Public Notice Availability of Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment for the Charleston Marina Navigation Improvements Coos County, Oregon
Section 107 of the Continuing Authorities Program
Issue Date: July 11th, 2025
Comment Period End Date: August 11th, 2025
Interested parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District (Corps) is seeking public comment on its Charleston Marina Navigation Improvements Coos County, OR Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment (IFR/EA) and draft Finding of No significant Impact. Thus, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared for this project. USACE is proposing modifications to the Charleston Marina in Coos County, OR (Figure 1).
This study was conducted under the Continuing Authorities Program, Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960, as amended (33 U.S.C. 577), which authorizes USACE to plan and implement small navigation projects.
Alternatives were developed to address the navigational hazards in the Charleston Marina caused by shoaling at a breakwater. Alternatives were evaluated by looking at extensions to the Federal Navigation Channel and depths that aligned with the existing -16’ depth of the existing Charleston Access Channel.
The Recommended Plan is to realign and extend the Federal Navigation Channel (FNC) to the western edge of the fuel dock, a distance of approximately 315 feet. The recommended depth of the extension is -16 ft MLLW, to be consistent with the existing FNC. The recommended bottom width is 60 ft, in compliance with EM 1110-2-1615 (Hydraulic Design of Small Boat Harbors, 1984), for vessels with good to very good controllability. The side slopes will be no steeper than 2V:1H and a minimum 50 foot offset from existing infrastructure shall be maintained.
USACE has prepared a draft EA for the proposed action in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality and USACE NEPA implementing regulations that were applicable at the time of preparation.
USACE has made a preliminary determination that the effects of the proposed action would not be significant and that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not warranted. Following public review, USACE will make a final determination on whether to make a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The draft Integrated Feasibility Report and EA and draft FONSI is available for download at the following links:
Public Comment Period
USACE is accepting comments on the Charleston Marina Navigation Improvements Coos County, Oregon Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment and draft Finding of No significant Impact for 30 days.
Comments must be submitted no later than August 11th, 2025
How to Comment
Please send your written comments or questions to:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District
Attn: CENWP-PM-E
P.O. Box 2946
Portland, OR 97208-2946
Email: CENWP-CharlestonMarinaCAP107-IFR-EA@usace.army.mil
Please include “Charleston Marina Navigations Improvements IFR/EA” in the subject line. All comments received will become part of the administrative record and are subject to public release under the Freedom of Information Act including any personally identifiable information such as names, phone numbers, and addresses.
The public is encouraged to join a virtual public information session hosted by USACE, July 24, 2025 from 10 – 11 AM PST.
Microsoft Teams Need help?
Join the meeting now
Meeting ID: 993 175 365 263
Passcode: De3hf3Kw
Dial in by phone
+1 601-262-2433,,412868390# United States, Vicksburg
Find a local number
Phone conference ID: 412 868 390#
For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN
Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.
Section 401 of the CWA regulates a discharge of pollutants into waters of the state, including turbidity and the discharge of dredged material. Under this section of the Act, requirements and procedures are set forth to obtain Water Quality Certification (WQC) for activities which result in any discharge into navigable waters to ensure compliance with established effluent limitations and water quality standards. In cases where dredged material disposal is regulated under section 103 of the MPRSA and not under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (as is the case under the Recommended Plan), the USACE still seeks the State of Oregon‘s certification as a matter of comity under section 401 [see 33 CFR § 336.2(c)]. The USACE requested confirmation from Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) that the Recommended Plan will be eligible for 401 WQC and will obtain a WQC from ODEQ prior to construction. Section 404 of the CWA is not applicable for implementation of the Recommended Plan, as all discharge of dredged material will occur within the ODMDS F. Instead, the transport and disposal of dredged material in this location is regulated by the U.S. EPA under Section 103 of the MPRSA.
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq.
The proposed action is in the coastal zone for the state of Oregon. This zone is described by the Oregon State Government as extending from Washington to California, seaward to the extent of three nautical miles, and inland to the crest of the coastal mountain range [except to the downstream end of Puget Island on the Columbia River, to Scottsburg on the Umpqua River, and to Agness on the Rogue River]. The project area was compared to the Oregon DLCD map for the extent of coastal zone under Oregon’s Coastal Management Program and determined to be within the coastal zone range. This Act is applicable to the proposed action. A consistency determination will be prepared outlining how the Recommended Plan is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with enforceable policies of Oregon’s Coastal Management Program. USACE anticipates submitting this documentation to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development by 30 July 2025.
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA provides for specific coordination and consultation with the FWS and/or NMFS (collectively “the Services”), and to ensure federal actions will not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitats. The USACE shall initiate specific coordination and consultation, as needed, for threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat. The USACE met with NMFS on 3 MAY 2024 to determine environmental compliance pathways for the alternatives under consideration and sought concurrence from NMFS that the Proposed Action was consistent with the SLOPES IV programmatic biological opinion (NMFS No: 2011/05585). A SLOPES Notification Form was submitted to NMFS on 02 April 2025. Correspondence with NMFS regarding marine turtles is ongoing, and a determination of NLAA has been made at this time. On 24 April 2025, USACE received confirmation from NMFS that the proposed action meets the conditions of the SLOPES IV opinion. The USACE coordinated with USFWS in 2024 as well; however, the USACE made a no effects determination for all species on the IPaC species list due to the nature, duration, and the location of the Proposed Activity.
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (aka Ocean Dumping Act (ODA))
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation Status. Dredged material from the Charleston Marina navigation improvement project would be disposed at the Coos Bay Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site F (Site F). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (USEPA) designated Site F in 2006 pursuant to their authority under § 102 of the ODA. Site F was originally selected by USACE in 1976 under its ODA § 103 authority. EPA initial designation occurred in 1986; Site F was subsequently expanded in 1989 and 1994. The site location, size, depth range, uses, and restrictions appear at 40 CFR § 228.15(n)(3). Site F extends about 0.1 nautical mile (nmi) WNW from the baseline [defined at 33 CFR § 329.12(a)(1)] out to 2.6 nmi. A legal description of the site follows (coordinates in NAD 1983):
43°22′54.8887″ N, 124°19′28.9905″ W Dimensions: 15,150 ft (L) x 9,750 to 7,980 (W)
43°21′32.8735″ N, 124°20′37.7373″ W Area: 3,070 acres
43°22′51.4004″ N, 124°23′32.4318″ W Depth: 24 to 156 ft
43°23′58.4014″ N, 124°22′35.4308″ W Long axis azimuth: 301˚ (WNW)
Dredged Material Discharges at the ODMDSs. A total of approximately 36 million cubic yards (CY) of dredged material has been disposed at Site F since 1976. Most of this quantity comes from the Coos Bay federal navigation channel and Charleston federal side channel. Site F has also received small quantities of dredged material from non-USACE dredging projects permitted by the Portland District’s Regulatory Branch under ODA § 103.
Documented Effects of Disposal at the Sites. The effects of disposal at the sites are jointly monitored by the USEPA and USACE. Management and monitoring activities at the sites are conducted in accordance with the USEPA/USACE’s August 2006 Coos Bay, OFregon Site Management/ Monitoring Plan for Site E, Site F, and Site H (SMMP). Disposal and monitoring activities described in the SMMP are a requirement of site use [40 CFR § 228.15(n)(3)(vi)].
In accordance with the SMMP, USACE performs annual bathymetric surveys of Site F prior to the dredging season, which typically runs from June through the end of October. The USACE uses the site bathymetry to identify mounded areas and develop site utilization plans to facilitate even placement of dredged material across Site F.
The EPA plans and leads monitoring surveys at the sites, and the USACE participates in the surveys. The following table summarizes monitoring activities that have occurred at Site F over the last 36 years to document baseline conditions and evaluate the effects of disposal.
ODMDS Baseline and Monitoring Events at Coos Bay.
|
Month/Year
|
Survey/Monitoring Activities
|
|
JAN 1979 to SEP 1983
|
Site evaluation and monitoring studies with Oregon State University in five phases. Final survey report published in DEC 1984
|
|
FEB 1986
|
Final Environmental Impact Statement for designation of Sites E, F, and H
|
|
FEB 1990
|
Site F mounding and capacity study
|
|
APR, OCT 1992
|
Benthic infauna and epibenthic faunal surveys and sediment characterization around Site F to support site expansion.
|
|
JUN 1995
|
STFATE modeling for Site F
|
|
AUG-SEP 1999 (report DEC 2004)
|
Sediment profile imaging (SPI) camera deployed to study 3 specific disposal events compared to STFATE simulation results
|
|
JUN and AUG 2008
|
Side-scan sonar, physical, chemical, and benthic infauna surveys at Site F and Site H
|
|
AUG 2013
|
Site F and Site H multibeam bathymetry, physical, chemical, and benthic toxicity and bioaccumulation bioassays; benthic infauna; epibenthic trawls; SPI camera
|
Project Duration. Maintenance of the Charleston side channel is contingent on Congressional funding. When maintenance is authorized by Congress, construction of the 315-ft channel extension would be performed along with maintenance of the existing channel. The Charleston Marina access channel extension would take less than one week to dredge (the total construction volume is less than 8,000 CY). Over the 50-year design cycle of this project, USACE anticipates the maintenance dredging volume will average around 3,000 CY per year (and total about 150,000 CY over 50 years).
Dredged Material Characteristics and Composition. Consistent with the dredged material evaluation requirements at 40 CFR § 227.13, the Portland District has evaluated sediments from the Charleston Marina CAP 107 project in accordance with the joint USEPA and USACE 1991 Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal Testing Manual and the Northwest Regional Sediment Evaluation Team’s 2018 Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest (SEF).
- Physical Characteristics: Sediment in the proposed channel extension is composed of <1% gravel, 80% sand, and 19% fines (silt and clay).
- Chemical Characteristics: The Port performed chemical analysis on the dredged material in accordance with the SEF. Bulk sediment concentrations were compared to the SEF marine benthic toxicity screening levels. None of the screening levels were exceeded; most chemicals were either not detected or detected in trace amounts.
- Biological Testing: Under the SEF guidance, chemical screening is used as a surrogate for the benthic toxicity tests required at 40 CFR §227.13(c). Bulk sediment chemical concentrations in the channel extension sediments were compared to the SEF marine benthic toxicity screening levels. None of the screening levels were exceeded, so solid-phase benthic toxicity tests were not required per the SEF.
- Determination: USACE has determined that dredged materials from the Charleston Marina project are suitable for unconfined, aquatic disposal at Site F. USACE is seeking the USEPA’s concurrence on this determination.
The proposed transportation of this dredged material for disposing of it in ocean waters is being evaluated to determine that the proposed disposal will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities. In making this determination, the criteria established by the Administrator, EPA pursuant to § 102(a) of the ODA, will be applied. In addition, based upon an evaluation of the potential effect which the failure to utilize this ocean disposal site will have on navigation, economic and industrial development, and foreign and domestic commerce of the United States, an independent determination will be made of the need to dispose of the dredged material in ocean waters, other possible methods of disposal, and other appropriate locations.
Any person who has an interest which may be affected by the disposal of this dredged material may request a public hearing. The request must be submitted in writing to the District Engineer within the comment period of this notice and must clearly set forth the interest which may be affected and the manner in which the interest may be affected by this activity.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 54 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, USACE determined that the proposed action has no adverse effect to historic properties. USACE consulted with the Oregon SHPO, affected tribes, and the Port for the proposed TSP. USACE initiated consultation with the SHPO, the CTCLUSI, the CTSI, the Coquille, and the Port and defined the area of potential effect (APE) on 12 July 2024. USACE received a response from the Coquille on 12 July 2024, confirming they would like to be a consulting party for the undertaking and had no comment on the defined APE. SHPO responded on 30 July 2024, with additional questions and comments to expand the APE to include the Charleston Marina Complex. USACE sent additional letters expanding the APE to SHPO and Tribes on 08 August 2024. SHPO concurred with the APE on 10 April 2024 (SHPO Case No. 24-1189). No additional comments on the APE were received. One historic property is known to cover APE, the Q’alya to Kukwis schichdii me TCP. The Proposed Action will result in no adverse effect to the TCP historic property, result in a significant change to the character or integrity of the immediate surroundings, nor will accessibility to traditional areas be affected. Thus, USACE has made a finding of no adverse effect to historic properties in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.5(b). USACE sent the finding of effects letters to the consulting parties on 18 March 2025. The consultation period ended on 17 April 2025. The SHPO responded on 15 April 2025 concurring with USACE’s finding of the no adverse effect to historic properties. No additional comments regarding the USACE's determination of no adverse effect to historic properties were received within the 30-day comment period. As such, USACE has no further obligations under Section 106.