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