A-Z Index | Contact Us | Search

Ecology home > News > 2000 News > News Release 00-193 > Letters > Attachment: Federal Consistency Letter

Consistency review by the State, and any requested information and alternative measures to achieve consistency, relate to the proposed action as well as any associated facilities and any activity outside the coastal zone that affects land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone.

1. The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW)

Washington's Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was passed by the Legislature in 1971 and adopted by the public in a 1972 referendum. The overall goal of the SMA is to protect the State's shorelines as fully as possible. The SMA establishes a balance of authority between local and state government. Cities and counties are the primary regulators through adoption and implementation of Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs). The state, through Ecology, has the authority to review SMPs and shoreline permit decisions.

The SMA requires permits for substantial developments undertaken on shorelines of the state. RCW 90.58.140(2). The Corps is undertaking activities in the coastal zone that require substantial development permits under the SMA.

Alternative Measures: The Corps should obtain SMA permits from Pacific and Wahkiakum Counties. (This does not relieve the Corps of the responsibility to obtain SMA permits from other non-Coastal Zone Zone jurisdictions.)

An integral component of determining consistency with the SMA is the assessment of consistency with local SMPs adopted by local governments within Washington's coastal zone. Of the four counties that border the portion of the Columbia River where this project is proposed, only Pacific and Wahkiakum counties are within the coastal zone. The cities of Cathlamet and Ilwaco are also in the coastal zone and have adopted SMPs. Under federal consistency regulations, these jurisdictions are not limited to assessing activities within their jurisdiction for compliance with their SMP. In addition, they can assess activities outside of their jurisdiction if those activities impact their coastal resources.

As part of Ecology's Coastal Zone Consistency determination (WAC 173-27-060), Ecology asked Wahkiakum and Pacific counties, and the cities of Cathlamet and Ilwaco, if the project was consistent with their SMPs. Ecology relies heavily on a local government's assessment of compliance with an SMP (RCW 90.58.050). Both Wahkiakum and Pacific counties responded by stating that the project, as proposed, was not consistent with their respective SMPs. A copy of their comments is included. No response was received by the cities of Cathlamet and Ilwaco.

Information Needed/Alternative Measures: A complete and thorough review of the Goals, Policies, and Standards in the SMPs for these jurisdictions must be completed, and used to analyze potential project impacts. The Corps should review the attached comments from Pacific and Wahkiakum counties and respond in writing to each of their concerns. The Corps should work directly with the local jurisdictions and Ecology to obtain concurrence that the requirements in each SMP are met. This includes providing necessary information, and may include modifications to the project. The Corps should also provide information and analysis to Ecology on whether the project is consistent with the SMPs for the cities of Cathlamet and Ilwaco.

The proposed project removes a large quantity of sand from the lower Columbia River, estuary, mouth, and adjacent nearshore region. Columbia River sand is needed to maintain the beaches between Point Grenville, Washington and Tillamook Head, Oregon. The natural supply of sand has likely decreased in recent decades and is probably no longer enough to balance littoral sand transport and prevent erosion of coastal beaches. The proposed project exacerbates this problem by removing sand from the system via both upland disposal and deep-water ocean disposal of sand dredged from the river, estuary, and mouth. The amount of sand removed greatly exceeds the amount of sand that can enter the river, estuarine and coastal system from the tributaries and upland drainage basin.

Sand is a critical and declining resource to the beaches of southwest Washington and, to the maximum extent practicable, all dredged sand should be kept within the river, estuary, and littoral system. Sand dredged from the river navigation channel should be disposed of at in-water sites or at beach nourishment sites to avoid the net removal of the coarsest river sand. All sand dredged from the estuary and the mouth of the Columbia River (MCR) should be disposed in the littoral zone in order to mitigate for sand deficits attributable to flow regulation and the erosion effects attributable to the net removal of littoral sand via deep-water ocean disposal. All riverine and ocean disposal should be conducted in a manner that avoids, or minimizes and mitigates for biological impacts as well as coastal erosion.

Washington State and its coastal communities continue to spend millions of dollars researching, monitoring, analyzing, and modeling the natural processes of sand movement in the Columbia River littoral cell and the impact of human influences on these natural processes. A much larger amount of federal, state, and local funds have been spent on developing responses to impacts caused by erosion and accretion along the beaches. The proposed Columbia River deepening and the removal of its sand to the Deep Water Site and upland disposal sites will only exacerbate these problems.

Ecology has determined that the impact to sand movement and availability from the proposed dredging and disposal is not consistent with the requirements or intent of the Shoreline Management Act. Specific regulatory citations include:

• Shoreline Management Act RCW 90.58.140(1): "A development shall not be undertaken on the shorelines of the state unless it is consistent with the policy of this chapter and, after adoption or approval, as appropriate, the applicable guidelines, rules, or master programs." The policies of the Shoreline Management Act are enunciated in RCW 90.58.020. These policies require that preference be given to uses of shorelines of statewide significance which: protect the state-wide interest over the local interest; preserve the natural character of the shoreline; result in long term over short term benefit; protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline; and increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. In addition, the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible. Although deepening of the Columbia River can be an acceptable form of development, the project proposal does not adequately define impacts to sand movement and availability within the Columbia River littoral cell, the result of these impacts to coastal communities and shorelines of the state, nor does the proposal provide for mitigation of the proposal's impact to sand related resources.
• Shoreline Management Act Regulations WAC 173-16-064(6): This section of the regulation addresses ocean uses and their associated facilities. The existing navigational channel, including the mouth of the Columbia River (MCR) project and the ocean disposal sites are all associated facilities for Columbia River navigation purposes. The federal consistency determination does not adequately address this regulation, nor does the EIS document adequately address these concerns.
• The prevention and control of beach erosion is a policy of the Pacific County SMP (Section 3-10.), Beach Erosion: "Encourage the design and use of naturally regenerating systems and/or constructed engineering solutions for prevention and control of beach erosion." There have been repeated requests made to the Corps to consider alternatives that would make more sand available to Washington beaches.

Information Needed/Alternative Measures: The Corps of Engineers must work with state, local, and federal agencies to resolve regional sediment management issues, with a specific goal of keeping the dredged sand in the littoral system by disposing of dredged sand in the river or along the coast shallower than 60 feet.

In order to for the project to become consistent with Washington's CZMP, the Corps must make significant modification of the proposed dredged material disposal plan for construction and maintenance that is presently unacceptable to the State. The Corps must re-design the project to eliminate or significantly reduce the loss of sand to the littoral cell to avoid coastal erosion impacts. The project must identify specific appropriate measures by which coastal erosion is avoided, minimized and/or mitigated. The State recognizes that a modified construction and maintenance disposal plan over the 50-year life of the project, that is required and deemed acceptable by the State, will also require authorization and funding by Congress.

The Corps should incorporate the following as an integral part of their proposed project:

1. The Corps should commit to conduct and/or fund a comprehensive sediment monitoring program developed in conjunction with the Washington State Department of Ecology's Coastal Monitoring & Analysis Program, who is jointly directing the Southwest Washington Coastal Erosion Study with the USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program.
1. The monitoring plan should provide for a long-term monitoring program to assess the delivery and transport of sediments from the Columbia River to the littoral cell.
2. The monitoring plan should also include a substantive nearshore or beach nourishment program to avoid exacerbating the present erosion conditions along the adjacent Long Beach Peninsula. The program should include funding for Ecology's Coastal Monitoring & Analysis Program to assist the Corps in monitoring the effectiveness of sand feeding to the littoral cell from disposal sites.
2. The Corps should commit to an inventory of present sand resources with the Columbia River estuary, and update the 1982 bathymetric and topographic change atlas by completing a full survey of the estuary and adjacent shorelines.
3. The Corps should commit to data collection and development of models that would assist in the study of sand transport through and within the estuary and littoral cell.
4. The Corps should commit to expansion of the area coverage of the approach surveys to include RM-1 to 6 miles offshore (in the cross-shore direction) and 6 miles north and south of the navigation channel (in the alongshore direction). The approach surveys should be conducted at least once every two years. Area coverage of Site E or any other nearshore disposal site surveys should extend a minimum of 3,000 feet beyond the sites' formal boundary and be surveyed twice per year (spring and fall).
5. The Corps should commit to funding or conducting specific studies to evaluate the dispersive capacity of the nearshore zone, in order to determine minimal area needs for placing all dredged sand from the estuary and MCR in the nearshore zone, shallower than 60 ft water depth.
6. The Corps should assist with the implementation of the recent pilot project proposal by coastal communities to station contractor dredges along the north jetty to pump ashore sand dredged from the MCR project. The project should include an evaluation of the surf zone dispersive capacity to determine the feasibility of placing larger quantities of sand at the site.
7. The Corps should partner with the State and local governments on a Regional Sediment Management initiative to fulfill the Corps' Coastal Engineering Research Boards' objectives of 1) retaining all appropriate dredged material in the littoral zone, and 2) restoring and maintaining the coast as a balanced natural system. This initiative should include a comprehensive regional systems management plan for the conservation of sand and other coastal resources in the river, estuary and littoral zone as well as shoreline prediction models based on regional sediment budgets.
8. The Corps should also commit to mitigate for any impacts related to the movement and availability of sand as determined by the comprehensive sediment monitoring program and related studies to be caused or exacerbated by the deepening program
9. The Corps should work in conjunction with Ecology's Coastal Monitoring & Analysis Program to assess the probable effects on estuarine and coastal shoreline configurations within the Columbia River littoral cell.

As proposed, the project will operate continuously for two years for initial construction, then periodically for maintenance dredging and disposal. There is no recognition in the current proposal of timing constraints for in-water work. Dredging and disposal activities should be consistent with requirements placed on other entities working within water bodies.

Information Needed/Alternative Measures: The Wahkiakum County SMP states "The timing of dredging and disposal projects shall be coordinated with state and federal resource agencies, local governments and private interests to ensure adequate protection of biological productivity. Dredging and disposal projects should be designed to minimize impacts to fisheries resources by limiting construction activities to times when commercial fishing operations will not be impacted". The Corps should work with affected parties to develop reasonable timeframes for the activities in the proposal.

Ecology received many comments regarding the proposal's impacts on the plant and animal communities of the Columbia River ecosystem. Impacts to crab and fish populations are a primary concern. Ecology agrees with comments that cite the lack of baseline information, concerns about listed species under the Endangered Species Act, impacts of flowlane disposal, and impacts to recreational, commercial and tribal fishing as prime reasons for concern. Potential impacts to crab resources have not been adequately identified and described and therefore it is unknown whether mitigation measures are adequate. Changes to bathymetry, flow and substrate characteristics will result from the proposed channel deepening and permanent removal of the sediment from the littoral cell. The influence these changes is likely to have on nutrient cycling and detrital transport in the Columbia River Estuary has not been adequately addressed.

Information Needed/Alternative Measures: The Pacific County SMP states that "All reasonable steps are taken to avoid and minimize adverse social and economic impacts, including impacts on aquaculture, recreation, tourism, navigation, air quality, and recreational, commercial, and tribal fishing. Compensation is provided to mitigate adverse impacts to coastal resources or uses including mitigation plans to address adverse environmental, social and economic uses and resources." The Corps should work with affected parties to provide the necessary information and assessment to determine the biological impacts from the proposal. Most, if not all, of these issues should be resolved through the Corps obtaining a Clean Water Act 401 permit as discussed below under Federal/State Water Pollution Control Act issues.

The Corps approach to Columbia River navigation is difficult for outside parties to understand because the overall project is divided into many different projects. The deepening project, maintenance dredging , upland disposal, ocean disposal, mouth of the Columbia River dredging, dam operation, and dredging of individual riverine port channels are treated separately. Corps authorities and funding appear to be separate for many of these and regulatory applicability changes between each component. However, the environment and citizens of Washington experience the cumulative impact of all of these interconnected projects. Therefore, Ecology and others are concerned with how information is presented and issues addressed related to the entire Columbia River system. It is important to consider this cumulative impact as information is collected, analyzed, and distributed in regards to this proposal. The Corps should manage Columbia River sand, if not its projects, on a regional, integrated basis.

Information Needed/Alternative Measures: Wahkiakum County's SMP states "In evaluation of any dredging project during the permit process, the adverse effects of both the initial dredging and subsequent maintenance dredging must be consistent." Information regarding the subsequent maintenance dredging and disposal must be submitted for consideration.

2. The State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW)

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that significant adverse environmental impacts be assessed in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) along with alternatives and mitigation measures for those impacts. Under state law, state and local permits cannot be issued or other agency action taken until SEPA is complete.

SEPA allows for the adoption of a NEPA EIS to satisfy SEPA, provided the analysis sufficiently addresses all likely significant adverse environmental impacts identified by the state. If the analysis is found to be inadequate then a supplemental analysis must be done, typically in the form of a Supplemental EIS (SEIS). Ecology has determined that the Columbia River Integrated Feasibility Report for Channel Improvement NEPA FEIS is insufficient in several subject areas. Most of the State's concerns were previously outlined in official comment letters on the Draft and Final EIS. Because the State finds that there are still remaining information gaps in the NEPA EIS, a supplemental analysis must be done before SEPA is complied with.

Information Needed/Alternative Measures: The Corps needs to work with Ecology to further define the information gaps. Additional information or studies developed in support of gaining other federal, state, and local approvals (e.g., 401 water quality certification, Federal Consistency, Biological Opinion, and Shoreline approvals) may need to be included in a Supplemental EIS. The Corps should assist Ecology to locate, develop, and/or analyze additional information in areas that may include, but are not limited to:

• The impacts of and mitigation for removing sand from the Columbia River system (Deep water disposal, loss to the littoral drift cell, and ultimate impact on southwest Washington coastal beaches).
• The effects of deepening on river and estuary channel morphology relative to overall ecosystem productivity and health.
• Study results on Columbia River white sturgeon and smelt.
• The effects of dredging and disposal on Dungeness crabs, and proposed mitigation. Meaningful information needs to be obtained in order to understand how crabs are to be effected by the proposed deepening project and ocean disposal. Understanding that crabs are ubiquitous in the estuary and the ocean, the State needs more scientifically based assurance that the options being proposed have the least amount of impact possible and that unavoidable impacts are being adequately mitigated. Mitigation for crabs impacted by disposal and entrainment needs to be included in the SEIS.
• Information developed on impacts to salmon. The NEPA EIS states that impacts to adult and juvenile salmon would be minimal, and comparable to existing maintenance dredging. Given the National Marine Fisheries Service's withdrawal of its biological opinion and the rationale for that withdrawal, the conclusions of the NEPA EIS are of questionable validity. The state needs an adequate evaluation of the impacts and mitigation to insure that salmon use will not decline due to the proposed deepening. The state expects that information developed by the federal government will be made available for state review, evaluation, and use.
• Upland/Wetland Disposal and Mitigation Sites. Further information and details are necessary to insure adequate information about impacts to wetlands to make reasonable permit decisions on the new disposal and mitigation sites.

3. The State/Federal Water Pollution Control Acts (Chapter 90.48 RCW and 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 to 1387)

The Corps' Consistency Determination does not mention or evaluate consistency with the State and Federal Water Pollution Control Acts. The Corps' proposed action has triggered the need for a state water quality certification under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. A 401 certification is required for the project to be consistent with Washington's CZMP. In order to certify the project, the State must have reasonable assurance that the project meets state water quality standards adopted under the State and Federal Water Pollution Control Acts.

Information Needed/Alternative Measures: The Corps must obtain a 401 certification from Ecology. The reasons for that denial and information needed to reach resolution are articulated in the Ecology 401 denial letter, incorporated herein by reference.

4. The Ocean Resources Management Act (Chapter 43.143 RCW)

The Ocean Resources Management Act (ORMA) establishes policies and guidelines for the state and local governments to manage Washington's coastal waters, seabed and shorelines. The implementing regulation for this law is found in WAC 173-16-064, one of the implementing regulations for the SMA. This was done so that local jurisdictions which border the Pacific Ocean could implement ORMA through their shoreline master programs. Pacific County is the only jurisdiction which has amended its SMP to incorporate ORMA. Nonetheless, for a proposal such as the Columbia River Channel Improvement Project which involves more than one local jurisdiction, compliance with this regulation is specifically required in addition to any approved SMP.

ORMA is applicable to ocean uses within Washington's coastal waters as well as any offshore, nearshore, inland marine, shoreland, and upland facilities associated with that use. One part of the Corps' proposal to deepen the Columbia River channel, ocean disposal Site E, falls directly within ORMA's jurisdiction. Furthermore, under the Coastal Zone Management Act, federal activities, including their associated facilities, outside the coastal zone that affect any land, water use, or natural resource of the coastal zone must be consistent with the state's enforceable CZMA policies, including ORMA. Therefore, the federal consistency process must include an analysis of the overall project's compliance with ORMA. This should include an analysis of the Deep Water ocean disposal site's impact on Washington's coastal resources.

Ecology has determined that the project is inconsistent with ORMA. The comments of Pacific County, attached, specify the reasons. The project is inconsistent with RCW 43.143.030(2) for the same reasons. In addition, there is insufficient information that WAC 173-16-064(11)(c) has been met (ocean disposal sites should be located and designed to prevent, avoid, and minimize adverse impacts on environmentally critical and sensitive habitats and coastal resources and uses.). Based on available information, impacts from dredging and disposal, including, but not limited to, the issue of sand management and biological impacts described earlier in this Attachment under the heading for the SMA, are not consistent with the requirements of ORMA.

Information Needed/Alternative Measures: The Corps can most likely address ORMA concerns by 1) meeting the alternative measure under the SMA above to work with the local jurisdictions and Ecology to satisfy SMP and guideline requirements, and 2) meeting the alternative measure under State/Federal Water Pollution Control Acts above to obtain a 401 certification.

Copyright © Washington State Department of Ecology. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html.

Copyright © Washington State Department of Ecology Contact Us | Privacy Notice | Site Info | Accessibility