Tribal members and river users urge Corps to study treaty, contamination and navigation risks from proposed Cascade underwater transmission line

During the US Army Corps of Engineers' Jan. 28 virtual scoping meeting, a long stream of oral comments from tribal members, Yakima Nation citizens and waterway interests urged the Corps to analyze—or deny—the permit application for the Cascade Renewable Transmission Project, citing treaty rights, the risk of disturbing contaminated sediment and potential harm to salmon and lamprey.

Several commenters framed the project as a threat to treaty‑protected fishing rights and cultural resources. Rose Mary Leshawat Buzzard Quilt, an enrolled member of the Yakima Nation, cited Article 3 of the 1855 treaty and court precedent and said the proposal "would endanger our river, our ecosystems, and our cultural ways of living." Yvonne Colfax, also an enrolled Yakima Nation member, urged "meaningful consultation with my tribal leaders and cultural resources of the Yakima Nation," and asked the Corps to evaluate NAGPRA and NHPA implications.

Speakers raised fish and sediment concerns. "We do not know the impact of how the climate will be affect the river...the additional heat electromagnetic waves that will be emitted under the ground are going to cause the river temperature to rise," Deborah Whitefoot (a Yakima Nation citizen and lifelong fisher) said, asking the Corps to deny the permit. Judy Oatman (Nez Perce tribal member) said the Columbia River is "too unknown and too dangerous" to use as a test site and urged denial. Several commenters warned that construction methods such as hydroplows and dredging could resuspend legacy contaminants—mercury, DDT, PCBs, arsenic and PAHs—into the water column and harm benthic species and migratory fish.

Navigation and commerce stakeholders asked the Corps to study channel impacts. Denah Horton of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association said the project raises "significant challenges and concerns related to the navigation impacts, and the potential for disrupting billions of dollars in commerce" and asked the EIS to analyze how construction and any placed protection (riprap) could affect currents, access and dredging needs.

What the Corps and applicant said: Joe Brock (USACE) emphasized that the EIS scoping process will accept written and oral comments and that the Corps will independently evaluate environmental and regulatory issues. Chris Hopper (representing the applicant) described planned mitigation measures and construction methods—burial where possible, HDD shore crossings, winter work windows and cable protection where burial is constrained—but provided no immediate technical rebuttal to claims about contaminant mobilization or treaty impacts during the meeting.

Outcome and next steps: The Corps closed the meeting at 3:00 p.m. and reiterated the scoping comment deadline of Feb. 4, 2026. Commenters asked for detailed, stand‑alone treaty‑rights and cultural‑resource analyses, plus specific study of sediment contaminant mobilization and navigation risks; the Corps will determine the scope of those analyses in the draft EIS.