Environmental Watch: Bush Administration Pledges to Deepen Columbia River Channel
Conservationists React to Bush Administration's Pledge to Deepen Columbia River Channel
The Bush administration, in a reversal of its policy to rein in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spending on new projects, is expected tomorrow to pledge $15 million to start the Columbia River channel deepening project, a controversial plan that will harm threatened and endangered salmon, and that has been plagued by unsound economic analyses and questionable claims of economic benefit, according to American Rivers.
The Army Corps' own team of expert economists raised serious questions about the Corps' analysis and claimed benefits. The panel questioned whether the region, or even any U.S. companies, would see any benefits from the project.
"Aside from the environmental impacts of the project-which are considerable-the economic case for the Columbia River dredging project has not been made," said David Moryc, Lower Columbia River Coordinator for American Rivers. "The Corps' own experts are concerned that 'benefits' of the project will flow only to foreign-owned shipping conglomerates with no guarantee of benefits for the Northwest."
Dredging and disposal operations will harm fish and wildlife habitat such as shallow water wetlands and tidelands critical to salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act, as well as crab and sturgeon. Twelve threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead populations use the lower Columbia at some point in their life history. Dredging the channel will also exacerbate existing water quality problems by revealing and re-suspending the pollutants into the water.
"The region has been working together to restore the Columbia River estuary for salmon and wildlife for years now," said Moryc. "We simply cannot roll back these efforts by destroying essential salmon habitat with an economically wasteful and environmentally harmful project."
The Columbia River estuary has lost 70 percent of its wetland and riparian habitat -- 50 percent since 1950 -- primarily due to dredging, hydropower operations and diking practices. Scientists and the federal government have identified restoration of estuary habitat as one of the highest priorities for salmon recovery of threatened and endangered salmon in the Columbia and Snake river basins.
The Bush administration, in a reversal of its policy to rein in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spending on new projects, is expected tomorrow to pledge $15 million to start the Columbia River channel deepening project, a controversial plan that will harm threatened and endangered salmon, and that has been plagued by unsound economic analyses and questionable claims of economic benefit, according to American Rivers.
The Army Corps' own team of expert economists raised serious questions about the Corps' analysis and claimed benefits. The panel questioned whether the region, or even any U.S. companies, would see any benefits from the project.
"Aside from the environmental impacts of the project-which are considerable-the economic case for the Columbia River dredging project has not been made," said David Moryc, Lower Columbia River Coordinator for American Rivers. "The Corps' own experts are concerned that 'benefits' of the project will flow only to foreign-owned shipping conglomerates with no guarantee of benefits for the Northwest."
Dredging and disposal operations will harm fish and wildlife habitat such as shallow water wetlands and tidelands critical to salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act, as well as crab and sturgeon. Twelve threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead populations use the lower Columbia at some point in their life history. Dredging the channel will also exacerbate existing water quality problems by revealing and re-suspending the pollutants into the water.
"The region has been working together to restore the Columbia River estuary for salmon and wildlife for years now," said Moryc. "We simply cannot roll back these efforts by destroying essential salmon habitat with an economically wasteful and environmentally harmful project."
The Columbia River estuary has lost 70 percent of its wetland and riparian habitat -- 50 percent since 1950 -- primarily due to dredging, hydropower operations and diking practices. Scientists and the federal government have identified restoration of estuary habitat as one of the highest priorities for salmon recovery of threatened and endangered salmon in the Columbia and Snake river basins.
posted by Pamela J. Leavey at 11:26 PM
1 Comments:
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1) Why is today's announcement a departure from previous administration policy?
Since taking office, the Bush administration has had a policy of opposing appropriations for new U.S. Army Corps of Engineers construction projects as a way to rein in federal spending and allow the agency to address its large backlog of unfunded work. As late as September 2003, White House budget officials categorized the Columbia River deepening project as a new start.
Also see Bush administration budget documents:
"Given the large backlog of funding needed to complete construction projects already underway ($21 billion), the budget focuses on completing ongoing projects, rather than starting construction of new projects that would add to this backlog and increase delays in completing ongoing projects."
A Blueprint for New Beginnings, February 28, 2001 (Bush Administration FY 2002 budget)
2) Why is deepening the Columbia River channel bad for the environment?
The federal plan to recover Snake and Columbia River salmon relies on improvements to the Columbia River estuary to offset the damage done by federal hydropower dams. Yet, the Corps is pushing forward the economically dubious Columbia River deepening proposal that would further threaten salmon habitat.
The Columbia River estuary has been described by NOAA Fisheries as "grossly altered by previous dredging to establish the navigation channel, disposal of dredged material, diking and filling, sewage and industrial discharges, water withdrawals and flow regulation." Not only have 70 percent of the estuary's wetlands and riparian habitat been destroyed but a state-federal study has concluded the combination of dams and dredging has reversed the flow of the river's sediments, causing coastal areas to erode into the mouth of the Columbia.
By dredging millions more cubic yards of river bottom, the Corps' proposal to deepen the Columbia River would further damage the river's estuary already degraded by more than 100 years of dredging and the loss of floodplain habitat. Twelve species of salmon and steelhead rely on the remaining shallow water habitat in the Columbia River estuary before making their ocean going journey.
A host of wildlife, including 200,000 over-wintering migratory birds, crab, sturgeon, steelhead and salmon rely on the estuary.
3) Why is deepening the Columbia River channel a bad deal for the taxpayer?
The Oregonian in 2002, in a series of investigative reports, concluded that Corps overestimated the project's benefits and underestimated its costs. The newspaper's analysis revealed the project would return 88 cents for every taxpayer dollar spent.
4) How reliable are the Corps' economic forecasts for the deepening?
An independent review of the Columbia River deepening proposal concluded that dredging the channel would not lead to any more cargo or cargo ships coming to Columbia River ports, finding that the Corps' analysis, in part, "appears to be self-contradictory."
5) Will deepening the channel create jobs?
The same panel also raised a concern that many of the potential "benefits" of the project flow only to foreign owned shipping conglomerates with no guarantee of reduced rates for U.S. shippers.
The Corps did not analyze the cost of dumping 7 to 9 million cubic yards of dredge spoils at the deep water ocean site home to a $20 million annual commercial crab fishery important to local lower Columbia River communities.
6) What is the political history of federal water projects?
Two words: porkbarrel spending. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a rich history of exaggerating economic benefits and downplaying environmental consequences of its proposed projects to enhance the projects' appeal to elected officials.
7) Has the administration acknowledged these concerns?
"(S)erious questions have been raised about the quality, objectivity, and credibility of Corps reports on the economic and environmental feasibility of proposed water projects." The government should "redirect funds away from ongoing funds that are not economically justified, are environmentally damaging or violate other policies." -- President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s proposed 2002 budget.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=669&ncid=669&e=7&u=/usnw/20040812/pl_usnw/conservationists_react_to_bush_administration_s_pledge_to_deepen_columbia_river_channel170_xml
Post a Comment
<< Home