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

Heading: The Army Corps’ Analysis and Appellant’s

Text: Concerns The Dredged Material Management Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DMMP/SEIS), which constitutes the no-action alternative in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“FSEIS” or “Final Environmental Impact Statement”), called for establishing a small deep-water disposal site for 7.7 mcy (million cubic yards) over 20 years. This plan was “intended to reduce rehandling of material that currently erodes back into the navigation channel.” Columbia River Dredged Material Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement at 32 (June 1998). Deep-water disposal would occur outside the zone where currents would bring dredged material back into the navigation channels from whence it would ultimately have to be dredged once again. The 1999 Final Environmental Impact Statement expanded the DMMP/SEIS proposal for deep-water disposal of dredge spoils with the continued dredging associated with the Mouth 10118 NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS of the Columbia River Project in mind. “Continued maintenance of the MCR project is a necessary component for the viability of not only the existing 40-foot navigation channel but also to any proposed channel improvements.” Vol. I: Main Report and Exhibits, Integrated Feasibility Report for Channel Improvements and Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) at 1-2 (Aug. 1999). The four existing ocean disposal sites for the Mouth of the Columbia River Project were determined to have “inadequate capacity.” Id. “The timing of this long-term site selection process [for new ocean disposal sites] and the need to identify suitable ocean disposal sites for construction and long-term maintenance of proposed channel improvements further established the need to address the combined ocean disposal requirements in this document [the FSEIS].” Id. This language in the Final Environmental Impact Statement indicates that ocean disposal will be necessary for both the disposal of materials dredged for the Mouth of the Columbia River Project and either the maintenance of the 40foot depth of the channel or the deepening of the channel to 43 feet “as existing estuarine disposal sites reach capacity.” FEIS, Exh. H at H-3. To deepen the channel to 43 feet, over the next thirty years, “total Project dredging quantity” will be “about 190 mcy [million cubic yards] for the Project.” Biological Opinion at 12 (May 20, 2002). Without the deepening, simply maintaining the channel at 40 feet (the no-action alternative spelled out in the DMMP/SEIS) over the same time period, approximately 160 mcy would have to be dredged. Id. In its proposal for additional ocean disposal sites, the Corps estimated volumes of ocean disposal for both the Mouth of the Columbia River Project and the channel-deepening or channel-maintenance dredging. MCR O&M3 Annual 50 Years 4.5 mcy 225 mcy 3 FEIS, Exh. H at H-6. NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS 10119 40-foot O&M Total 40-foot Channel 1-20 Years 21-50 Years 8 mcy 12 mcy 20 mcy Construction 43-foot O&M Total 43-foot Channel 1-20 Years 21-50 Years 7 mcy 9 mcy 21 mcy 37 mcy Although deep-water disposal, according to the Corps, is not the first or most preferable option, see FSEIS, Exh. H at H-6 (“Dredged material placed at [disposal sites closer to shore] is expected to move out of the site and feed the littoral system.”), these ocean disposal sites were selected because the mouth of the Columbia River is “so dynamic.” Id. The Corps’ preferred outcome is dependent (1) upon dredge volumes to maintain both the Mouth of the Columbia River Project and the channel deepening not exceeding expectations in any given year and (2) the dredged materials put into nearshore sites eroding at the rate anticipated. If either of these expectations plays out at a different rate,4 there will be no room for new dredge spoils to be dumped in littoral sites, id., and deep-water disposal would be necessary. Another way of making this point is that, in any given year, the agency’s preferred outcome, littoral disposal of dredge spoils, is dependent upon at least two factors, the uncertainty as to both of which 4 “[T]he 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. Some quantity of dredged material will likely have to be placed in the proposed Deep Water Site each year; this will result in some material being permanently lost from the littoral zone.” FEIS, Exh. H at H-68. 10120 NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS is acknowledged by the Corps. A “single Deep Water Site was located and sized to accommodate almost a 5-year disposal capacity (225 mcy).” Id. at H-7. The Army Corps simply has failed to consider cumulative impacts of the permanent removal of sand from the littoral system from both the Mouth of the Columbia River and channel-deepening or maintenance that is inevitable if there is deep-water disposal. The agency should have considered the cumulative impacts of removing at least 262 mcy (the total amount of material to be dredged from both channel deepening and ongoing MCR dredging) to the deep-water site, not just 70 mcy of sediment from channel deepening. The Corps insists that it has considered the cumulative impacts on coastal erosion of disposing of dredged material from both the Mouth of the Columbia River Project and the channel-deepening project. In evaluating the Corps’ contention, the majority focuses on two dynamics that potentially drive coastal erosion: (1) the impacts associated with disposal of sediment dredged from the MCR Project and the channeldeepening project and (2) the potential changes in sediment transport and river hydraulics caused by these two projects. The Corps and majority opinion focus on Exhibit J to the FSEIS and the 2003 FSEIS, as well as Exhibit H to the FEIS. Neither addresses NWEA’s concern that the specific impacts on coastal erosion of disposing of dredged material from both the Mouth of the Columbia River Project and channel deepening in the deep-water disposal site remain unquantified and essentially unknown. Exhibit J is the agencies’ supplemental analysis in response to Oregon and Washington’s initial refusal to certify the channel deepening project over concerns about sediment transport and coastal erosion. Exhibit J is simply not adequate. The Corps’ analysis in Exhibit J proceeds as follows. First, the Corps considered “historic trends and changes in sediment transport in the Columbia River System” and attributed NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS 10121 decreased sediment transport down the Columbia River to the dams upstream. This analysis appears to be sound. It is what follows that is questionable. Next, the Corps “examined whether the channel deepening project itself would affect sediment transport.” Fed. App. Br. at 25. The Corps determined, first, that dredging the channel will not reduce the sand available for transport because the surface area to be dredged is a relatively small percentage of the entire riverbed (3.5%) and, second, that because the riverbed has sand 100-400 feet deep, the amount being dredged also represents an insignificant percentage. Then the Corps determined that the channeldeepening project’s impacts on the Columbia River’s hydraulics are “too small to measurably alter sand transport or erosion/accretion in the river or estuary.” FSEIS, Exh. J at 2- 3. The Corps’ conclusion: “Because the Project will neither reduce the sand available for transport nor alter the river’s capacity to move sand, the Project will in turn have no impact on the erosion or accretion of coastal beaches.” Fed. App. Br. at 27. Lastly, the Corps weighed whether consideration of other actions’ impacts would alter its analysis of the impacts of the channel deepening Project. This is the crucial part of the analysis. In its consideration of the cumulative impacts associated with the Mouth of the Columbia River Project’s ongoing dredging, the FSEIS relies on Exhibit J’s finding that “the reduction in the Columbia River’s net sand discharge to the MCR since the early 1900s is related to lower Columbia River flood discharges and not the navigation channel or the MCR jetties.” FSEIS at 6-72. The FSEIS finds that reduced accretion of sand in the estuary is the result of the decreased sand flow from the River, the result of upstream dams and concludes that “[e]xcluding the historic effect of the MCR jetties, navigation channel development and maintenance, including maintenance of the MCR project, has not altered the estuary’s overall accretion/erosion or bedload transport patterns.” Id. at 6-73. So far, so good. The agency’s analysis might be fine, 10122 NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS except that its consideration of coastal erosion and sediment transport issues stops here. Appellees point out that Exhibit J explains how the Columbia River and the currents at its mouth historically moved sand downstream and distributed that sand along Washington and Oregon’s coastlines. It also describes the give-and-take of sand between the estuary and the mouth of the Columbia River. It analyzes how the construction of dams upstream, jetties downstream, and dredging the Columbia River changed these patterns. This may all be true and important to the analysis as a whole, but it does not answer the critical question. The difference between the analysis the Corps is obligated to provide and that provided in Exhibit J is as follows: As Exhibit J explains, historically, for the most part, disposal of dredged sand largely occurred within the littoral system. Although transport patterns were being altered, that is, the way in which the sand was being moved around was changing, and although less sand was being sent downstream because of dams, once downstream the amount of sand in the system remained fixed. By contrast, the record indicates that near-shore and beach disposal are not a permanent solution and that ocean disposal (outside of the littoral system) will increasingly be employed. Increased ocean disposal means that, unlike in the past, the amount of sand being moved around near the mouth of the river will not remain fixed. Over 50 years, 262 mcy may be removed from the littoral system. This permanent removal of material from the littoral system is not the same as moving sand from one part of the littoral system to another. Exhibit J does not address the effect of the removal of sand from the littoral system. The agency nowhere analyzes what happens when 262 mcy is removed from the littoral system entirely, despite the fact that this is an anticipated possibility, verging on a probability. The majority opinion accuses NWEA of relying on the 2003 FSEIS to establish its argument, when it is the 1999 NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS 10123 FEIS that contains the relevant analysis of cumulative impacts. According to the majority, the FEIS, particularly Exhibit H, demonstrates that the Corps was “aware of” the serious impacts on coastal erosion of disposing of large quantities or all material dredged from both the Mouth of the Columbia River Project and the channel-deepening project in the planned ocean disposal site. Maj. Op. at 10082-83. To establish this, the majority references an alarming statement from the 1999 FEIS: If the deepwater site is used as intended5 (4.5 mcy of MCR sand placed per year for 50 years), the implications on the littoral sediment budget at MCR and adjacent coastal areas could be profound. . . . 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. . . . (emphasis added). The majority is correct — this statement does show that the Corps “was fully aware of the potential erosion effects entailed by deepwater disposal.” Maj. Op. at 10083. The agency’s response, or lack thereof, to this possibility is very troubling. The majority insists that Exhibit H contains a detailed analysis of these potentially “profound” and “adverse” effects. Not so. Exhibit H provides a recital of the process that the Corps went through with other groups to narrow 5 The majority calls use of this term a “misnomer.” Maj. Op. at 10084. The majority’s breezy dismissal of the Corps’ use of “intended” epitomizes the problems with the majority’s analysis: on the one hand the Corps tells us that extensive use of the deepwater disposal site is a “worstcase” scenario; on the other, it tells us that the “intended” use of the site will lead to “adverse” effects. Which is it? The Corps’ inconsistency and the ambiguity of its plans are at the heart of what troubles me so deeply about this case, and the majority’s ready dismissal of those inconsistencies is inconsistent with NEPA. 10124 NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS the list of potential deep-water disposal sites and to select one that the Corps would use. The majority finds that the lists of possible conflicts (harms) associated with each potential deep-water site (which the Army Corps calls “conflict matrices”) provide thorough analyses of the advantages and disadvantages of each potential site. In fact, they are no more than tables and checklists. Undertaken for each of the ten potential deep-water sites, each matrix, such as it is, notes whether there is a conflict, potential conflict, no conflict, or a beneficial use for 27 specific characteristics of a site based on eleven specific factors for ocean disposal site selection specified in 40 C.F.R. § 228.6 and five general criteria for the selection of ocean disposal sites from 40 C.F.R. § 228.5. FEIS, Exh. H at H-45-55. Among the specific site characteristics being evaluated are unusual topography, physical sediment compatibility, commercial fisheries, critical habitat of threatened or endangered species, and cumulative effects. For example, the matrix for the proposed deep-water disposal site notes a potential conflict with “potential for cumulative effects,” with a check in the “potential conflict” box; a note in the “comments” column indicates that use of this site could have a “[p]otential affect from crab and other fishing as well as disposal;” and a note as to the relevant regulatory factors (4 and 7 of the eleven factors6 and c and d of the five general criteria7). That’s it. Exhibit H does not dig deeper to quantify 6 Factor 4 is “types and quantities of waste proposed to be disposed and proposed methods of release, including methods of packaging the waste, if any.” Factor 7 is “existence and effects of present or previous discharges and dumping in the area (including cumulative effects).” FEIS, Exh. H at H-55. 7 Criteria c states that “[i]f at any time during or after disposal site evaluation studies, it is determined that existing disposal sites presently approved on an interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet criteria for site selection set forth in Sections 228.5-228.6, the use of such sites will be terminated as soon as suitable alternative disposal sites can be designated.” Criteria d states that “[t]he sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to localize, for identification and control, any immediate adverse impacts and to permit the implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance programs to prevent adverse, long-range impacts. The size, configuration, and location of any disposal site will be determined as part of the disposal site evaluation or designation study.” FEIS, Exh. H at H-55. NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS 10125 or elaborate these effects as to any of the 27 characteristics, including “potential for cumulative effects.” This is the extent of Exhibit H’s analysis of the cumulative impacts on coastal erosion of disposing of large quantities or all dredged material from the Mouth of the Columbia River Project and the channel-deepening project in this deep-water site: “[p]otential affect from crab and other fishing as well as disposal.” We have rejected this kind of underwhelming specificity before. In Klamath-Siskiyou, we held that tables that did not “provide object quantification of the impacts” where the tables noted only whether a certain factor would be “unchanged,” “improved,” or “degraded,” were inadequate under NEPA. 387 F.3d at 994. Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hawkins, No. 04-16125, __ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2006), draws on Klamath-Siskiyou. In that case, the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM or Bureau) environmental impact statement, noted, in a statement reminiscent of the Corps’ statements, that “[t]here is a potential for cumulative effects from hazardous air pollutants including compounds of arsenic, hydrogen cyanide, manganese, propylene, and acid aerosols. . . .” The extent of the Bureau’s analysis was a “generic map” and “three tables that list existing and reasonably foreseeable mines.” We held that the Bureau’s “somewhat alarming statement was nowhere . . . supported by data broken down by mine, or even by cumulative data.” Great Basin, No. 0416145, slip op. at 34-35. The same could be said here of the Corps, which has told us that the “intended” use of the deepwater disposal site could result in “profound” or “adverse” coastal erosion impacts and then provides us only with checklists of factors and no data. Exhibit H does not adequately address the cumulative impacts of coastal erosion, despite the Corps’ and the majority’s efforts to argue that it does. Bottom line: the majority finds that the “hard look” standard has been satisfied by the Corps’ assurance that, although the FEIS and FSEIS both propose authorizing the deep-water site for disposal of all MCR dredge, the Corps “presents this 10126 NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. NMFS option only for ‘contingency planning purposes’ and as representing a ‘worst-case’ scenario.” Maj. Op. at 10085 (quoting FSEIS, App. H at H-6). I strongly disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the Corps discharged its obligations under NEPA by expressing its preference to dispose of dredged material at Site E and at the North Jetty Site, rather than at the deep-water site, even though substantial evidence suggests that those sites lack the required capacity. In so doing, the majority has held that, because the deep-water disposal of all materials dredged from the MCR project is a “worst-case” scenario and because the agency has revised its disposal plans and developed a management plan to minimize deep-water disposal, the agency need not detail the impacts of that scenario. By admitting it is a “worst-case” outcome, the Corps admits it is a bad solution, but nowhere tells us just how bad or if anything in the way of mitigation is possible.