LOWER COLUMBIA AND WILLAMETTE RIVERS CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT Summary of Events Ports Seek to Remain Competitive In the late 1980’s, the Port of Portland joined with other lower Columbia River ports to request that the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) consider deepening the navigation channel. The request was based on the ports’ perceived need to remain economically competitive in an industry where more than 70 percent of container ships in the transpacific fleet are constrained by the current 40-foot depth of the lower Columbia River channel. The Columbia River is the number one wheat export gateway in the United States and, next to the Mississippi River, is the second largest agricultural export gateway in the world. In 1999, more than 30 million short tons of waterborne cargo valued at $13 billion moved through the lower Columbia River. The Port of Portland estimates that about 900 companies, based in Oregon and southwest Washington and supporting more than 6,000 jobs, ship cargo via the Portland Harbor. Corps Feasibility Study Based on the Corps’ findings in favor of a need to deepen the channel, the ports requested the Corps to conduct a feasibility study for deepening the Columbia and Willamette river navigation channels to help meet the increasing size of cargo container ships. In August 1989, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Public Works and Transportation authorized the feasibility study. The Corps and the then seven lower Columbia River Ports (Astoria, Kalama, Longview, Portland, St. Helens, Vancouver, and Woodland) co-sponsored the 5-year feasibility study, which was initiated in 1994. The Port of Portland served as the overall coordinator for the sponsoring ports. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies proposing actions that may impact fish and wildlife to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Due to the regional presence of 22 threatened and endangered species, and the importance of the estuary in some stages of the life history of these species, consultation among the Corps, NMFS, and USFWS began in 1998. In November that year, the Corps released an initial proposal for public comment. The principal focus of the proposal involved a recommendation to deepen the channel from its currently authorized 40-foot depth to 43 feet along 11.6 miles of the Willamette River below Portland, and 103.5 miles of the Columbia River below Vancouver, Washington. Corps Environmental Impact Statement The Corps completed the feasibility study, including a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in August 1999. (The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impact of implementing their major programs and actions early in the planning process through the use of an EIS. The intent of an EIS is to consider alternative courses of action and to demonstrate that the proposed alternatives minimize impacts and provide ways to mitigate environmental impacts.) The feasibility study recommended deepening the channel to 43 feet, as well as deepening three turning basins in the Columbia River and three in the Willamette River. To accomplish the deepening, the Corps proposed to dredge 20 million cubic yards of sandy material; blast and dredge 220,000 cubic yards of hard basalt rock; blast and dredge 450,000 cubic yards of cemented sand, gravel, and boulders; deposit 16 million cubic yards of dredge material on ocean disposal sites at the mouth of the Columbia River during the first two years of the project and 267 million cubic yards of dredge material over 50 years; and deposit in two years more than 11 million cubic yards of dredge material from the deepening project plus dredge material from maintenance dredging in upland, in-water, and dredge material island disposal sites in the Columbia and Willamette rivers. The EIS showed a national benefit of $34.4 million in average annual transportation savings, and estimated the total cost to be $195.9 over two years. Congress would pay for 65 percent and Oregon and Washington 35 percent. Prior to the completion of the feasibility study and full EIS, Congress authorized the project in April 1999. Congressional appropriations for the project, however, could not be released until the Corps completed its report on the dredging proposal, which was due to Congress by December 31, 1999. Because of Section 7 consultation requirements under the Endangered Species Act, the report needed to contain a Biological Opinion (BiOp), issued by NMFS and USFWS, on the possible impacts of the project to fish and wildlife. USFWS and NMFS Biological Opinions USFWS biological opinion: On December 6, 1999, USFWS issued the Corps a “no-jeopardy Biological Opinion,” for effects of the channel deepening project on Columbian white-tailed deer and bald eagle. The BiOp attached several conditions that the Corps needed to meet over time, following completion of the channel deepening project. These conditions included avoidance of nesting and foraging eagles, reduction in white-tailed deer habitat loss, evaluation of conservation measures, and prevention or minimization of contaminated sediments into depositional areas. On December 16, 1999, NMFS issued the Corps a no-jeopardy Biological Opinion. Similarly, the NMFS BiOp attached several conditions that the Corps needed to meet over time, following completion of the channel deepening project. These conditions included restoring, by 2010, 5,000 acres of Columbia River shallow-water habitat; performing a series of studies, analyses, and monitoring to verify the project’s impacts and to gauge the effectiveness of fish protection and habitat restoration activities; and preparing a multi-year plan for estuary restoration that is closely coordinated with the work of other regional stakeholders. Environmental Organizations Criticize the Project In February 2000, a coalition of environmental organizations (Northwest Environmental Advocates, American Rivers, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, and Trout Unlimited) filed a lawsuit to block the proposed channel deepening project. The lawsuit asked a federal court in Seattle to set aside NMFS’s no-jeopardy BiOp and to require a new opinion that meets ESA rules. The lawsuit said the NMFS BiOp lacked scientific foundation and alleged that the approval process had more to do with meeting the reporting deadline (December 31, 1999) for congressional appropriations than with meeting NMFS’s BiOp responsibilities. USFWS was added to the lawsuit later that year. NMFS Rescinds the Biological Opinion In August 2000, NMFS withdrew its BiOp and requested a reconsultation with the Corps. The agency based its decision on the inability of the two agencies to reach agreement on specific details of some of the studies required in the BiOp, the need to assess effects of channel deepening and dredging on newly designated critical habitat, and the development of new information since the BiOp’s issue nearly a year earlier (information, for example, on the effects of flow and bathymetry on estuarine shallow water habitat). NMFS’ expectations for reinitiated consultation included a thorough assessment of the implications of the new information; agreement on the details of studies and monitoring, and a schedule for the work; clarification of expectations for completing the restoration work; and a refinement of the conservation measures to be included in the BiOp to protect listed species. Oregon and Washington Deny Permits In September 2000, Oregon and Washington denied a permit to Corps for channel deepening based on the NMFS’s withdrawal of the BiOp and the states’ assertion that the Corps proposal did not meet the states’ water quality regulations. (Oregon and Washington 303(d) lists of water quality-limited streams show the project area to exceed standards for temperature, bacteria, dissolved oxygen, total dissolved gas, toxics, arsenic, and pH. In addition, the entire Columbia River Basin is subject to an EPA total maximum daily load for dioxin.). During this period, EPA designated a six-mile stretch along the lower Willamette through Portland a federal Superfund site due to heavy toxic contamination. Any plans to deepen the Willamette River were required to be coordinated with the state and federal plan being developed for environmental cleanup of the river. Principal Parties Seek Independent Scientific Peer Review In January 2001, the project’s principal stakeholders (Corps, NMFS, USFWS, and the ports represented by the Port of Portland) sought to have an independent, scientific, peer review of the scientific basis of the project conducted. Accordingly, in a joint press release, dated February 8, 2001, the principal stakeholders announced their retention of the Sustainable Ecosystems Institute (SEI) of Portland, Oregon, to help resolve scientific concerns raised in connection with the proposed channel deepening project. A public-benefit, non-profit organization of scientists specializing in peer review, SEI agreed to organize six scientific panel discussions over the next six months. Goals are to clarify the scientific and technical issues underlying the proposed project and to review key scientific questions. Upon completion of the peer review process (scheduled for September 2001), the ports and the Army Corps of Engineers will prepare a new Biological Assessment (BA). The BA will be informed by the discussions that occurred during the peer review process. The BA will then be submitted to NMFS and USFWS toward the end of the year, which will each have a 135 days in which to review the BA and issue a new Biological Opinion.