Clatsop County planning commission backs Port of Portland requests for Columbia River dredge-disposal site exceptions

The Clatsop County Planning Commission on Sept. 16 recommended that the Board of Commissioners adopt a package of ordinances to document Goal 16 exceptions and add dredged-material disposal sites in the Columbia River Estuary, the commission’s staff and the Port of Portland said during a multi-hour public hearing.

The ordinances before the commission would: allow in‑water and shoreline placement at designated conservation and natural estuarine zones under narrow criteria of Oregon’s Goal 16; amend county code to add new definitions and standards for confined aquatic, shallow-water, transfer and shoreline placement; and update the county’s dredged-material overlay map to show 18 sites in total. The planning commission voted to recommend adoption of each ordinance with the staff-recommended conditions; one commissioner recorded a “no” vote on one ordinance.

Staff said the requests come from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Lower Columbia River Dredge Material Management Plan (DMMP) process, and that the Port of Portland filed the local applications after the federal planning effort identified sites where dredged material will be placed over the DMMP’s 20-year planning horizon. "The Corps has determined it is necessary to place dredged materials outside of the navigation channel at sites where state and local law would not otherwise authorize disposal," Tom Bullion, planning manager for the Port of Portland, told the commission.

County staff described the regulatory framework and the narrow legal test for a “reasons” goal exception under Oregon Administrative Rules for Goal 16. Director Henriksen (Community Development) summarized the four reasons the county must evaluate: why the goal should not apply to the project; that no other areas are available; that impacts from the proposed sites would not be greater than reasonable alternatives; and that the placement would be compatible with adjacent uses. "We were made a cooperating agency" on the DMMP, staff said, and the county reviewed the draft environmental impact statement and negotiated weekly with the Corps and DLCD to narrow candidate sites.

Staff said the applications include a mix of site types and sizes. For ordinance 25-03 staff said the four proposed sites total "just over 55 acres" of river area (shallow-water sites less than 12–20 feet deep and two transfer sites), and that those four sites represent a small fraction of the estuary’s shallow-water area. For ordinance 25-04 staff described six additional sites, including beach-nourishment and a confined aquatic site that would include a proposed in-water retention structure of about 850 linear feet. If all ten new exception sites are approved, staff said they would be added to the county’s comprehensive plan and the dredged-material overlay map via ordinance 25-05 and ordinance 25-06.

The Port and its consultant said the DMMP and federal environmental reviews drove site selection. "The DMMP details where and how dredged materials will be placed within the Lower Columbia River," Bullion said. He also said non‑federal use of the sites is unlikely and that the Corps' requirement to provide 20 years of placement capacity drove the need for additional sites.

Several commissioners and staff acknowledged environmental trade-offs. Commissioners raised avian predation — the creation or enlargement of islands and shallow depositional areas can create bird habitat that may increase predation on juvenile salmon — and asked who will oversee monitoring and mitigation. "We understand the Corps and other federal agencies are evaluating avian predation impacts, and it's possible mitigation may be required as part of the federal permitting process," Marissa Moller, attorney for the Port of Portland, said. Tetra Tech’s consultant Paul Salo confirmed two of the proposed sites are within or adjacent to the Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge and that the Corps will coordinate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

Staff said they included explicit conditions of approval addressing monitoring, adaptive management and incorporation of reasonable and prudent measures from forthcoming biological opinions. The staff report and presentation point commissioners to the recommended conditions on pages 189–190 and pages 420–421 of the agenda packet. "Condition 11 states that applicable reasonable and prudent measures and conservation recommendations developed during preparation of a biological opinion or through ongoing consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall be implemented to the maximum extent practicable," staff told the commission.

Public testimony at the hearing was limited. One member of the public, Scott McMullen of the Oregon Fishermen’s Cable Committee, supported county language that would prioritize co‑location at existing cable infrastructure and raised a narrow question about a construction-setback line near an existing beach vault.

Votes at a glance: ordinance and planning commission recommendation outcomes - Ordinance 25-03 (Goal 16 exception; 4 dredged-material sites in conservation/AC-2 zone): Planning Commission recommended adoption with staff conditions. Roll-call recorded: Commissioner Wagner — Aye; Commissioner Ittaca — Aye; Commissioner Linder — Nay; Commissioner Stefanovic — Aye; Vice Chair Johnson — Aye. Outcome: recommendation to Board (passed by 4–1). - Ordinance 25-04 (Goal 16 exception; 6 sites in natural zones, including beach nourishment and one confined aquatic site): Planning Commission recommended adoption with staff conditions; vote recorded as unanimous among present commissioners (roll-call affirmed "Yes"). - Ordinance 25-05 (Comprehensive plan amendments to document Goal 16 exceptions and allow dredge disposal as a use in heavy industrial zones): Planning Commission recommended adoption with staff conditions; roll-call recorded affirmative votes. - Ordinance 25-06 (Amend dredged-material disposal overlay map to add 18 sites, cleaning up earlier mapping discrepancies): Planning Commission recommended adoption with staff conditions; roll-call recorded affirmative votes.

What the commission did not decide: final federal permits and biological opinions remain outstanding. Staff and the applicant repeatedly noted that the Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA Fisheries (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies retain permitting authority. Several commissioners said the county will receive copies of federal biological opinions when issued but that the county is not the lead for those federal consultations.

What happens next: staff said the ordinances and maps will move to the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners for consideration and formal adoption. If the board adopts the exceptions and map amendments, the comprehensive plan will be amended to document the exceptions and the county’s overlay map will be updated. Staff emphasized that the recommended county conditions are intended to ensure compliance "to the maximum extent practicable" with county policies while accommodating the Corps' congressionally mandated navigation maintenance work.

Why this matters: the Columbia River federal navigation channel supports a multimillion‑ton annual cargo economy, staff said; maintaining the congressionally authorized channel depth and width requires routine dredging and assured placement capacity. The DMMP seeks 20 years of placement capacity and federal review concluded that existing flow-lane capacity is insufficient, which is why the Corps and sponsor ports identified additional placement sites that require local goal exceptions.

Ending: the planning commission’s recommendations forward the ordinances to the Board of Commissioners. The county’s staff reports and conditions (p. 189–190, 420–421) remain the authoritative record for the recommended mitigation measures and monitoring; final implementation will depend on forthcoming federal environmental decisions and state consistency review.