Address the Media
It is the goal of the Portland District to provide the public with factual information about the the Columbia River Channel Improvement Project. Occasionally, news articles and stories contain information that must be addressed or more fully explained to enhance effective public dialog. If necessary, we will use this space for that purpose. For questions about these topics, please e-mail us.
| "This is the plan that the Corps says should move forward," he said. "My understanding is that the window for third party appeals has closed." (The Associated Press, Jan 9, 2004) |
| The quote was improperly combined by the reporter. The Corps' spokesman made both statements, but at different times in the interview and concerning two different issues. The second part of the statement concerns the administrative appeals process for the state permits the Corps received in June 2003. To the best of our knowledge the opportunity for third party appeals has passed. The way the reporter set up the statement, a reasonable reader could conclude that no more appeals could be lodged against the project. That was not the intent of the Corps statement. |
| The Oregonian published "Boaters sail to confront corps over river island," Jan. 7,2003, and "Corps of Engineers has turn in river deepening," Jan. 10, 2003 both in their Clark County Section prompting a letter to the editor on Jan. 15, 2003 and published in the Oregonion on Jan. 18, 2003. |
| As printed in the Oregonian:
Corps articles misinformed I am dismayed by the lack of journalistic responsibility characterized by misinformation in two recent articles about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' plan to improve navigation on the Columbia River ("Boaters sail to confront corps over river island," Jan. 7, and "Corps of Engineers has turn in river deepening," Jan. 10). Your reporter did not contact the Corps to check the facts. Isn't that one of the basic tenets of journalism? The articles published were one-sided and biased. Had the reporter contacted the Corps, he would know that our proposal involves only one-half of the lagoon on Martin Island in Cowlitz County, Wash., leaving 16 acres available to boaters. Further, he would be familiar with the environmental purposes and history of the proposal, the rules we must follow when working with land owners and the timeline for completing the project report. MATT RABE Assistant chief of public affairs Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District Southwest Portland |
"The Corps recently suspended its Columbia River deepening in response to an analysis by The Oregonian." (The Washington Post, April 23, 2002) |
| Our Response: The Columbia River Channel Improvement Project has not been suspended. The Corps continues to work on the project. The Corps planned to update the economic analysis well in advance of The Oregonian publishing its analysis. Because the project's feasibility report was completed in 1999, the Corps recognized some changes in key economic factors had taken place and, therefore, felt the benefit-to-cost ratio deserved a second look. The Washington Post removed this sentence from its Internet site shortly after the newspaper was contacted and told about the error. |
| "On Thursday, one day after learning the publication date of this story, the Corps' Portland office issued a press release saying it would "update" its economic study of the channel project." (The Oregonian, March 3, 2002) |
| Our Response: The statement is true. The inference that we are updating our report in the face of the Oregonian's articles is not true! We quote from two of the same reporters, Brent Hunsberger and Brent Walth, in a Jan. 4, 2002, article on the channel improvement project, and the Corps' spokesman said cost estimates of the restoration projects won't be available for six or seven months, when the Corps expects to release a supplemental environmental impact statement. That review will update the project's costs and economic benefits. Incidentally, the Corps has since updated the timeline for completion of that supplemental report, and expects to have the report ready for public review in May 2002. That review will include public hearings. |
| "One restoration project takes a proposed dumpsite and relabels it salmon habitat." (The Oregonian, March. 4, 2002) |
| Our Response: While we cannot be sure which site the Oregonian is referencing, the Miller-Pillar site proposed as a restoration site will be used for the creation of shallow-water habitat. Dredged material "disposal sites" are used repeatedly to deposit dredged material. When dredged material is used to create a restoration project, their use for material disposal ends. Once the objective, restoration, is achieved, the Corps no longer deposits material there. |
| " The Corps proposes dumping dredged material by expanding one current dumpsite (Site E) and creating a new, larger site six miles offshore." (The Oregonian, March. 4, 2002) |
| Our Response: Site E has never been, and will not be, designated to receive dredged material from the channel construction project. Site E is used for maintenance dredging of the Mouth of the Columbia River.
The Corps is proposing actions that will use the dredged material garnered from construction and some years of maintenance for restoration projects, which would mean that we would not be using the deep ocean disposal option during construction and some of the maintenance period. Those proposals will be released for public review and comments will be taken during hearings, planned for May 2002, on the updated Supplemental Integrated Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement. |
| " About 30,000 acres of the estuary's marshes and swamps& .have disappeared in the lower Columbia, lost in part to the Corps' dredging and dumping..." (The Oregonian, March. 4, 2002) |
| Our Response: The last 100-plus years of human activity along the river and in the estuary have created changes in the environment. Some of those changes, while they have benefited man, have affected other species. An estimated 4,000 acres of marsh and swampland have been filled, or 13 percent of the total. Our navigation activities are probably responsible for about half this total acreage, or 2,000 of the 30,000 acres (or about 6.5 percent). Other filled areas include parts of the City of Astoria, Skipanon, and Astoria airport. |
| "In connection with lost fishing grounds near Tongue Point, and the impacts on commercial fishermen -- "Corps officials say their plan focused on helping endangered fish." "It's not looking at a hatchery and recreational fishery at this point," said Laura Hicks. (The Oregonian, March. 4, 2002) |
| Our Response: The restoration actions proposed now are a result of the consultation between the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps and the lower river ports, and were not considered earlier in the process as the 1999 report was compiled. These new proposed actions constitute a changed piece of the project, and therefore are being studied under the NEPA, or National Environmental Policy Act, process, during which the Corps will update the Integrated Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement (IFR/EIS) as well as economics. During the public process that is followed under NEPA, public hearings will be held to take public input. During that time, input will be sought on many aspects. Updates will be made to information related to recreational and commercial fishing impacts, smelt, sturgeon, disposal volumes, rock costs, utility costs, and dredge operations and commodity forecasts. |
| " Two inches of dredged material was enough to kill a soft-shell crab, and 7 inches was enough to kill an adult hard-shell crab, according to a study by the Corps." (The Oregonian, March. 4, 2002) |
| Our Response: Two studies have been conducted which investigated effects of dredged material on crabs. While the ideal would be no impact, it is important to note that the study of hard shell crab determined 92 percent of hard-shell crabs survived. In the other study, of soft shell crab of various sizes and at various depths of accumulation, 71 percent survived. |
| "But the Corps excluded its own findings from the analysis and incorrectly credits the channel - not the improved forecasting system [Loadmax]- with a net of $2 million in annual savings." (The Oregonian, March. 3, 2002) |
| Our Response: We disagree with their assumptions. The draft feasibility report identified improvements, which could be implemented in the river forecasting system. By the time the final feasibility report was published in 1999, the National Weather Service had made the recommended improvements to the model that is in use today. We believe the forecasting system is being fully utilized today. |
| "Removing the Willamette stretch from the project saves $2.2 million in annual cost, but also takes away $6.4 million in annual benefits." (The Oregonian, March. 3, 2002) |
| Our Response: Even with the delay in deepening the lower Willamette River, the benefits of the Columbia portion of the project continue to be greater than the costs.
Clarification: The Lower Willamette River portion of the project has not been dropped from consideration, only deferred pending future progress on the cleanup process. When the decision is made to proceed with this portion, the costs and benefits will be re-evaluated. Water quality certification as well as other agency input will be coordinated. |
| "The Corps estimated future cargo tonnage by counting the number of containers exported from Portland. The corps estimated only 3.5 percent of the containers are empty. Last year, 22 percent were. The Corps also overestimated the amount of wheat, corn and barley shipped out of the Columbia by 32 percent as of 2000." (The Oregonian, March. 3, 2002) |
| Our Response: The benefits of the project (as outlined in the 1999 report) are based on actual cargo, not empty containers. Our update of the benefits will focus on actual and projected cargo as well, and will not include empty containers. |
| "The Corps also overestimated the amount of wheat, corn and barley shipped out of the Columbia by 32 percent as of 2000." (The Oregonian, March 3, 2002.) |
| Our Response: Short-term fluctuations in cargo volumes or operating practices are not a good basis for projecting what will happen for the next 50 years. The more data that are used and taken into consideration in the development of long-term projections, the greater the opportunity for a higher level of accuracy.
The Oregonian dismissed the recent development of soybean exports. In 2001, almost 1 million tons of soybeans were carried on Panamax class vessels. All but three of those vessels (12 out of 15) could have fully loaded to 43 feet had there been a deeper channel. It is clear that this a substantial potential benefit, and we will be addressing that benefit in our supplemental study. |
| "The Corps predicted container cargo would increase about 3 percent a year for the next half-century. Based on Port statistics for the past 10 years, the expected growth rate of container cargo is about 2 percent a year. As a result, the Corps analysis exaggerates the cargo benefits by about $1.4 million annually." (The Oregonian, March. 3, 2002) |
| Our Response: The attached chart displays the last ten years of historical loaded container export volumes compared to The Oregonian s 2 percent growth rate, using the same data. Though it is not clear to us how this data leads to a 2 percent growth rate, we do not support this simplistic calculation as a good basis for calculating the benefits of a project with a 50-year economic life.
The annual growth rate used in the Corps study averaged about 3 percent, but was based on numerous long-term global macro-economic factors, not soley on the last 10 years of exports. For the 1999 report, the Corps developed commodity forecasts for four different categories: wheat; corn; containers; and barley. As we did our analyses, each one of these was looked at individually and trends were analyzed to develop growth rates over a 50-year period. The growth rates we projected were based on historical and worldwide economic trends. The base year was typically developed using a five-year average with appropriate adjustments. The growth rates were then extended from that base, or starting point. Commodity projections were developed using three different contractors: Jack Faucett, BST, and WEFA (Wharton Econometric Forecasting Association). Forecasts for commodity and container traffic take into account not just what has traveled the river system in recent years, but the world economic picture, including population growth, currency changes, gross domestic products, etc. of those countries which trade with the United States. |
| "Many ships don' t fully load because they have a schedule to meet. In those cases, factors other than the channel depth affect their loading decisions. Yet the Corps counted these "light loaded" ships, giving about $2.2 million annually in benefits to cargo that doesn't need a deeper channel." (The Oregonian, March. 3, 2002) |
| Our Response: The Oregonian has incorrectly assumed that the Corps is counting benefits for container vessels that currently are not constrained by the channel depth. In fact, every container vessel is constrained by the channel depth, even if it departs at 34 feet. The Oregonian wants to treat every vessel trip as an independent event, and that simply is not consistent with actual operating practices.
The following practical example illustrates the point: |
| "New Corps guidelines say analyses should account for a 7 percent decline in shipping costs. As shipping costs drop, so do the channel's benefits. As a result, the Corps erroneously counted about $1 million in annual benefits." (The Oregonian, March. 3, 2002) |
| Our Response: The Oregonian has noted that vessel operating costs have declined since 1999, which does tend to decrease benefits. This is true, however, vessel operating costs are updated nationally on an annual basis. Thus, new values could be calculated every year.
One reason for the reported decline is that the federal interest rate used to evaluate federal navigation projects has dropped from 6.875 percent to 6.125 percent. This change affects both sides of the cost to benefit equation (costs will drop and benefits increase). |
| "The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is reconsidering a $196 million plan to deepen the Columbia River's shipping channel by 3 feet." (AP, March 1, 2002)
"Faced with a sagging economy and mounting environmental costs, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced [Feb. 28] it is reconsidering a $196 million plan to deepen the Columbia River's shipping channel by 3 feet." (Vancouver Columbian, March 1, 2002) |
|
Our Response: The Corps announced Feb. 28 it will update its 1999 Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (IFR/EIS) on the Columbia River Channel Improvement Project. As part of that update, the cost-to-benefit analysis for the Project also will be re-examined. The Corps will include new information that was a result of the consultations for threatened and endangered species with National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The lower river disposal plan also will be updated, with a shift from ocean disposal to creation of estuary restoration features identified during the consultation. The Corps will develop new costs, re-examine the benefits, and the benefit to cost ratio, and update the report with new information that has become available since the report was issued in 1999. The draft Supplemental IFR/EIS should be available to the public in draft form in May 2002. To update the costs, the Corps will re-examine the various costs associated with dredge operations - such as labor and fuel costs - and recalculate disposal volumes using December 2001 and January 2002 bathymetric surveys. Benefits also will be updated. Commodity and container forecasts will be re-examined. Particular attention will be given to the commodity forecasts in light of reduced exports during the last four years. The Willamette River portion of the project will not be included in the update because the Corps has tabled its deepening until issues relating to Willamette River cleanup are resolved. |
| "The Army Corps of Engineers gave its approval Thursday...to deepen the Columbia River channel by 3 feet to improve shipping..." (AP & Tri-City Herald, Jan. 3, 2002, & Salem Statesman Journal, Jan. 4, 2002)
"The Army Corps of Engineers has approved a $196 million project to deepen the Columbia River by three feet to a total of 43 feet" (KATU-TV, Jan. 3, 2002) "The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is now approving a two-year project to dredge the Columbia River and deepen the main shipping channel to Portland." (KPDX-TV, Jan. 3, 2002) "The Army Corps of Engineers has approved a $196 million project to deepen the Columbia River by three feet to improve shipping" (KPTV-TV, Jan. 3, 2002) |
| Our Response: The Corps released the Biological Assessment -- which is a report of scientific findings and not an approval document -- Jan. 3, 2002, outlining the effects and benefits of the Channel Improvement project on aquatic species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The BA and other information will be reviewed by the National Marine Fisheries Service, which will publish a Biological Opinion (the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will issue a Conference Opinion) of the possible effects of the project. The Corps also will need state water quality certification and coastal zone management concurrence from the states of Oregon and Washington, and funding from Congress before any work can begin on the project. Completing a BA is a requirement of the Endangered Species Act. |
| "...the project, which includes deepening 12 miles of the Willamette River..." (AP, Jan. 3, 2002, & Salem Statesman Journal, Jan. 4, 2002) |
| Our Response: A portion of the lower Willamette was recently listed by the Environmental Protection Agency as a Superfund site. For that reason, the Willamette River segment of the Channel Improvement project has been deferred until a regionally acceptable cleanup plan is in place. |
