Clatsop County hears Port, state and federal officials on Columbia River dredge disposal plan; hearings continued to Oct. 8

Clatsop County staff and the Port of Portland presented technical findings and proposed land‑use changes tied to the Army Corps of Engineers’ Lower Columbia River Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) and opened the first of multiple public hearings before the board.

Community Development Director Gail Henriksen told the board the DMMP applicants seek goal‑16 exceptions to allow in‑water placement and transfer of dredged material at sites currently designated conservation or natural under the county’s estuary plan. Henriksen said the county and state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) worked with the Corps through a months‑long review and that staff recommends allowing the exceptions with detailed conditions and monitoring requirements.

“As part of that process of reviewing the environmental impact statement, we identified several sites for dredge disposal that were outside of development areas,” Henriksen said in her staff presentation. She described the proposed protections, monitoring and permitting steps that staff recommends to reduce risks to water quality, habitat and navigation.

Tom Bullion, planning manager for the Port of Portland, and Marissa Mueller, an attorney for the port, described the port’s role as a non‑federal sponsor for the DMMP and said the Corps concluded it needs placement capacity for the navigation channel over the next 20 years. “Maintaining safe navigation of the federal channel is essential to the economy of Clatsop County and the State of Oregon,” Bullion said. He told commissioners the port supports staff’s recommended conditions.

Meg Reed, coastal policy specialist for DLCD, attended virtually and told the board DLCD is reviewing the Corps’ federal consistency submission; DLCD’s review runs in parallel to the county land‑use review. Reed said the local goal exception is one of the mechanisms DLCD uses to evaluate whether a federal action is consistent with coastal management requirements.

Public testimony included opponents who urged the county to require more site‑specific analysis and stronger mitigation. Henriksen said staff added conditions to address issues raised by agencies and commenters, and she recommended the board continue the hearings to allow further coordination with the Corps and state agencies and to finalize permit conditions.

The board opened the public hearing on ordinance 25‑03 and related proposals, took testimony, and voted to continue the hearings and the second readings to Oct. 8 so staff and agency partners can finalize conditions and provide the board with additional documentation.

The continuation preserves the county’s ability to adopt ordinance language and permit standards that staff said the Corps and DLCD can reference in their federal consistency reviews. Henriksen emphasized that any non‑federal user that later sought to use the sites would still need to meet county permit standards.

The hearings covered technical topics including shallow‑water disposal, transfer placement, confined aquatic placement with retention structures, monitoring and biological opinion requirements from NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Staff and the port said those agency biological opinions remain a critical input to final conditions.

The board’s action: the county conducted the first public hearing and continued ordinances and map amendments related to the DMMP to the Oct. 8 commission meeting so staff, the Corps and state agencies can complete their reviews and finalize permit conditions.