Saturday, August 26, 2000

Placing a major new hurdle to a plan to deepen the Columbia River shipping channel for bigger ships, a key federal agency on Friday withdrew its support for the project.

The National Marine Fisheries Service had issued a biological opinion in December that channel deepening would not jeopardize the survival of 12 Columbia basin salmon and steelhead runs that have dwindled nearly to the point of extinction.

The agency withdrew that opinion on Friday, citing new worries about ecological damage from scouring the river bottom and disagreements with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over environmental restoration.

The action is a major setback for a project that had gained the support of Northwest political and business leaders, but has drawn increasingly intense opposition from environmental groups worried about harming imperiled salmon. A lawsuit filed earlier this year by environmental groups took NMFS to task for the biological opinion.

Friday's action was the first time federal officials could recall taking the severe step of withdrawing a biological opinion.

"This project is in serious trouble," said Nina Bell, executive director of Northwest Environmental Advocates, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Officials with the ports of Vancouver and Portland, two of the main project sponsors, said they were disappointed by Friday's turn of events, and they believe the project remains environmentally sound. Even so, port officials said they support the decision to withdraw the opinion until new questions about the environmental consequences of the $196 million project can be answered.

"If there are questions, let's answer them now," said Dianne Perry, the Port of Portland senior project manager who is representing the sponsoring ports in Washington and Oregon.

Larry Paulson, director of the Port of Vancouver, said the dredging the channel's minimum depth from 40 to 43 feet is necessary to ensure the Columbia's status as a deep-water shipping port. Already, officials said the area has lost some business because the channel can't accommodate new generations of ships fully loaded.

Though many ships already draft deeper than 43 feet, project sponsors believe the extra 3 feet of depth will be enough to entice shippers to continue doing business here.

"The longer it's delayed, the more likely that the larger vessels will start to look at other ports," Paulson said.

Project supporters note that deep-water shipping in the Columbia contributes $13 billion per year in trade and directly supports thousands of jobs. At the Port of Vancouver, grain accounts for 70 percent of the cargo handled at its terminals.

Each additional foot of depth means a grain ship can carry more than $300,000 worth of wheat, Paulson said.

In December, the fisheries service gave the project its blessing.
In return for a crucial no-jeopardy opinion in December, NMFS extracted several promises from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The corps agreed it would restore 5,000 acres of shallow-water habitat by 2010, do more research on the effects of dredging and consult with NMFS at least every three years to make sure the restoration plan is working.

Environmental and tribal groups blasted the agreement, saying it amounted to a policy of "exterminate now (and) mitigate later."

Representatives of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission objected because NMFS issued the opinion before consulting with tribes on treaty-protected fish species. Federal officials said at the time they were rushed to issue the opinion by year's end, in time for the Corps of Engineers to release a favorable chief's report.

Congress had authorized the project on the condition that the chief's report be issued by the end of 1999.

On Friday, a NMFS spokesman said the rush to finish the official opinion may have led to misunderstandings between the corps and the fisheries service.

"I can't help thinking that may have caused people to be less focused on this project than they might otherwise have been," said Brian Gorman, NMFS spokesman in Seattle.

The fisheries service, for instance, believed the corps had to push forward with an assessment of intertidal habitat beginning this spring. That never happened, mainly because the corps has yet to issue its final record of decision on channel deepening.

An even more fundamental discrepancy between the two agencies could jeopardize the project altogether.

Last year, a NMFS scientific assessment of the project called channel deepening "an incremental insult to an estuarine system that has been grossly altered by previous dredging." Though no one has specifically detailed the cost of the restoration projects the NMFS says it wants done, one official with the fisheries service said in December it would cost in the "tens of millions" of dollars.

The corps, however, continues to adamantly resist tacking those costs onto the channel deepening project and for good reason.

Adding the additional work to the overall cost of channel deepening could force the corps to recalculate the cost-benefit analysis of the project. Based upon the ability of ships to take advantage of an extra 3 feet of river depth, the corps estimates $34 million in annual transportation savings over 50 years. Tens of millions of dollars in restoration work could throw that cost-benefit equation into question.

Laura Hicks, the corps' project manager in Portland, said the corps continues to believe its project won't harm imperiled species.

"I think we will be able to work with National Marine Fisheries and alleviate their concerns," Hicks said.

In a letter to Army Col. Randall Butler in Portland, NMFS acting regional administrator Donna Darm cited new information raising questions about how deepening the channel might affect the food chain.

Darm wrote that studies being conducted by the fisheries service suggest salmon may be susceptible even to low levels of toxics stirred up from the river's bottom. Further, Darm said the fisheries service wanted more information about how deepening the channel might influence river flows and affect important shallow-water habitat near the shore.

The agency's action comes at a time when salmon recovery has become a major public policy issue.

All 12 imperiled runs of Columbia basin salmon migrate to the Pacific Ocean through the Columbia River estuary.

The Clinton administration last month announced a recovery plan for Columbia basin salmon that deferred an immediate proposal to breach four dams on the lower Snake River to benefit fish. The matter has evolved into a key Northwest campaign issue in this year's presidential election.

Bell said momentum is building against channel deepening.

"I would think politicians in the region are getting more and more wary of this project," she said. "They are more aware that there are some major issues of concern, not the least of which the general one that salmon recovery is expensive and we're going to make it more expensive by degrading the estuary further."

The lawsuit filed by Bell's group and others may also have played a role.

"If there weren't a lawsuit, would we have done this the same way? I suspect yes," Gorman said. "Did the lawsuit focus our attention? I suspect yes, as well."

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