Issues
It is the goal of the Portland District to provide the public with factual information about the Corps activities. Occasionally, statements are made (either by the Corps or by others) that lead to a misunderstanding of the facts. As we become aware of such misunderstandings, we will attempt to explain and clarify them on this site to enhance effective public dialog. For questions about these topics, please e-mail us.
A considerable amount of inaccurate and/or incomplete information is currently being circulated about this issue. The following misconceptions were selected based on the comments we have received.
Each year, the Corps publishes an "Annual Use Plan," which describes the condition of the navigation channel and disposal sites, and lays out how the agency will dredge the channel and use and monitor the disposal sites. Included in the plan, are criteria that address wave height amplification. The Corps uses the RCPWAVE model to anticipate how waves and ocean current will react to changes on the ocean floor. Based on these models, the Corps can set up a schedule for how much material can be placed in a particular area and at what time. Also, the Corps provides the "Annual Use Plan" and in-season surveys of the disposal sites to known mariners who transit near or through these sites. Finally, each Wednesday during the dredging season, the Corps issues a "Notice to Mariners" through the U.S. Coast Guard describing the current dredging activities in the area. Occasionally, accidents do happen. When a vessel capsizes at or near the mouth of the Columbia River, the U.S. Coast Guard investigates the factors contributing to the accident. At no time has the Coast Guard ever found the Corps’ disposal practices to have caused a maritime accident at this location.
Issue: Do the Corps' dredging and disposal activities put boaters in danger?
Response: No. Boating in the open ocean or across a river bar is by its very nature hazardous. For this reason the Corps of Engineers constantly monitors and reviews its disposal activities to ensure sand is not mounding beyond acceptable levels within a disposal site. Dredged material can only be placed at approved in-water disposal areas. Placement areas are selected through a public process which considers feasibility, environmental effects and costs. Once sites are established, the Corps selects between the available sites and manages placement to maximize benefits, minimize environmental impacts and conflicts, and cost-effectively fulfill our mission of maintaining the navigation channel. This process is closely coordinated with the Environmental Protection Agency, which approves the use of each site. We are currently using a site adjacent to the north jetty and two ocean disposal sites, expanded site E and the deep water site.
| Issue: Why did the Corps select a deep water site when locals are concerned about eroding beaches and a permanent loss of the sand resource? |
| Response: The Corps conducted a very thorough process for identifying disposal locations off of the Mouth of the Columbia River. The Corps hosted workshops over a two year time period with Federal, and state resource agencies and stakeholder groups. The Corps supports the beneficial use of dredged material and proposed disposing of dredged material in the nearshore (see disposal sites). We believed that these sites would help to abate the coastal erosion issue. We received official comments from the state agencies involved is those workshops, which did not support the proposal of nearshore placement. We went back to the drawing board with the working group and ended up moving forward with Expanded Site E (Shallow water site) and the Deep Water dispsoal site.
The Corps has invested a total of seven years getting to this point and over $10 million in investigations and data collection. If another site became available through other avenues (i.e., Section 404) and an entity was willing to pay incremental cost, if any, for the use of a site, then the Corps could consider using the site. |
| Issue: What caused the loss of historic habitat in the estuary? |
| Response: From the time the Lower Columbia River (LCR) was settled, people have modified the landscape for their purposes. With over 100 years of activity, much of the habitat that once existed in the Lower Columbia River has been converted to other uses through diking or fill or, modified due to other societal goals, for example modification of the flow for the purposes of power generation and water storage through dam construction.
There are many factors that have contributed to the loss of habitat in the lower Columbia River, among the most significant are diking and armoring of the shore line, flow regulation, water withdrawal, and climate change. Secondary influences of the change in shallow water habitat in particular are the construction of pile dikes and dredging that confine the flow of the river. The Corps, along with partners such as the Bonneville Power Administration, the states of Oregon and Washington, Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, and Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, is working to restore habitat in the LCR for fish and wildlife. For a list of current and past projects, see the LCR Environmental Restoration page. |
| Issue: Why is the Corps so tied to least-cost options? |
|
Response: The Corps has a responsibility to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money. We receive a limited amount of funds each year to perform the valuable work we are charged with overseeing. We must evaluate cost-effective alternatives for meeting our missions while adhering to a variety of legal mandates. The Corps' tie to least-cost disposal is rooted in the authorization and appropriation processes in congress. Congress has authorized and appropriated money to build and maintain navigation projects on the Columbia River. Money appropriated for the maintenance of the navigation features must be spent on the navigation features, and Congress expects the Corps to maintain the channel and the MCR projects in the most economical fashion. Congress has allowed for the possibility that there could be beneficial uses for dredged material, but has directed that those beneficial uses, when more expensive than the least-cost plan, typically be cost-shared according to the guidelines for other Corps authorities (storm damage, environmental restoration, etc.) Additionally, if local interests desire placement of dredged materials in a location or manner more costly than the least-cost plan, they would need to secure all environmental clearances for their plan and provide the funds to cover the incremental cost between the least-cost and their plan. For a complete description of the Corps dredge material management guidelines, see Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100, Apendix E, Section II, Sub-Section E-15. |
| Issue: Has the Corps learned anything from its Regional Sediment Management collaborations workshops? |
|
Response: Yes, the Corps has learned that collaborative decision making is not easy, and that building trust and overcoming skepticism takes time. For collaboration to be a viable alternative for stakeholders, there must be commitment at all levels and by all players. It requires meaningful decision space and it occurs in a historical context. The Collaborative Learning training shows that most natural resource management situations are complex because there are multiple parties, many issues, cultural differences, deeply held values, technical and traditional knowledge, legal requirements, and often an entrenched conflict industry. For the Corps' staff the workshops on collaboration and the feedback from stakeholders through interviews conducted by Walker Consulting and Oregon State University lead, in part, to the development of this website. In discussing what the Corps could do to improve the prospects for productive collaboration it became apparent that we could do more to provide insight into the processes we use to arrive at a decision as well as provide easy access to the scientific analysis and reports that inform our decision making. |