Northwest Roiling on the River Over Dredging Plans

If the Army Corps of Engineers has its way, the Columbia River’s shipping channel will be three feet deeper--a dredging endeavor that in 50 years would move about as much rock and sand as was taken to dig the Panama Canal.

The corps’ $188-million plan is based on a decade of study and backed by shipping, agricultural and labor interests. Northwest politicians argue that the project is necessary to keep Portland, Ore., and five of its smaller neighbors viable shipping ports.

Shipping vessels are getting bigger, supporters say, and the river needs to be able to accommodate larger loads.

“It is not so much a question of if it should be done, but when it should be done,” said Jonathan Schlueter, executive vice president of the Pacific Northwest Grain and Feed Assn. “We are competitors in a global market.”

But critics--Indian tribes, environmentalists and fishing communities at the mouth of the river--worry that the environmental risks, particularly to endangered salmon, are being underestimated to justify the project.

“The fact is that the fish are not happy in their spawning areas and migration corridors,” said Nina Bell, executive director of Northwest Environmental Advocates. “What we should be talking about is fixing that, not making it worse.”

As designed, the corps’ plan would deepen just more than 100 miles of shipping channel from the river’s mouth to Portland, taking its current 40-foot depth to 43 feet.

The deepening would take just a couple of years to complete. But maintenance dredging to keep the deeper channel would continue for decades. The dredged material would be disposed of on land, at sea, in the river and near shorelines to reduce erosion and create shallow marsh habitat.

All told, the channel deepening project could move an estimated 200 million cubic yards of rock, sand and mud over the next half a century. By comparison, building the Panama Canal involved removing 211 million cubic yards of material.

The corps estimates the project would yield about $2 for every dollar spent, providing $34.4 million in annual transportation savings for the next 50 years. But its findings have been questioned, and earlier this year the corps separately began to review and update its calculations.

Two federal agencies--the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service--also are expected to issue reports soon about how the dredging would affect endangered species.

The corps insists it can help business interests and improve the habitat.

The plan includes creating shallow marshes with dredged sand and rock. The agency promises to have experts monitoring changes to ensure that restoration projects are helping 23 threatened and endangered species. The project could be stopped or altered as needed, project manager Laura Hicks said.

But local tribes say one need look no further than the river to show that corps’ environmental improvements sometimes just create more problems. They cite Rice Island, created from dredging spoils, a byproduct of work done now to keep the river at its current depth. It has become a wonderful perch for Caspian terns to hunt salmon, further thinning the endangered fish population.

“The corps is talking about creating more habitat? Like the habitat they created with the maintenance dredging?” asked Bob Heinith of the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission.

The concerns about possible environmental impact hit American Indians, crabbers and fisherman in the pocketbook. Some say the deeper channel will bring more Pacific saltwater farther up the river, harming the delicate estuary habitat where juvenile fish mature.

Others worry that bigger ships mean bigger wakes, and more fish could get stranded in shallow pools near the shore. They say crabs at the mouth of the river would be smothered by dredged material. Still others complain that plans to do the dredging year-round wouldn’t give the fish a chance to migrate safely.

An investigation by the Oregonian in Portland of the corps’ economic justification for the project also raises questions. The newspaper concluded that the corps overstated benefits.

Rather than meeting the minimum $1 in economic gain for every $1 in cost, as corps policy requires, the newspaper concluded that the deeper channel would yield only 88 cents for each dollar spent--findings the corps disputes.

Agency spokesman Matt Rabe said the corps has requested the newspaper’s data. The Oregonian said it used agency numbers.

The corps, ports favoring the project and their supporting business interests argue vehemently that ships carrying grain and containers on the Columbia are getting larger and will continue to do so.

If the river can’t accommodate heavier vessels that sit deeper in the river, some worry that business will go to deeper ports such as Washington’s Seattle or Tacoma.

David Hunt, executive director of the Columbia River Channel Coalition--which represents unions, agricultural groups, ports and other dredging advocates--said the increased depth will save some container shippers 20% in costs and grain shippers 10%.

The savings are particularly important for grain exporters, he said, because the United States competes in an international market with ports in Australia and South America.

He said the range of supporters--from Oregon’s Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber to former Republican Sen. Slade Gorton of Washington--prove opponents are “environmental extremists” outside the political mainstream.

Every member of the Oregon and Washington congressional delegations in 1999 voted to authorize the project. But the federal share of the funding--$133 million--hasn’t been approved. Oregon and Washington would contribute $27.7 million each.