U.S Army Corps of Engineers
Policy Review Branch, Policy Division
ATTN: CECW-AR (8A)
7701 Telegraph Road
Alexandria, VA 22315-3861

Re: Portland District US Army Corps of Engineers Final Integrated Feasibility Report for Channel Improvements and Environmental Impact Statement for the Lower Columbia and Willamette Federal Navigation Channel

This letter constitutes the comments of Northwest Environmental Advocates (NWEA), the Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC), and Sierra Club Oregon Chapter, regarding the Portland District US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Final Integrated Feasibility Report for Channel Improvements and Environmental Impact Statement [hereinafter "FEIS"] for the Columbia and Lower Willamette River Federal Navigation Channel. We have prepared these comments on behalf of the organizations and their members, most of whom reside, work, and/or recreate in or along the Columbia and Lower Willamette Rivers. In general, we remain dismayed at the poor quality and narrow breadth of the analysis in this FEIS. Bearing in mind one simple fact alone - that the Lower Columbia River is a critical path for every threatened or endangered Columbia River Basin salmonid making its way either to or from the ocean - we augment our previous comments on the draft EIS with the following.

1. We Renew and Expand the Objections Outlined and Described in Our Original Comments on the Draft EIS as follows.

Ballast Water. According to a recent monthly report for the Oregon Sea Grant Extension faculty, the Corps recently began a project to periodically analyze water for the presence of veligers, the planktonic larvae of zebra mussels, as a method of obtaining an exotic species invasion warning. The WA Department of Fish and Wildlife has hired a new project employee to conduct Aquatic Non-native Species outreach programs along the Columbia and Snake Rivers. The Corps has conducted zebra mussel sampling on hydropower structures and submerged objects for some time. Clearly, this is an issue that deserves a hard look from the Corps, not some cursory, academic treatment.

We appreciate that changes on the discussion of this subject were made in the FEIS, section 5.2.5, Vol. I at 5-25. However, we disagree with the Corps' unsubstantiated statement that "…deepening the channel would [not] contribute to the potential for increase in numbers or types of [invasive] species." Response to NEDC comments #15. In its response to the concerns we raised earlier about the increased risks associated with greater volumes of ballast water, the Corps claimed that "[t]he projections of traffic levels and export levels would occur with or without any channel improvement. The number of vessels expected to call on the river in the base
condition does not represent an impact caused by any channel improvement alternative. The size of vessels in the future is also expected to be independent of any channel improvement activity." Response #15. Yet the Corps states that "the national transportation cost savings attributed to the proposed [deepening] alternative would allow vessels calling lower Columbia River ports to take advantage of more efficient loading, reduced delays and larger cargo loads from existing and expected larger vessels." Vol. I at 6-42 (emphasis added). As the language of the FEIS itself explicitly contemplates additional vessels, it must also take a hard look at how the increased channel depth will affect the volume of ballast water. Likewise, as existing vessels would be able to retain more of their ballast water with a deepened channel than the current depth channel, the FEIS must evaluate the incremental increase in exotic species likely to be discharged to the Portland Vancouver area. This in turn, could be translated into a reasonably foreseeable cost associated with exotic species invasions in this major metropolitan area including, for example, clogged intake pipes for manufacturing facilities that use Columbia River water for cooling. Moreover, if, as the FEIS states, "[t]he projections of traffic levels and export levels would occur with or without any channel improvement," the FEIS must examine whether deepening is needed at all.

There are additional economic costs associated with increased ballast water loads. Northwest Environmental Advocates has asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rescind its illegal regulation that exempts ballast water discharges from coverage under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. EPA is finalizing its response to the petition. If EPA grants the petition and rescinds the regulation, or is forced to pursuant to a lawsuit, ships will be forced to install on-board ballast water treatment systems or ports will have to build on-shore treatment facilities. Thus, the FEIS fails to evaluate the reasonably foreseeable additional costs of shipping associated with treated ballast water and/or additional risks to the environment and to water dependent commercial uses from untreated ballast water.

Cumulative and Secondary Impacts. Under NEPA, the "scope" of an EIS is the "range of actions, alternatives, and impacts" that it must consider. Among these are "connected," "cumulative," and "similar" actions, and "indirect" and "cumulative" impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25. Also included as an impact is induced growth. The Corps must by law assess the indirect impacts of growth inducing effects related to changes in land use patterns, changes in population density, and indirect adverse effects on air and water as well as the ecosystem.

The Corps responded to our comments regarding cumulative effects of deepening with the following statement: "Incremental environmental impacts from the channel deepening itself are expected to be minimal since the deepening will be limited to the existing channel footprint in which dredging has taken place for many years. For this reason, the Corps cumulative effects analysis in the EIS focused on habitat impacts from increased sediment disposal resulting from the project as the best means for assessing cumulative environmental effects." Response #13. This claim of "minimal environmental impacts" is evidentially based on the Corps' interpretation that the word "cumulative" in the context of this project does not have the same meaning as it would have in any other context. Instead, the Corps interprets cumulative to represent only the additional harm stemming from this proposed incremental increase in dredging. This is not acceptable. The FEIS must cover, as a matter of law and good sense, the cumulative effect of past, current, and proposed dredging on the river system. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 Such studies could then be used to make realistic predictions about the impacts of this proposed project. No action --including issuance of a Record of Decision-- based on this inadequate FEIS should occur until these concerns are fully investigated.

Another significant omission from the Corps' alleged cumulative effects analysis is future dredging projects. The Corps alludes to future deepening projects but does not address them in the document. The Corps implies that 43' is just one more step in the series of completed and planned deepening projects: "[other projects could include] the Columbia and Lower Willamette Federal Navigation Channel and future channel deepening projects if authorized." Appendix H, Vol. I at H-21.

In violation of NEPA regulations, the Corps omits adequate disclosure of the channel deepening project's significant adverse secondary environmental impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16. Secondary growth impacts, as they are commonly called, may include "growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate." For example: The Corps continues to deny that the Port of Vancouver's plan to use dredge spoils from the deepening project to fill over 600 acres of valuable habitat at the Gateway 3 site in the name of port development is a connected, cumulative, and similar action. The FEIS does not disclose nor does it analyze the environmental impacts of this connected port development, which, instead, is billed as beneficial use of dredge spoils. Regardless of whatever alleged development benefits are associated with this action, the environmental cost must also be fully assessed in this FEIS.

In attempting to assess impacts on future port development -- like the Port of Vancouver plans that will further degrade riparian, wetland, and upland habitat, -- the Corps makes the following prediction: "Actions related to channel deepening would include: …continued development of port facilities to meet future needs; and contributing to the maintenance of current levels of economic and population growth in the region." Vol. I at 6-57. Yet in direct contradiction, the Corps states "channel deepening in itself would not induce additional ship traffic. Likewise, it would not contribute to development of additional ports or port facilities." Vol. I at 6-51. First, the Corps states that channel deepening would contribute to port development, then it says channel deepening would not contribute to port development. If it will, then the FEIS must by law, evaluate those connected impacts, which it currently does not. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25. If the channel deepening will not contribute to port development, then the FEIS must clearly state so and substantiate its claim.

It is in the interest of reviewing agencies and the public (particularly those concerned with the health of the estuary) to have access to clear traffic, erosion, development, accidental spill, and navigational safety forecasts, in addition to information that describes cumulative impacts to the benthic communities, loss of estuarine habitat, sturgeon, smelt, Dungeness crab, and salmonid populations. We appreciate that minor changes have been made to the FEIS, however the document still does not clearly predict such impacts. Since past negative impacts alone have been highly significant, the Corps' failure to address this area undermines the credibility of the FEIS and its sufficiency under the law. For example, the Corps' current mitigation plan for the estuary is to do a study of disposal impacts. Studies are patently not mitigation. From the perspective of species potentially harmed, human health, and the overall environment, studies have zero beneficial impact and therefore cannot mitigate harm. In fact, the Corps' approach to these issues demonstrates both the serious inadequacy of the FEIS and the prematurity of the project proposal. By proposing studies as mitigation, the Corps admits both the inadequacy of its FEIS and the inadequacy of its (non-existent) mitigation. The FEIS, like the DEIS, fails to appropriately evaluate reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on aquatic species because it has no data or analysis from which to draw conclusions. To fully evaluate its adverse effects, the project should not commence until after studies are done.

Navigational Safety. The Corps points to the "significant mounding [that] has occurred at two existing sites in recent years" to demonstrate the need for new sites. These mounds contribute to hazardous wave amplification and navigational dangers. Action to resolve these safety problems must be incorporated in the FEIS before these sites are "de-designated." Otherwise, this project could serve to de-designate former ocean dumping sites thereby absolving the Corps of responsibility of ensuring navigational safety in their vicinity.

Re-Suspension of Toxic Contaminants. The Corps has agreed to delay the Willamette portion of the project until activities can be coordinated with the sediment remediation plans of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), should the Portland Harbor be listed as a Superfund site. This is irrelevant to the FEIS at hand, since the FEIS, and presumably the official Record of Decision (ROD) if and when it is issued, includes the Willamette portion of the project. Both the FEIS and the ROD will be unlawful because the Corps has made no estimate of contingency plans or budgets to address the economic and environmental costs of contaminated sediments that will be encountered. The FEIS is seriously defective until a complete analysis has been done on the impacts of deepening the Willamette.

The final EIS does not address the need for or likely success of the Columbia dredging if the Willamette is not approved for the 43-foot channel alternative. Without the Willamette, deepening the Columbia will have an even more reduced economic effect on the listed ports compared to its overwhelming negative environmental effect. Before the Columbia deepening can be considered, the Corps must present a completed EIS on the Willamette portion of the channel project.

The FEIS fails to address the reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts of the channel deepening to include those actions from other public agencies or private entities that are, in fact, linked to channel deepening. These other dredging actions include activity near ports, marinas, and harbors where, owing to their proximity to the shore are highly likely to contain fine-grained and/or contaminated sediments. The interdependent and interrelated actions due to channel deepening, such as dredging by ports and private individuals, could occur in areas with a higher degree of contaminated fine materials. Bottom materials in these areas outside the channel have not yet been well characterized, and depositional areas containing organic materials could be under-represented during the sampling process. These actions are related to channel deepening and could result in secondary impacts, i.e., resuspension of contaminants which would effect salmon, bald eagles, mink, otter, and other piscivorous fish and wildlife.

The screening levels used by the Corps to evaluate materials proposed for dredging and flowlane disposal are not protective of fish and wildlife in the lower Willamette and Columbia Rivers. Disturbance or disposal of dredged materials containing organochlorides, especially dioxin-like compounds, above or below the Corps screening levels could still result in biomagnification of contaminants through the food chain. Protection of species in accord with the Clean Water Act, i.e., water quality standards adopted by Oregon and Washington, requires full support of beneficial uses and compliance with narrative criteria, not just meeting numeric criteria and/or the Corps' screening levels. Neither of the latter fully protect beneficial uses such as salmon and piscivorus wildlife because they were not designed to prevent sublethal effects of toxic contaminants. There is a wealth of information regarding these effects, from immune system deficiencies to genetic defects, that the Corps has not factored in to its analysis in the FEIS. This is true with regard to disturbance of already-contaminated sediments in the Willamette River and Columbia as well as the impact of releasing large amounts of fine sediments into a disturbed river system.

The Corps states that "if the [Willamette] harbor is not listed [as a Superfund site], dredging for navigational channel improvements would not preclude cleanup activities but would enhance and perhaps extend the effort." Recent studies have shown that buried contaminants are not the principle source of elevated contaminants in fish. Rather, it is the surface sediments that contribute the most to contamination in the food chain. A study by GE reported that "in almost every case where its impact has been evaluated, dredging failed to measurably reduce environmental and human health risk. This is because residual levels of contaminants were left in surface layers of sediment after dredging, and the residual levels were quickly incorporated into the food chain." ("An Evaluation of the Feasibility of Environmental Dredging in the Upper Hudson River" by Bradford S. Cushing, P.E., Applied Environmental Management, Inc. for GE.) Dredging of the Willamette River, both those sections that would be performed as part of this project and those that would be foreseeably as a result of this project, have not been fully analyzed in the FEIS to address the real risks posed by resuspension of toxic contaminants.

The Corps asserts again and again that the sediment in the Columbia navigation channel is clear and clean for open water disposal. However, in dredging to 48 feet -- 43' plus five feet advance maintenance dredging (AMD) -- the Corps will encounter fine clays and other fine sediments that have never been uncovered. Even though these may be clean, dissolved contaminants in the water column can adhere to those fine particles when they become resuspended during dredging activities. Destined for the estuary, the sediments will become the newest surface particles on the estuary floor. We disagree with the Corps' response to our comments that "resuspension and redistribution of contaminants would be of concern in only limited areas of the Willamette River which contain high levels of contamination." (#16) The Corps must conduct chemical and physical sediment sampling and analysis to the actual depth it will be dredging before the impacts of this project to the health of the estuary and river system can be adequately assessed.

Endangered Species Act Violations. We disagree with the Corps' assertion that "the project is not expected to have a significant impact on salmonid populations in the river." The changes to FEIS section 6.6.1.2 do not offer any further assurance that the proposed deepening would not harm, trap, and harass Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed endangered salmon and steelhead species. We renew our concerns regarding threatened and endangered aquatic and terrestrial species as outlined in our comments on the draft EIS.

The Corps has an obligation, under ESA Section 7, to not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat of the listed species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The Corps failed to take this obligation seriously, which is demonstrated by its failure to provide the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) with the "best scientific and commercial data available." Id. The Corps contends that in response to our previous comments "[a]ll conclusions in the EIS are based on the best scientific information available for a given issue." Response #19. On the contrary, the FEIS, which is almost identical to the DEIS, is riddled with inconclusive and flawed sampling. Surprisingly, language used by the Corps in the FEIS freely admits the sampling methods used were often ineffective. For example, when referring to the studies done on the possible entrainment of juvenile salmonids, the FEIS states: "Samples could not be collected during actual dredging since sediment size of the dredge material was too big to pass through the mesh of the collector." Thus the methodology used "is not representative of entrainment that would occur during dredging…" FEIS Vol. I at 6-18. Regardless of the conclusions reached by the Corps based on this methodology, the fact remains it is not representative of what would actually occur. The Corps must not rely on inadequate studies and sampling when determining the effects of dredging on endangered species. Instead, improved sampling and testing techniques must be implemented to provide data from which accurate conclusions can be drawn.

Furthermore, the Corps mentions in response to our comments that the USF&WS "has prepared a Coordination Act Report with specific recommendations on natural resources and project-related impacts." Response #18. This is true, however we disagree with the Corps' claim that it had "given full consideration to the recommendations set forth in the Coordination Act Report." The Corps' responses simply ignore many of the most critical recommendations. For example, the USF&WS specifically recommends that "[a]ll in-water work take place within specified State and Federal resource agency time periods to protect juvenile salmonids, smelt, and sturgeon." USF&WS Coordination Act Recommendations and Corps Responses at 1. In blatant opposition, the Corps responded: "Construction work is currently scheduled to occur year around for two years." Response #1. The USF&WS specifically recommends that "studies be initiated to determine the cumulative effect of dredging and disposal on sturgeon…" and that if studies indicate losses of sturgeon and sturgeon habitat, that the deep water disposal plans be reduced or eliminated. The Corps responded that it would conduct a study but that "results of this study will be used to manage the disposal operations in these sites to minimize impacts to sturgeon." Response #5. The Corps does not make even a nod to the possibility of eliminating deep-water disposal from its disposal plan. Another example is the Corps' response to USF&WS' specific recommendation that "[n]o disposal occur on known Canada goose nesting areas between March 1 and June 30." The Corps responded that it would avoid nesting sites "to the extent practicable between March 1 and May 15." Response #14 (emphasis added).

Economic Analysis in the FEIS is Inaccurate, Incomplete, and Outdated. We renew our objections as described in our draft EIS comments and find the Corps' brief response to those objections inadequate. In particular, we request that environmental costs be calculated and included in the Benefit-Cost Ratio. The Corps must also calculate possible benefits to the environment if channel depth, ship traffic, and dredging activities remain the same until realistic reassessment shows renewed economic feasibility and public need.

Mitigation Must be Developed for Damage to Ocean Resources; Beneficial Uses Must Be Found to Reduce the Extent of Damages. The FEIS describes a plan to dump dredge spoils at two sites: Site E, one square mile in an area 45-75 feet deep, and the Deep Water Site, almost 14 square miles in an area 190-300 feet deep, both near the mouth of the Columbia River (MCR). Despite the fact that the Corps did revise its ocean disposal sites as originally outlined in the draft EIS, it again assessed no alternatives for reviewers to compare, in violation of NEPA. Further, the Corps proposes no beneficial uses for the dredged sediments from the MCR and provides no mitigation for impacts to aquatic resources.

The ocean disposal sites contain diverse populations of pelagic and demersal fish species including anadramous salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, striped bass, lamprey, smelt, herring, sturgeon, and shad. Adults and juveniles alike migrate through the estuary to reach their spawning areas and the ocean respectively. Many remain in the nearshore area to feed and rear. The disposal sites also contain productive populations of shellfish and Dungeness crab. Regardless, the current plan will dump 262 million cubic yards of sediment --that might otherwise be put to beneficial use-- on this productive ocean floor habitat over the life of the project. Mitigation for the impacts associated with this action are required under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Moreover, the only monitoring planned for these new sites is periodic bathymetric surveys and sediment characterizations. Without biological monitoring, the Corps has no means of assessing the impacts of their actions and making changes to minimize impacts to the resource.

2. There Will Be Significant Impacts to Natural Resources, Particularly in the Estuary.

The Corps' analysis of the problems facing Endangered Species Act-listed salmon is inconsistent with the views of most other agencies, organizations, and individuals involved with salmon recovery efforts. This majority view, admittedly long in coming, is that significant measures must be taken to improve, not degrade further the already-poor estuary conditions for the threatened and endangered species. During the period in which the DEIS and FEIS have been prepared, it has become increasingly obvious that if the salmon are to be restored, some significant alterations will be required in the very near term and continuing through the foreseeable future in the way the Columbia River is managed.

A significant concern is the relationship between the removal of the lower four Snake River dams and the channel deepening project. NMFS' Cumulative Risk Analysis regarding salmon survival suggests that dam removal could be avoided by improving the mortality rate in the estuary by 10%. According to a recent editorial in The Oregonian, the Corps, along with NMFS and the Bonneville Power Administration, "suggest that …the estuary below [the lower four Snake River dams] are the real killing fields. They argue that habitat …should receive the greatest emphasis in any successful recovery effort." In the recently released 4-H paper, the same organizations reported that "saving salmon without dam breaching will require significant changes in human activity throughout the Columbia Basin…" (The Oregonian, 11/16/99) However, NMFS's CRI documents --"works in progress"-- do not make mention of the channel deepening project, which will have a substantial impact on the estuary as critical habitat for salmon. See e.g. An Introduction to NMFS Decision-Support Science for ESA Decision Making, With Examples (Aug 31, 1999), attached as Exhibit A; Analytical Tools for Science-Based Decision Support Regarding Salmon Recovery Planning: Integrating Habitat, Harvest, Hatcheries, and Hydropower as Risk Factors, attached as Exhibit B. In this light, it is clear that the FEIS is insufficient to support project approval.

Moreover, while we do not agree with a premise that allows for any one of the four Hs -- habitat, hatcheries, harvest, and hydropower -- to be ignored in the equation to save the salmon, the FEIS fails to consider the costs associated with the potential trade-offs suggested by the federal agencies. If the price for deepening the channel and destroying more estuary habitat is that the lower four Snake River dams must be removed, that is a cumulative and reasonably foreseeable future action that is inextricably linked to this project and must be addressed as a cost of channel deepening in the FEIS.

Entrainment. As discussed earlier, the Corps denounced its own studies and concluded that no salmon would be entrained during dredging operations. The Corps' studies showed that adult and juvenile smelt, juvenile salmonids, and juvenile sturgeon are susceptible to entrainment (being sucked up into the dredging equipment) especially in areas where the channel is constricted. In many places, the FEIS describes the channel as being "bank to bank." In fact, sturgeon can be attracted to dredging operations, because of the stirred up organic matter and benthic invertebrates. Therefore, the likelihood of entrainment is very high. The FEIS fails to adequately evaluate the impact of this on species at risk. The Corps did not make references to any study on what the impacts would be of reducing the populations of juveniles on the remaining populations of fish species. There have been no studies done on the impact of entraining other estuarine and riverine populations (e.g., shrimp, razor clams, and Pacific sandlaces, etc.,) nor the effect on fish and mammals that feed upon these species. Since these populations make up the basis of the food web, their harm could have serious repercussions in the survival of endangered and other area species.

In-Water Disposal of Dredged Material. Of the total 418 million cubic yards forecasted for removal over the life of the 50-year project, the Corps plans to dump 7.25 million cubic yards of dredged spoils within a three mile stretch of the estuary in the first 20 years, raising the estuary floor 20 feet over 400 acres. FEIS Vol. I at 6-8 - 6-9. Much of the acreage is deep-water habitat used by sturgeon and their primary food source, the benthic invertebrates. We believe that this damage to the estuary environment is unacceptable as do others. For example, according to the USF&WS, "this could have serious consequences on sturgeon and sturgeon habitat in terms of rearing areas and prey availability." Coordination Act Report at 33. However, there are few data available about the potential impacts of this planned activity, and the Corps has not provided any analysis of these impacts.

The Corps' proposal to study the issue as a mitigation requirement does not serve as true mitigation. It does demonstrate, however, that the FEIS does not adequately evaluate the impacts of current dredging practices and those that would precipitate from further channel deepening. The Corps appears to agree with this assessment: "Flowlane disposal in the deep areas is a concern and additional studies are planned to evaluate the abundance and periods of use in these areas by all life stages of sturgeon…" Corps Response to USF&WS Coordination Act Recommendations at 1. What the Corps fails to recognize is that the role of the EIS pursuant to NEPA is to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project up front. Moreover, the Corps cannot deny that deep-water disposal will have an effect on sturgeon: "Sturgeon occur throughout the river, though they are believed to be more abundant in the deep areas." Corps Response to USF&WS Coordination Act Recommendations, at 1.

Alteration of Estuarine Habitat. There is no assessment of the added impacts of such extensive alteration to the estuary on its biological productivity, in addition to the direct harassment of native species populations. Changes in salinity intrusion can cause the estuarine turbidity maximum (ETM) -- a cloud of organic material that supports the base of the food chain -- to shift vertically and horizontally, altering the location and availability of suitable habitat for migrating salmonids and moving them closer to predators. Despite increasing data on ETM in the estuary, the FEIS presents no conclusive documentation that these detrimental effects will or will not occur nor does it address the cumulative effects based on past data and reasonably foreseeable trends in the future. Changes of this scale also can have impacts on non-aquatic species, a point ignored in the FEIS. The recent studies done by Dr. Si Simenstad and the new information about the ETM must be incorporated into any EIS about the project in order for the document to meet legal requirements.

More Caspian Tern Habitat. Agencies currently are struggling to find solutions to the problem of Caspian tern predation on juvenile salmonids at Rice Island. However, the Corps asserts that "removing Rice Island from consideration [for spoils disposal] is neither practicable nor necessary." Response to Northwest Power Planning Council. Understandably, the Corps must plan to use every available disposal site over the next fifty years if it must proceed with this project in order to store the 418 million cubic yards of sediment resulting from this project. However, there is no contingency plan included in the FEIS to address the likely possibility that current and future efforts to decrease Caspian tern predation at the site are unsuccessful or are only partially successful. Nor does the FEIS assess the impacts that relocating the tern colony would have on other salmon recovery efforts. It is unacceptable for the FEIS to avoid a hard look at this issue simply by assuming that other working groups will solve the problem. Also, regardless of its practicability, the necessity of removing Rice Island from consideration for spoils disposal must be addressed by the FEIS. If this very significant impact of the project and of the cumulative effect of past dredging is dismissed with a simple wave of the hand, clearly the analysis has not been done and the FEIS fails to meet the legal standard.

No Timing Windows on Construction. Despite the significant concerns about the need for improved habitat conditions in the estuary, the Corps still plans to conduct construction dredging year-round for two years, regardless of timing windows established by federal agencies to protect our resources, particularly endangered species of fish. This position, in direct contradiction with USF&WS recommendations, is still not adequately addressed in the FEIS. Should this project proceed as planned, it would be the only dredging project on the West coast that would proceed without such timing windows. The FEIS is seriously deficient because it does not calculate the environmental harm from not having timing windows or, alternatively, does not include in its budget the effect of including longer construction times reflective of operating within timing windows. Finally, the FEIS would need to address the cost benefit ratios for the different alternatives based on this significant change.

3. Sediment Forecasts are Not Adequately Substantiated.

The FEIS demonstrates that the last 20-30 years (reflected in the dredged amounts from 1997-95) have been significantly drier than the 30 years before that (reflected in the dredged amounts from 1946-74), assuming that the amount of sediment transport correlates with river flow volumes. FEIS, Figure 2.2, Vol. 1, at 2-4. The Corps, however, bases its estimates of dredged material volumes for the next 50 years on data from 1980-95, a really dry period. Assuming a cyclic flow pattern as illustrated in the Corps' own document, relying on the data from 1980-95 would cause the sediment forecasts to be significantly and unnaturally lower than predictions based on more average conditions. The FEIS does not establish any basis for predicting such flow patterns over the next 50 years. Higher flows impact more than just bedload trasport: River currents erode banklines when flows are high and currents fast. This erosion "extends from the shoreline to the river bottom and completely removes material from the site," and would affect the volume of sediment that would require dredging from the channel. Vol. I at 5-6. We are concerned that 1996 and 1997 appear to be among the wettest in the last 121 years. This should require another look at initial construction costs for the project, since more sediment would need to be dredged than the Corps predicts. If there is a trend toward more drier times, as allegedly "predicted" by the Corps, the FEIS is clearly deficient in proving it. The Corps must take a hard look at the sediment forecast.

4. The FEIS Violates NEPA

The NEPA process should be used to identify and address the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment and provide ways to mitigate environmental impacts. 40 CFR § 1500.2(e). What the Corps fails to understand is that the role of the EIS pursuant to NEPA is to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project up front. The most extreme version of the Corps' approach -to act now and study later-would be if the Corps submitted an EIS completely devoid of any data and analysis to support its conclusions. Instead, the Corps proposes a document that appears to support its conclusions but that repeatedly proposes to study potential effects of the project later, and in some cases simply refuses to even acknowledge the substance of issues raised by federal agencies and others. With so much of the critical aspects of the project --its impact on threatened and endangered species, its cumulative impact on the river, etc.-- put off for later study, the notion that this FEIS meets the requirements of NEPA is a hollow one.

As described above, the FEIS fails to fulfill the purpose of NEPA because it:
· does not address the project in total with regard to the Willamette dredging which is an integral part of the dredging project;
· does not present a reasonable discussion and analysis (both economic and environmental) of alternatives to the proposed alternative, and instead selects the proposed alternative (43') even though it has the greatest environmental impacts and provides no mitigation for impacts to the ocean and estuary aquatic resources;
· does not present an alternatives to the proposed ocean disposal sites;
· does not provide a "full and fair discussion" of significant environmental impacts in a manner as to avoid predecisional impact analysis;
· inadequately addresses cumulative environmental impacts that have not been sufficiently addressed previously in other EIS documents relating to maintenance of the navigation channel. Although the Corps takes each aspect of the dredging process and downplays the adverse effects each part of the plan will have on listed salmon, it fails to look at the aggregate impact. It is a violation of NEPA in spirit and in law for the Corps, given what we now know about the fragility of endangered species, to hypothesize without proper study that a plan which operates around the clock for two or more years, involves the blasting of rock, the dredging of millions of cubic yards of sediment, in-water dredge disposal, entrainment of fish, and interference with migratory patterns will not adversely effect listed salmon;
· Does not adequately address the "range of actions, alternatives, and impacts" that it must consider. Among these are "connected," "cumulative," and "similar" actions, and "indirect" and "cumulative" impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25; and
· does not fully consider reasonably foreseeable significant secondary adverse impacts, nor address the availability of information relating to these impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16.

The Corps received dozens of substantive comment letters that exposed these inadequacies. In particular, many agencies and organizations were disappointed with the poor attention paid to evaluating alternatives. Instead of making changes that reflected those concerns, the Corps simply extended the brief alternatives section to reiterate how such alternatives won't work as alternatives to the 43' deepening plan. This is particularly true in their analysis of improving LOADMAX, the advanced river stage forecasting system. Despite the stated fact that only 5% of ships that transit the channel have design drafts of over 40 feet, the FEIS charges that improving LOADMAX could not serve as an alternative to the deepening alternative. Response to Coordination Act Recommendations at 4. The tiered channel option was not evaluated at all. Only one ocean disposal site is presented in the FEIS, scheduled for 50 years of use. No alternatives to this plan were considered.

Also, the Corps has fast-tracked this process in violation of the spirit and regulations of NEPA. The Corps extended the comment deadline from 45 days to 60 days (the FEIS is over 2,000 pages long- but who knows: half the pages aren't even numbered.) The Corps has put pressure on NMFS and USFWS to submit their Biological Opinions 2 months from the release of the FEIS. This has rushed their efforts considerably and called the reliability of their science into question. For example, in response to a Corps deadline, NMFS gave CREST (Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce) an overnight deadline to come up with good restoration sites in the estuary, presumably to include in their Biological Opinion.

5. The FEIS is Inconsistent with the CZMA.

The Corps' project, as outlined in the FEIS, is inconsistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Oregon Coastal Management program. Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 16 (Estuarine Resources) states that "The impacts of actions that might alter an estuarine ecosystem must be fully assessed in advance, either in the comprehensive plan or as specific actions are proposed. (Goal 16 Implementation Requirement 1, LCDC Goals at 21.) "The impact assessment must address the type and extent of impacts on physical and biological resources, recreation, and aesthetic use, and navigation and other uses of the estuary; and potential mitigation measures." This project violates local comprehensive plans developed in accordance with the CZMA and negatively impacts the current efforts to restore threatened and endangered salmon populations in the Columbia Basin. If the Corps refuses to comply with local comprehensive plans, it will harm the estuary value that Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 16 serves to protect.

The project includes no mitigation for the aquatic impacts discussed above, but only the intent to do a study, in violation of Clatsop County's comprehensive plan Columbia River Estuary Land and Water Use Plan section P 20.12. Plans to dump dredge spoils in habitat over 65 feet deep is also inconsistent with the Columbia River Estuary Dredged Material Management Plan (CREST, 1986 section 2.2.2) and Pacific and Wahkiakum County Shoreline Management Plans. In addition, current and past disposal practices at Miller Sands have changed the site from its zoned 98-acres to 151-acres. The Corps must apply for zone revisions before the project can continue. Also, the Corps has used Welch Island as a site for dredged material disposal, turning it from an aquatic site to an upland site, even though it is not identified as a disposal site in the Columbia River Estuary Dredged Material Management Plan (CREST, 1986). Instead, this area is zoned as Aquatic Conservation (AC-2). Yet the Corps plans to continue dumping on Welch Island. The Corps must file appropriate applications to change the AC-2 zone to CS (Conservation Shoreland) upland zoning.

Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 19 (Ocean Resources) aims to "conserve the long-term values, benefits, and natural resources of the nearshore ocean and the continental shelf." The Corps has not developed baseline information on the sites it has selected for ocean disposal. It has not quantified nor attempted to describe the long-term impacts that ocean disposal could have on the commercial use and environmental health of the nearshore habitat. This is not parallel with the intent of Goal 19. The two new sites are scheduled for use for the next 50 years, with no mitigation proposed. Under the guise of an allegedly imperative channel deepening project, the Corps is hoping to lock in 50 years' worth of ocean dumping grounds: no contingency plan for disposal management, no biological monitoring, and no beneficial use of the dredged sediments is proposed.

The FEIS ignores resource agency comments and concerns that surfaced during the DEIS period. Further, the Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination as presented in the FEIS is not reflective of the project as outlined. First, the project schedules ocean disposal sites for 50 years' usage. Nowhere in the Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination does the Corps mention and request such certification. Second, the FEIS includes both the Columbia and Willamette federal navigation channels, but nowhere in the Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination is the Willamette portion even mentioned, though its deepening would affect the overall toxic contamination of the estuary. Third, the Corps states that the ocean disposal sites will be used for this and other projects, which "could include the Columbia and Lower Willamette River Federal Navigation Channel." In other words, sediments from the Willamette could be put in the ocean disposal sites, if they meet the Corps' already low standards for sediment quality, a concern raised by many agencies.

6. The Corps Does Not Validate the Integrity of Its Science

During public review of the Draft EIS, substantial concerns were raised about the science behind many of the Corps' conclusions. A review of the comments submitted by commenters reveals a troubling attitude: The Corps claims to "have no legal obligation under NEPA to 'ensure the scientific integrity of [its] studies.'" Furthermore, the Corps states that it was "entitled to rely upon [its] own experts' studies, and under no circumstances need it affirmatively defend those studies' 'scientific integrity.'" According to the Corps, even if comments "had produced some evidence that the Corps' experts lack proper qualifications or relied upon flawed scientific methods, …that evidence would not discredit or otherwise render the Corps' studies unreliable or its EIS legally inadequate." Surely, this does not reflect positively on the Corps' repeated conclusion that no significant impacts would result from this action. For example, upon consulting its science advisors, the Corps concluded that Portland Harbor Sediments are clean and clear for "unconfined in-water disposal." Yet, given what the EPA and DEQ have demonstrated about the nature and extent of toxic contamination in the area, the Corps has little ground to assert that the deepening will not reveal any contaminated sediments in the Willamette reach, regardless of what "science" the agency relies on to make such claims.

7. Vessel Delays: Contradictions in the Cornerstone of the Justification

The FEIS states that "[b]y improving navigation, the opportunity to realize greater benefits would result from reducing transportation costs by allowing deep-draft vessels to carry more tonnage, and by reducing vessel delays." Executive Summary at 1, (emphasis added). However, embedded in text, the Corps states that "with a channel deepening, there is possibility of reducing those delays, however, given that many of the vessels which are maximizing their use of the 40-foot channel are also expected to maximize their utilization of a 43-foot channel, delay reductions are not great." Appendix C "Economics" at 110 (emphasis added). Yet "[m]ore than half of the delay benefits are achieved by wheat vessels…" Appendix C at 111. The FEIS itself demonstrates fundamental contradictions within a cornerstone justification for the project: The Corps explicitly states that a primary purpose for this project is to reduce transportation costs caused by delays while stating that delay reductions will not be great. Although the Corps claims that wheat vessels would achieve more than half the benefits of a delay reduction, it also states that those same vessels would opt to delay to take advantage of the deeper channel. The FEIS must present a clear analysis of the with-delay and without-delay circumstances, incorporating the results of that analysis into the actual transportation benefits.

8. Wake Erosion

Wake erosion is a serious concern for riparian habitat in the estuary because it accelerates habitat degradation and results in chronic turbidity and the potential for the perpetual resuspension of toxic contaminants. The Corps downplays the degree of erosion problems by stating that the Columbia's natural banklines are erosion resistant compared to barren, sandy beaches resulting from previous dredge material disposal; no mention is made of Willamette River banklines. While that may be true, the fact is that dredged material disposal sites line half the Columbia River shoreline for 85 miles. Vol. I at 5-7. The Corps describes these sites as "highly susceptible to erosion by waves and river currents." Id. Bearing this in mind, any increases in the size and draft of ships transiting the river would greatly impact the banklines.

Impacts from wake erosion have not been adequately and clearly assessed. Instead, the Corps presents a confusing and contradictory smattering of text for reviewers. While the Corps states that ship wakes are a contributing factor to bank erosion on the Lower Columbia --accountable for as much as 24% of the total erosion at the Puget Island disposal site-- the Corps believes the effects of increased draft to be "insignificant." Vol. I at 6-3. The Corps also claims that "[t]he impacts of a few larger wakes could be partially offset by the reduction in the total number of ships transiting the river." Vol. I at 6-3. The Corps cannot simultaneously claim a reduction in the total number of ships transiting the channel at the same time it touts the growth benefits of the project to the region. The Corps cannot alter its predictions to serve different purposes within this single document. For example, the Corps uses data from previous channel deepenings to prove that deeper draft ships will make use of the new channel depth. However in the same paragraph, it states that "[b]oth the actual number of vessels and the percentage of vessels with deeper drafts have continued to increase in recent years. It is anticipated that there would be a similar fleet response to further channel deepening." Appendix C at 29, (emphasis added). The FEIS gives reviewers no conclusive proof that there would in fact be a "reduction in the number of ships transiting the river."

The Corps explains that while both ship size and speed contribute to the height of wakes, ship speed is a "greater contributing factor" than size. Vol. I at 6-49. Earlier, the Corps states that "[d]eeper draft ships would be expected to generate slightly larger wakes. A ship drawing 43 feet would generate a wake about 10 percent larger than the same ship drawing 40 feet if it could maintain the same speed," and that intense competition between shipping lines will cause carriers to "seek to utilize economies of scale by moving to faster vessels with more carrying capacity." Vol. I at 6-3, Vol. I at 3-8 (emphasis added). Here again, the FEIS indicates that not only larger, but faster vessels will be the growing trend which both justify the project and will be a direct outcome of it. A deeper channel offers ships a greater margin of error. Ships can travel faster because they can afford the additional "squat," or sinkage of the stern caused by movement of the ship. Vol. I at 2-7. Since the FEIS clearly states that both ship speed and size determine wake height, this implies that, contrary to its claim that "[e]ven if deeper draft vessels and more transits would occur on the Columbia River, there would be no measurable increase due to ship wake erosion," there most certainly would be a measurable increase in wake over the life of the project. Vol. I at 6-49. The failure of this FEIS to adequately evaluate the environmental impacts of wake compromises its conclusions.

The FEIS is similarly inconsistent with regard to vessel size. The Corps states:
"[T]he proposed channel improvement alternative is not expected to change the type or quantity of goods shipped on the Columbia nor result in a shift in the type or size of vessels on the river. However, the national transportation cost savings attributed to the proposed alternative would allow vessels calling lower Columbia River ports to take advantage of more efficient loading, reduced delays and larger cargo loads from existing and expected larger vessels."
Vol. I at 6-42, (emphasis added). In the first sentence, the Corps states that changes in vessel size were not expected. In the second sentence, it states that larger vessels would be expected. Again, if larger vessels are expected, the FEIS must assess the impacts to wake erosion caused by the increased size of vessels and, if necessary, conduct a study to determine such impacts. Further extrapolations would be required to estimate how many of these larger ships would be transiting the channel. If larger vessels are truly not expected, the FEIS must clearly state so and substantiate its claim.

Erosion costs are not included in the $196 million cost estimate. "Corps regulations preclude us from including costs associated with erosion to beaches or structures built on fill outside of flood control structures on a federally authorized navigation channel." Response #13 to NMFS DEIS comments. "[Four] to 24 percent" of erosion is caused by ship wake is not insignificant especially because ship wake will only encourage the side-slope adjustment. An FEIS that takes a hard look at the proposed project's impact on erosional forces must be prepared and presented for review.

9. The FEIS does not abide by the hard-look doctrine.

We wish to remind the Corps that under the APA and in part NEPA, the Corps has an obligation to take a hard look at the issues and arguments raised by all parties participating in the Lower Willamette/Columbia River Channel Deepening proposal. Under the Hard Look Doctrine, the Corps cannot just gloss over opposing positions and data but must carefully respond to them with detailed explanations in the EIS documentation. Under this doctrine, the Corps must also give strong consideration to possible alternative measures. The Corps' written decision should not be merely a response to private interests equipped with preexisting preferences, but should instead reflect a reasonable attempt to decide upon and implement the public values at stake in the regulatory choice. These choices should appear justified in light of the evidentiary record. See Sunstein, Deregulation and the Hard Look Doctrine, 1983 Sup. Ct. Rev. 197.

Conclusion

We appreciate your extension of time for comments on the FEIS for the proposed channel deepening project. However, we remain seriously disappointed with the quality of the effort that has gone into evaluating the costs and benefits of this project. We strongly caution the Corps against believing that it has met the terms of the National Environmental Policy Act with this document.

Sincerely,

Nina Bell, Executive Director
Northwest Environmental Advocates

for: Northwest Environmental Defense Center
Sierra Club, Oregon Chapter

News/Media | Action Alerts | Programs | About Us | Getting Involved
Resources | Contact Us | Kids Page | Northwest Places | Home

133 SW 2^nd Ave., Portland, OR 97204-3526 (503) 295-0490 FAX 295-6634