of sand from the MCR to the ocean. However, Exhibit J repeatedly underscores the reality that “[d]eepening will not reduce the available sand supply and the expected hydraulic changes [from channel deepening] are too small to measurably alter sand transport or erosion/ accretion in the river or estuary.” Ultimately, “deepening the navigation channel in the river and estuary will not alter the sand transport through the MCR nor the sediment budget of the littoral cell.” The independent Sustainable Ecosystems Institute expert panel subsequently affirmed the Corps’ extensive sedimentation analyses. As a further indication of the comprehensiveness of the Corps’ studies, Washington and Oregon withdrew their objections and certified the project upon considering the new analyses.