Dumping On The Falls
Published on August 6, 2008
Avista begins dredging the Monroe Street dam, drawing protests from the Sierra Club and the Center for Justice.
Avista Corporation began dredging operations at its Monroe Street dam this morning, drawing protests from the Sierra Club and the Center. The operation involves scooping sediments from the upstream side of the dam’s spillway and pouring them onto the water and rocks immediately below the dam. Because of the well-documented contamination of Spokane River sediments, the Sierra Club objects to the dredging operation absent a rigorous sampling and monitoring effort to ensure significant levels of toxic materials are not resuspended in the river.
“Dumping untreated sediment into the river effectively re-suspends all the toxic materials and allows them to re-contaminate the river, said Rachael Paschal Osborn, Spokane River Project Coordinator for Sierra Club. “This practice is barbaric.”
Paschal Osborn notes that the dredge spoils are being unloosed less than a mile upstream of a prime redband trout spawning area in the vicinity of Peaceful Valley.
“There is a profound lack of government oversight for Avista’s dredging activities. The agencies are letting down the Spokane River and its aquatic life,” said Center for Justice attorney Bonne Beavers.
While Avista has received permits from the Corps of Engineers and Department of Fish & Wildlife, those permits contain very few conditions to protect the river. The Department of Ecology has waived its authority to regulate the dredge and fill operation until 2017.
The Sierra Club, which is represented by the Center on Spokane River issues, has filed an appeal of the state permit for dam relicensing, alleging that the practice of dredging violates water quality standards intended to control toxic substances in the Spokane River. That appeal will go to hearing in April 2009.
The Spokane River is among the state’s most contaminated river, with PCBs, toxic mine waste, and PBDEs (flame retardant chemicals). The severe pollution problems were part of the reason the Spokane River was listed as the 6th most endangered river in the United States in 2004.
“Before dredging,” Beavers contends, “Avista must obtain a Hydraulic Project Approval or HPA from Washington’s Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). Given that the river has known toxins in sediments upstream of the dam, it is reasonable to assume that the dredging could re-suspend these toxins when the fill is dumped below the dam. In order to determine potential adverse effects on aquatic life from the project, the current HPS required Avista to develop a long-term monitoring plan by March 1, 2008 for implementation during the 2008 dredging. The purpose of the plan was to gather information on the impacts of dredging and placing the fill back in the river. According to DFW, however, Avista failed to tender this plan.”
Avista must also obtain a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to dredging. These permits are issued for five years. The Department of Ecology has the authority to evaluate the project and require changes in the permit necessary to ensure that state water quality standards are not being violated. Unfortunately, Beavers notes, Ecology waived oversight and on July 13, 2007, the Army Corps extended Avista’s permit another ten years - to 2017. Consequently, she says, without the DFW’s monitoring plan, there is no regulatory oversight ensuring that Avista’s dredging is not adversely affecting aquatic life downstream.
According to Avista spokesman Hugh Imhoff, the dredging operation is slated to continue until August 21st. Imhoff said the company doesn’t believe the word “dredging” is the right description for the process, which the company described in media message information as a “maintenance procedure” and “rock removal.”
The media message points noted that the “maintenance procedure” has been conducted for more than twenty years and the company “has operated in compliance with all the necessary and appropriate permits.”
The message points also includes the following: “The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has requested that Avista return the material to the river, immediately downstream of the dam. The material would naturally be carried downstream without the dam’s presence and may help provide spawning areas for the fish.”
Imhoff also provided us with a statement released by Madonna Luers, the public information officer for WDFW.
“The placement directly below the dam of the material allows the river to eventually transport and disperse this material in the reach below the dam and potentially augment spawning material available to fish,” she wrote. “Regarding potential toxics: This question is better answered by the Department of Ecology, which has water quality jurisdiction.”
Updated August 7th