Environment Questions and Answers
Will the Columbia River channel deepening project harm threatened and endangered fish?
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) proposed deepening project was conceived, studied and designed to minimize impacts on threatened and endangered species and their habitat. The proposed disposal plan minimizes impacts to migrating salmon and shoreline habitat by increasing the quantity of material placed in upland sites rather than in-water or on the shore. Ecosystem restoration features that are part of the project will restore and enhance shallow water fish spawning and rearing habitat in the river itself and in some 38 miles of tributary streams.
The Corps’ five-year feasibility study on the project found that dredging does not impose unacceptable impacts to fish. The final determination on this issue was confirmed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), when they issued new “no jeopardy” Biological Opinions on the project. Because of the high degree of focus in the region on salmon recovery, the technical work underlying this opinion was of high quality, based on the best available science, and answers the questions of regulatory agencies, regional leaders and the general public. (Top)
What were some of the questions in the National Marine Fisheries and US Fish and Wildlife Service environmental reconsultation?
The scope of the reconsultation process was negotiated among NMFS, USFWS, Corps and Ports. In general, the environmental questions addressed project activities that may impact threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. In the past, NMFS has expressed concern over several potential changes that may result from channel deepening activities. These include: (1) changes in the physical hydrodynamics of the estuary and how these could affect turbidity, salinity, sedimentation, and temperature; (2) changes in the ecology in the estuary and how these could lead to a potential shift in food webs and habitat conditions; (3) how dredging may lead to the resuspension and redistribution of sediments that may contain toxic chemicals; and (4) how some resuspended contaminants may cause sub-lethal effects, such as retarded growth and impaired disease resistance in threatened or endangered species.
The Ports served as non-federal representative in this reconsultation process to ensure that environmental questions were addressed in a scientifically credible manner within a reasonable time frame. (Top)
Won’t dredging disturb toxic sediments in the Columbia and Willamette rivers?
No, an independent panel of scientists of national prominence concluded that the material that would be dredged is coarse grain, clean sand, which is continuously moving in sand waves, preventing contamination from staying on it. The coarse grain sands of the Columbia River navigation channel have been tested for nearly 20 years and continues to meet or exceed standards for in-water disposal of dredged material established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Washington Department of Ecology. In fact, sand dredged from the Columbia River navigation channel is used to make concrete and asphalt, to be placed in golf courses, and in commercial water filter systems. Revenue from the sale of sand goes to the Oregon Common Schools fund and Washington’s Department of Natural Resources.
Due to sediment concerns in the lower Willamette River, any deepening of the Willamette navigation channel will be coordinated with the environmental cleanup in the river. (Top)
Will there be water quality impacts from dredging?
Channel deepening is not expected to degrade water quality in the Columbia River. The material being dredged is clean, coarse grain sand. Columbia River sediments within the navigation channel contains less than 1% of silt or organic material. Through the reconsultation it was definitively concluded that material in the channel holds no contaminants. Dredging will temporarily disturb the river bottom causing some turbidity in the water; however, the coarse grain sands settle quickly. There has been no evidence to date that these temporary disturbances have an impact on fish.
In June 2003, the states of Oregon and Washington issued water quality permits for the project to the Corps. (Top)
Will channel deepening significantly affect salinity intrusion in the estuary?
Originally, an interagency task force considered the impacts of channel deepening on salinity intrusion in the Corps’ feasibility study on the deepening project. No significant biological impacts were found at that time. During the reconsultation process, based on modeling results, it was determined that the channel deepening actions will have little or no impact on salinity intrusion. The Corps is proposing to verify this conclusion through a monitoring survey of habitat conditions before, during and after construction of the project. (Top)
Will blasting kill aquatic life that serves as a key food source for fish?
Blasting and removal of basalt rock was reduced from 173,000 cubic yards to approximately 50,500 cubic yards, at Warrior Rock near St. Helens. Blasting will only occur during the in-water work period from November 1-February 28, when the least number of juvenile salmon are heading to sea. Restrictions on the type and size of the charges and safe methods of fish dispersal will be determined prior to blasting. The blasting would be done simply to fracture the rock in place for later removal by clamshell dredge, so there should be limited damage to aquatic species that serve as a food source for fish. In-water blasting will be done in accordance with requirements imposed by the Oregon and Washington fisheries agencies and NMFS. (Top)
Won’t disposal of dredged material destroy critical fish and wildlife habitat and agricultural lands?
Disposal sites were carefully selected to minimize impacts to valuable resources and to avoid them wherever possible, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). About sixty percent of dredged material will be deposited upland to avoid impacts to fish. The proposed project’s disposal plan substitutes transportation costs for environmental impacts by moving dredge disposal upland. As a result of disposal plan modifications and the use of updated 2001 and 2002 hydrographic survey data, there is an approximate 25% reduction of impacts to wetlands from 20.4 to 15.4 acres, an approximate 25% reduction of impacts to riparian forest habitat from 67 to 50 acres, and an approximate 14% reduction of impacts to agricultural land from 200.4 to 171.4 acres. These impacts will be offset by 740 acres of wetland and riparian mitigation. Of the 1,681 acres proposed for disposal sites, approximately 1,405 acres have been used in the past. (Top)
Will there be ecosystem restoration as well as mitigation for these impacts?
Ecosystem restoration is an integral part of the channel deepening project. According to the Final SEIS, the Corps proposed five new ecosystem restoration features making that a total of nine features proposed, which includes restoration of tidal marsh, wetlands, native riparian vegetation, shallows, and fish access to spawning streams in the estuary. Only two of the five features (Tenasillahe Island and Bachelor Slough) were approved by Oregon and Washington environmental agencies in June 2003. The total six approved ecosystem restoration features will provide substantial habitat benefits for fish and wildlife resources. Environmental mitigation features are proposed for construction on a total of 708 acres of land located at the Woodland Bottoms, Webb, and Martin Island mitigation sites. (Top)
How will ocean disposal impact the crab fishing industry?
The Corps and the EPA have conducted detailed analysis of the effects of dredging associated with the channel improvement project and the Mouth of the Columbia River (MCR) project. This includes a quantitative analysis of entrainment associated with dredging. Activities related to the deepening project are not anticipated to have a significant adverse effect on either crab populations or the crab fishery around the Columbia River. Dredged material taken to the ocean will be subject to the same tests that govern sediment removal in the river before it can be deposited in the ocean. The final disposal sites recommended by EPA were selected with the concurrence of crab fishery representatives. The overall objective is to find the best available alternatives for disposal, while working to minimize impacts. (Top)
Will maintenance dredging increase if the channel is deepened?
No. In fact, in the long run, the shift to upland disposal of dredge material will reduce the volume of material that must be regularly removed to maintain the channel at its authorized depth. Annually, approximately 11-13 mcy of sand is removed from the deep-draft navigation channel. Following construction, maintenance dredging volumes are estimated by the Corps to be reduced to 8 mcy. Then once the river bed balances over an approximate period of 20 years, annual maintenance dredging is anticipated to be reduced to approximately 3 mcy. (Top)
What environmental approvals must be obtained before the deepening project can proceed?
NMFS and USFWS issued “no jeopardy” Biological Opinions in May 2002. Clean Water Act certifications and Coastal Zone Management Act consistency permit approvals were issued by the states of Oregon and Washington in June 2003. Other approvals, including shoreline permits in Washington, must be obtained for the dredged material disposal sites. (Top)
What are the environmental benefits?
While a great deal of research has been conducted on the possible environmental impacts associated with the channel deepening project, the environmental benefits of maintaining a viable waterborne transport system on the Columbia River have been largely overlooked. A net effect of the "do nothing" alternative is that, over time, an increasing volume of cargo will be forced to transit greater distances by truck and rail to alternative ports. This modal shift will have negative impacts on the natural environment and the quality of life of Northwesterners.
Safety: Transporting cargo safely is an important measure of environmental responsibility, and water transport has the fewest number of accidents, fatalities, and injuries as compared to truck or rail.
Congestion: The steady increase in highway traffic in the U.S. has far outstripped any increase in infrastructure capacity, resulting in delays, safety problems, and congestion, costing the nation up to $72 billion annually (Texas Traffic Institute). Other impacts of traffic congestion are: accidents, increased energy consumption, environmental damage, increased commuting times, and greater social tension. Water transport, in contrast, does not have congestion problems, and seldom causes them for others. The fact is, that far from being congested, the Columbia River water transport system is under utilized.
Air/Noise Pollution: Air pollution comes from a wide variety of man-made and natural sources, with fossil fuel combustion the largest contributor. Air pollution caused by transportation includes pollutants directly emitted by engines as well as secondary pollutants formed by chemical reactions. Road traffic is, by far, the greatest source of air emissions.
Water transport, conversely, causes far less air pollution than trucking, and less or comparable amounts, than rail. Cumulatively, it has a relatively minor effect on air quality, consumes much less energy (and as a result, produces less air pollution) per ton-mile of freight carried than either rail or truck. For example, commercial trucks emit 20 times more carbon dioxide per cargo kilometer (the volume carbon dioxide released in carrying one ton of cargo over a distance of one kilometer) than large container ships.
Little data exists on noise levels of ocean vessel operations, mainly because they are not considered a problem. Vessels operate well away from shore, with the sound of their engines muffled below the water line, and any noise levels are hardly audible beyond the immediate area of the vessel.
Energy Efficiency: Ocean vessel transportation is a low-energy form of transportation, and shifts of traffic to high-energy forms would be inconsistent with energy conservation efforts. The environmental advantages of water transport should be weighed when considering any activity that would result in a shift of cargo from the waterways to a land form of transport. The fuel efficiency of waterborne transit is far greater than that of truck or rail. An ocean vessel can carry one ton of cargo 20 times further than a truck on one gallon of fuel. (Top)
|
