Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Smoke signals. (Grand Ronde, Or.) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (May 15, 2003)
6 MAY 15, 2003 Smoke Signals Columbia River Dredging Project Digs Up Dredging continued from front participated in technical consulta tions, and since then, the views of these Tribes have emerged through the work of the Columbia River Inter Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) rep resenting these four Tribes. "The CRITFC Tribes are strongly op posed to lower Columbia River dredg ing," reported Charles Hudson, spokes man for the Commission, by email. "We oppose the project on scientific grounds that the action will have a sig nificant detrimental effect on juvenile salmonids in a critical life stage, the estuary rearing stage." "All (Tribes) were concerned about water quality, the fish runs, the project interfering with fish runs, and the harvest, if it would impede that," said Linda Walker, Tribal Liaison for the Portland office of the Corps. "From a cultural perspective, the comments were very minimal," said Walker. "They (Tribes) wanted to make sure we had inventoried where dredge material would be deposited. The majority (of Tribal cultural sites) are protected." Although cultural specialists coun sel against revealing exact numbers or placement of Indian cultural sites, a variety of sources have estimated that there could be hundreds of such sites along the 106-mile stretch of the river where the dredging is slated to take place. The project as proposed will deepen the Columbia River by three feet from the ocean on the west to the Port of Portland and the Port of Vancouver on the east. It will cost $134 million dol lars paid roughly 65-percent by the fed eral government and 35-percent split evenly by the states of Oregon and Washington ($27.5 million each). The project proposal has been sweetened by the inclusion of a variety of eco-system improvements, though there is dis agreement about whether the propos als will actually result in improve ments. Environmentalists, fishing associa tions and even the Port of Astoria op pose the effort. "The dredging plan threatens 13 stocks of ESA-listed salmon as well as the Northwest's most productive Dungeness crab nursery," according to a web report from the Institute for Fisheries Resources and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's As sociations. "The dredging program has been vigorously opposed by the Port of Astoria, Salmon for All, and both salmon and crab fishermen." Still, $14 billion worth of business floats up and down the river each year, said the Port of Portland's dredging project spokeswoman, Elisa Dozono. Forty thousand jobs and 1,000 compa nies depend on the industry, jobs earn ing an average of $46,000 annually, she added. The real issue is whether the grain growers, lumber mills and other shipping reliant companies inland are going to be able to hold on to market share without the project, she said. "We have more than a thousand growers and manufacturers in this region who rely on the Columbia chan nel for affordable access to global mar kets," said Oregon House Democratic Whip Mark Hass (D-Raleigh Hills) in a recent press release, "and we would do them a great disservice by weaken ing their ability to compete in those markets." The benefits are based on the in- page creased loads that ships will be able to haul out of the Portland market. Eighty-percent of the transpacific fleet is constrained by the 40-foot deep channel, said Dozono. "At 43 feet, 35-40-percent would be constrained. Be ing constrained doesn't mean they won't call, just that they cannot fully utilize the channel. For example, "What we get is dredge-material dumpsites in our backyards that im pact our economy," according to Mat thew Van Ess, Director of the Colum bia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST), a council of 13 government agencies at the mouth of the Colum bia, on a website called, Tide-Pool. "We may get trickle-down benefits of the overall impact of deepening - simi- Hyundai and Hanjin already use 43 foot ships here, but as a result, are forced to lightload on a regular basis." The project will return $18.8 mil lion per year over 50 years for "a ben efit of $1.71 for every dollar spent dur ing construction," according to the message from the Commander and District Engineer, Col. Richard Hobernicht on the Corps' webpage. And because the Corps is only figur- lar to Coos Bay or Klamath Falls -but no one has been able to explain it to us why this benefits us." CREST concluded that the project would be "detrimental to the environ ment and fish stocks," said Peter Gearin, Executive Director of the Port of Astoria. "It seems to me that dredg ing can be done in an environmentally sensitive manner but that's not what our experts say, so at this point, we i , h m$ Alt r ' i' ' !- T 1 f I 11 1 If v y i I '-'I ' ""til A i T ft ,'i 32? ing federal expenses and benefits, they "don't fully demonstrate the impact of the regional economy." Some of this impact may not be for the better, opponents say. What the Corps sees as "eco-restoration," oppo nents call dumpsites. And for a very sound reason. Regulations covering the "eco-restoration" or "dump" sites allow eco-restoration but do not allow dredge spoils dumping. The plan calls for dredge spoils to create 191 acres of tidal marsh at Lois and Mott islands, 20 miles up the river. For Miller Sands and Pillar Rock is lands, 30 miles up the river, the plans call for dredge spoils to fill in 235 acres of tidal marsh and flats habitat. All of these islands were initially made with previous dredge project spoils. oppose it." The Port of Astoria does not compete with the Port of Portland, according to Gearin. "We have not had any deep draft vessel cargo since 1996," he said. Experts don't see eye-to-eye on the economics, either. "Our feeling is that Portland is a challenged Port even with a deepened channel," reported CRITFC's Hudson. "The deeper draft container vessels make their profits when they're in the high seas shipping lanes, not 110 miles up a river system when there are other deep water ports in the vicinity - Tacoma, Seattle, Port Angeles, Oakland, Long Beach. I've talked to some timber industry export ers who say it's more profitable for them to transport goods by rail from the Willamette Valley to Puget Sound ports." A knowledgeable industry source who declined to speak on the record said that inland shippers who can "get a better rate per ton" may be the project's principle beneficiaries. "Port land is a bit player with no long term container contracts. There is very little economic incentive for the project as a whole." "There are numerous benefits," said the Corps' Rabe. "In addition to ship ping, there are improvements to the eco-system: improving salmon habitat, taking actions that will reconnect wa terways to the Columbia that have been cut off for decades, actions that could result in the delisting of the Columbian Whitetail deer, various environmen tal benefits associated with this project that get lost in the economic analy ses." "These restoration actions are not project mitigation but rather addi tional opportunities to benefit threat ened and endangered species in the Columbia River basin," according to Anne Badgley, Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's (USFW) six state Pacific Region. However, in Clatsop County, "The Corps of Engineers' plan to dispose of materials in one of our prime fishing areas is one of the prime concerns of ours," according to Jim Azumano, Clatsop County Administrator. "We have a Goal 16 to recognize and pro tect the unique environmental, eco nomic and social values of each estu ary and associated wetlands ...The Corps' in-water disposal site at the Lois-Mott Embayment would be incon sistent to the policy. It would reduce the number of gil-net fishermen in that area." Because of the reticence of Clatsop County to go along with the project, Governor Ted Kulongoski recently pro posed relocating the eco-restoration projects (or dumpsites) and an exist ing salmon nursery, none of which has convinced the local community. Although the Corps position is cur rently firm, according to Rabe, indus try watchers recognize that the Seattle office of the Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of establish ing a 50-year permit for a 14-square mile ocean site that the Corps could use, and into which the entire spoils of the Columbia Channel Deepening Project would be nothing but "a drop in the bucket," according to Van Ess, who sees the possibilities but is not in support of that option. Tribes around the nation are fight ing Corps dredging projects elsewhere in the country as well. The Redcliff Ojibwe and Bad River Ojibwe Tribes in Wisconsin are fighting the Corps over the Great Lakes Navigation Study, "a proposal," according to Leah Lapointe, Water Resources Program Manager for the Redcliff Ojibwes, "to open up all of the Great Lakes to these huge ships." History of the Project The Columbia River has a 128-year history of dredging. In the 1920s, the Army Corps of Engineers dug a chan nel 30 feet deep. In 1935, it was deep ened to 35 feet. The most recent op eration, in 1976, deepened the chan nel to its current 40-foot depth, accord ing to Corps documents. A 14-year effort may soon take another three feet from the bottom of the channel for the 106 miles from the mouth of the river to the Port of Portland on the Oregon
