Report on Columbia River Dredging Project and Sustainable Development Goal Implications

1.0 Introduction

A decision by the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners to advance a proposal for ten new dredge disposal sites in the Columbia River has brought to the forefront a significant conflict between economic infrastructure development and environmental stewardship. The project, essential for maintaining river navigation, raises critical questions regarding its alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

2.0 Project Overview and Economic Context

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has developed the Lower Columbia Dredge Material Management Plan to ensure the continued navigability of the Columbia River, a vital artery for regional commerce. This initiative directly supports several SDGs.

• SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure): The project aims to maintain and upgrade critical transportation infrastructure, which is fundamental for economic activity.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): By keeping the shipping channel open, the plan supports industries reliant on the Port of Portland and sustains economic growth.

The Port of Portland, acting as a non-federal sponsor, is seeking exceptions to local conservation zoning to permit the disposal of dredged material at sites deemed necessary by the USACE. The rationale provided is that the sediment must remain within the river ecosystem to preserve its overall morphology, as ocean or land disposal is considered detrimental and upriver transport is cost-prohibitive.

3.0 Environmental Impact Assessment and SDG Alignment

Despite the project’s economic justifications, county analysis and stakeholder feedback indicate severe potential conflicts with environmental SDGs. The proposed disposal sites are located within sensitive areas, including the Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge and aquatic conservation zones.

3.1 SDG 14: Life Below Water

The project poses a direct threat to the health of the freshwater ecosystem, challenging the objectives of SDG 14. Key concerns include:

• Habitat Destruction: The creation of disposal sites will bury existing habitats, including those for lamprey larvae.
• Hydrological Alteration: County staff reports anticipate “major, long-term, local effects” on river hydrology from two sites (O-27.4 IW-S and O-27.4-BN).
• Ecosystem Disruption: Changes to river flow could decrease water velocity, leading to sediment accumulation in some areas and erosion in others, fundamentally altering the aquatic environment.

3.2 SDG 15: Life on Land

The project’s proximity to and potential impact on the Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge raises concerns related to SDG 15, which focuses on protecting terrestrial ecosystems and halting biodiversity loss.

• Impact on Protected Areas: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), which manages the refuge, has formally recommended that the sites be removed from consideration pending further study.
• Threat of Invasive Species: ODFW warns that cumulative effects from the disposal zones could decrease water flow to the refuge, creating conditions favorable for sedimentation and “invasive plant growth.”
• Long-Term Consequences: County officials noted that exceptions granted for these sites would be permanent, with no guarantee against future use by non-federal entities, posing a lasting risk to the refuge.

4.0 Stakeholder Positions and Governance

The decision-making process illustrates the complexities of multi-stakeholder collaboration, a principle central to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The positions of the key entities are as follows:

1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers & Port of Portland: Advocate for the project based on the necessity of maintaining critical infrastructure (SDG 9) and the economic benefits it provides (SDG 8).
2. Clatsop County Community Development: Acknowledged that the project could adversely affect river hydrology but recommended approval, stating the sites met the legal qualifications for an exemption.
3. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: Opposes the plan in its current form, citing unacceptable risks to protected ecosystems and wildlife, thereby prioritizing SDG 14 and SDG 15.
4. Clatsop County Commissioners: Voiced concerns about the environmental impacts but ultimately voted to advance the plan, highlighting the inherent tension between competing sustainability objectives.

5.0 Conclusion and Next Steps

The Columbia River dredging project exemplifies a classic sustainable development challenge, pitting the goals of economic growth and infrastructure (SDG 8, SDG 9) against the imperative to protect life below water (SDG 14) and on land (SDG 15). The long-term, and potentially irreversible, environmental impacts on a national wildlife refuge require careful consideration. A final public hearing and second reading of the ordinances are scheduled for October 8, which will be a critical step in determining the final outcome.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 14: Life Below Water

• The article directly addresses this goal by focusing on the environmental impacts of dredge disposal within the Columbia River, an aquatic ecosystem. It highlights concerns about “aquatic conservation zones,” the effects on “river hydrology and morphology,” and the potential harm to aquatic life such as “lamprey larvae.”

SDG 15: Life on Land

• This goal is relevant as the proposed disposal sites are located within the “Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge.” The article discusses impacts on terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, including the burial of “plant habitats” and “vegetation,” and the risk of “invasive plant growth,” which all relate to the conservation of life on land and inland water ecosystems.

SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

• The core purpose of the dredging project is to “keep the Columbia River navigable,” which is a matter of maintaining critical transportation infrastructure. The article frames the conflict between the need for this infrastructure (supported by the Port of Portland and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and its environmental sustainability.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• The decision-making process described involves local governance, specifically the “Clatsop County Board of Commissioners” and a “planning commission.” The issue connects to safeguarding the region’s natural heritage, as the “Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge” is a significant natural asset for the community.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Under SDG 14: Life Below Water

1. Target 14.2: “By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts…” This target is relevant as the article discusses the need to manage the river ecosystem sustainably. The concerns raised by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife about “cumulative effects” and potential “sedimentation” from the disposal sites directly relate to avoiding significant adverse impacts on the aquatic environment.
2. Target 14.5: “By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas…” The article mentions that some disposal sites are planned within “aquatic conservation zones” and the “Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge.” The debate over allowing industrial activity in these protected areas is directly linked to the goal of conserving important aquatic areas.

Under SDG 15: Life on Land

1. Target 15.1: “By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems…” The entire conflict described in the article is a case study in balancing the sustainable use of a freshwater ecosystem (for navigation) with its conservation. The county staff’s report of “minor to moderate, long term” effects on plant and animal life highlights this tension.
2. Target 15.5: “Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity…” The article explicitly states that “Plant habitats, vegetation, and lamprey larvae would likely be buried in the creation of the sites.” This is a direct example of the degradation of natural habitats and a threat to local biodiversity, which this target aims to prevent.

Under SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

1. Target 9.1: “Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure…” The dredging project is an effort to maintain reliable navigation infrastructure. However, the environmental concerns raised by county staff and the ODFW question the “sustainable” aspect of the proposed dredge disposal method, showing the challenge of meeting all elements of this target simultaneously.

Under SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

1. Target 11.4: “Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.” The Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge is a key piece of the region’s natural heritage. The concerns expressed by Commissioner Jeremy Linder and the recommendations from the ODFW to protect the refuge from potential damage represent efforts to safeguard this heritage.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Ecosystem Health and Integrity Indicators

• The article implies several measurable indicators for ecosystem health. These include changes in “river hydrology and morphology,” “water velocity,” “sediment location,” and rates of “erosion.” The county staff’s analysis of “major, long-term, local effects” on these factors suggests that they are key metrics for assessing the project’s impact.

Biodiversity and Habitat Indicators

• Progress can be measured by monitoring the status of specific species and habitats mentioned. Indicators would include the population health of “lamprey larvae” and the extent and condition of “plant habitats” and “vegetation” in the affected areas. The presence or spread of “invasive plant growth,” as warned by the ODFW, would be a negative indicator.

Protected Area Management Indicators

• An indicator for the management of protected areas is the extent to which their conservation status is respected in planning and development. The decision to approve or reject the placement of “10 new dredging disposal sites” within the “Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge” and “aquatic conservation zones” serves as a direct indicator of the effectiveness of their protection.

Infrastructure Sustainability Indicators

• The navigability of the Columbia River channel (e.g., maintained depth and width) is a direct indicator of infrastructure reliability. The degree of environmental damage (“minor to moderate” vs. “major, long-term” effects) serves as a counter-indicator for the sustainability of the maintenance method.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: dailyastorian.com