Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Estuary Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DES updates committees on Deschutes Estuary restoration, $350M construction estimate and permitting plan
Summary
DES staff told the State Capital Committee and the Capital Candidates Advisory Committee that value-engineering work reduced some costs, permitting is underway and a supplemental EIS will be required; construction-phase dredging and land-acquisition steps are moving forward with private dredging planned and interlocal maintenance agreements under discussion.
DES project staff presented an update on the Deschutes Estuary Restoration Project, describing progress on design, funding and permitting and answering committee questions.
At a 60% design milestone, value engineering identified roughly $100 million in potential savings and produced a construction cost estimate of about $350 million, the presenter said, adding that total project costs including contingencies and administrative fees are a bit over $400 million. The presenter cautioned these are design‑phase estimates and said phasing options under consideration will materially affect ultimate costs.
Design and construction elements described included one‑time dredging of roughly 2,000,000 cubic yards of sediment, beneficial reuse of clean material on‑site to rebuild habitat and berms, reconstruction of bridges outside existing footprints, dam removal, and upgrades to utilities and infrastructure to resist salt‑water exposure. The team said it will use on‑site clean sand for habitat restoration as a major cost‑saving measure.
On permitting and authority, presenters said the project team is pursuing required permits now and expects to start a supplemental environmental impact statement to cover design changes. They said private dredging is planned for the initial phase, not an Army Corps of Engineers federal dredging contract, because Corps authorization and investigation timelines (they noted) could take five to ten years.
Funding and risk management: the presenter said the supplemental budget covered a design‑to‑permitting gap from 60% to 100%, and directed staff to seek additional non‑state funding. The team reported having submitted six or seven non‑state grant applications recently, totaling roughly $50 million in requests, and said it is also pursuing private and NGO support. DES noted a pending land‑acquisition phase to establish parcel agreements and refine final budget requirements.
On maintenance and interlocal agreements, presenters said some partner jurisdictions have agreed to take long‑term maintenance responsibility for certain assets (for example, the city of Olympia would assume ownership and maintenance of a reconstructed bridge), and that partners have committed to fund marina maintenance dredging in perpetuity in their agreements. Presenters said maintenance dredging in marina areas might still be needed at intervals of about 8–12 years, but partners are expected to shoulder that cost.
The committee asked questions about permitting status, dredging authority and timeline. Presenters replied that many permits have been submitted that have long lead times, that they are confident permitting is on track to align with the 100% design by the end of the biennium, and that supplemental EIS work will begin shortly to address necessary design changes.
Next steps: the project team will proceed with the next round of value engineering and 90% design work, continue interlocal coordination and pursue grant and private funding opportunities. The committee received the update and reserved further technical questions for staff and future sessions.
