Mirror Pond document released

On Wednesday night, the city of Bend released a document on the growing sedimentation problems at Mirror Pond.

Last week, the city of Bend refused to give the document to The Bulletin. The document, dated April 17, stated that a technical committee of city staff and water experts could determine or recommend studies to determine if a short-term fix is needed to control the growing wetlands and weeds in the pond. The short-term fix could occur before the entire public process is completed to ensure that potential long-term solutions are not precluded, the document reads.

The document states that if wetlands emerge in Mirror Pond, the city could have to pay for wetlands elsewhere if it wanted to dredge the pond. The document continues that the growth of aquatic plants could also be a potential eyesore at Mirror Pond.

The technical committee is expected to meet for the first time in May.

The document released to the media on Wednesday differed somewhat from an early version drafted in December. That version stated that some dredging in Mirror Pond could occur as early as this summer and without any public input.

In the April 17 document, the city states that additional information is needed to determine if wetlands will emerge before the public process is completed.

City Manager Andy Anderson said Wednesday night that he was not sure why the city refused to give the document to the media.

Source: The Bulletin ©2006

Muddying the pond

A Bend City Council that lets Mirror Pond become Mirror Mudflat will be infamous. Except for Pilot Butte, there’s perhaps no geographic feature more closely identified with Bend than the pond formed by the idling Deschutes River. And there’s probably nobody who wants Deschutes Brewery to replace Mirror Pond Pale Ale with Mirror Mudflat – a turbid dark ale with a bitter aftertaste.

So how should the city decide about dredging before the pond turns to a muddy mess? The council could:

A) Keep some of the debate in secret. Delay release of a study done by the staff of Public Works about sedimentation, dredging and timetables.

B) Keep the debate open. Publicize the options the city has and what causes the buildup of sedimentation.

For a city government that prides itself on its openness, we have to wonder why it recently chose option A and refused to release the study of the pond’s sedimentation.

The city said the document isn’t finished yet.


So the study with all its suggestions was released to city councilors before it was finished?

We think it’s important that the public know that the city may face problems with sediment islands in the pond being defined as wetlands. We think it’s important that the public know that the city may have to act quickly before the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requires that the city purchase wetlands elsewhere before it does dredging. We think it’s important that the public know the city’s plans to hold public hearings and establish a task force to develop the best approach to dredging. We think it’s important that the public know that the city wants to also look at addressing the causes of the sedimentation. And we think the study that tells us all that should be up on the city’s Web site.

Now, the city may argue that it was going to tell all when it was good and ready. And city officials may say that many of those issues have already been publicly discussed.

So why refuse to cough up the report? We think the interests of the public are better served by a stronger commitment to openness than the city has demonstrated so far with respect to Mirror Pond. If city government were capable of waltzing over to Mirror Pond and gazing down at its reflection, what it would see these days is a closed door.

Source: The Bulletin ©2006

Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-04

SUBJECT: Guidance on the Discharge of Sediments From or Through a Dam and the Breaching of Dams, for Purposes of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

1. Purpose and applicability

a. Purpose. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to Corps Districts Engineers regarding which releases of sediments from or through dams require Department of the Army (DA) permits. Nothing in this guidance is intended to require a DA permit for routine high water flow dam operations that allow sediment-laden waters to flow from or through a dam; however deviations from normal dam operations resulting in the discharge of bottom sediment may require a DA permit.

b. Applicability. For purposes of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA), this guidance applies to the releases of water and water- carried sediment that may result in the transportation, reduction, or elimination of bottom sediment accumulations from or through dams. Dams, as used in this guidance include, but are not limited to, barriers that create impoundments of water. Depending on factors discussed below with regard to exempted maintenance activities and de minimis impacts, these releases may or may not result in a regulated discharge of dredged material. Regulated discharges may occur in association with the breaching of dams but do not include breaching that results solely from acts of nature.

2. Background

a. Sediment transportation in a stream or river is a natural process that helps to maintain the geomorphology of a stream channel. However, when a dam is constructed on a stream, it tends to interrupt the natural transportation of sediments, which build up behind the dam. This can result in sediment-starved sections of a stream downstream of a dam, leading the stream to down cut or erode away its bed and banks. Sediment accumulation behind a dam also reduces the capacity of a reservoir to store water, and can interfere with operation of the dam.

b. Sediment may be removed from a reservoir basin using many different mechanical methods, including draglines, bulldozers, or other equipment. Sediment that has been removed by such mechanical means can then be transported to a site above the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the reservoir and stabilized. Under certain specific circumstances and when authorized by a DA permit, such sediments can be re-introduced into (i.e., discharged into) the river below the dam.

c. If a dam operator modifies or deviates from normal operation of the dam in such a manner that bottom sediment accumulated behind a dam could be removed and transported downstream through the dam, either deliberately or accidentally, that activity may require a DA permit pursuant to Section 404 and/or Section 10, as explained further below. (Note: CWA Section 404(f) exemptions from the permit requirement may apply in situations where only CWA jurisdictional waters are involved). DA permits may require special conditions minimizing the potential adverse effects on the downstream aquatic environment of releases of sediments subject to DA regulation. For example, the discharge of sediments through a dam that allows those sediments to be washed downstream may, in some circumstances, provide beneficial sediment material to sediment-starved sections of a stream below the dam. However, sediments proposed for discharge through a dam may also be of the wrong type to benefit a stream (e.g., mud or fines as opposed to gravel). Such fine sediments can seriously degrade important aquatic habitat, as when silt or mud sluiced through a dam covers up spawning areas for fish at critical times in their lifecycles, or fills in niches for invertebrates in large cobble bottom systems. Sediments proposed to be discharged through a dam may also be out of sync with the natural pre-dam sediment flow regime of that stream, which historically moved much of the sediment in the stream immediately before, during and after high flows such as spring run-off. The uncontrolled discharge of sediments may kill thousands of fish due to the impairment of their ability to process oxygen. The natural, pre-dam flow regime originally produced the stream channel geomorphology, so much of the stream biota is adapted to that historic pre-dam flow regime and sediment load and size.

d. One recent court case specifically addressed the need for a DA permit for sediment sluicing activities. The case of Greenfield Mills v. Macklin originated when employees of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources sluiced large quantities of accumulated sediments through a dam into the river below the dam without having first obtained a DA permit under CWA Section 404. Before deciding the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit asked the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide the consensus views of the Federal Government (i.e., of the U.S. EPA and the Corps of Engineers) regarding whether the sluicing of sediments through the dam under consideration in that case required a DA permit. The DOJ provided an Amicus Curiae brief to the Circuit Court as requested, and the Court in large measure based its decision on the legal positions that the Federal Government presented in that brief. The Amicus brief may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg/02-1863_005.pdf. Both the Federal Government’s brief and the Court of Appeals decision clearly hold that the sluicing of sediments through the dam constituted hydraulic dredging and the discharge of dredged material from a point source (i.e., the dam), which occurred when the dam’s lower gates were opened and the bottom sediments were sluiced downstream. The discharge of dredged material under those circumstances was an activity that required a DA permit pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, unless that discharge was exempt from the Section 404 permit requirement under CWA Subsection 404(f).

e. These types of discharges of sediments may also be potentially regulated as fill material. Final revisions to the CWA Section 404 Regulatory Program definitions of “fill material” and “discharge of fill material” were issued in the final rule of May 9, 2002. That final rule defined “fill material” in both the Corps and EPA regulations as material placed in waters of the U.S. where the material has the effect of either replacing any portion of a water of the U.S. with dry land or changing the bottom elevation of any portion of a water. Based on this “effect” determination, DA permits are generally required for the discharge of sediments from dams when such activities would have the effect of raising the bottom elevation of the downstream waters to a discernible, substantial degree. For example, when accumulated sediments are discharged through a dam by opening the lower gate(s) of the dam to move substantial

quantities of sediments, that discharge could reasonably be expected to raise the bottom elevation of the downstream waters, thereby constituting the discharge of fill material into that water body.

3. Types of Discharges

a. Discharges that are not regulated. Even when using the upper or middle gates of a dam to release water, some sediment is always included in suspension in the water releases. However, the release of sediments that are incidental to normal dam operations (i.e., the release of water through the dam to provide irrigation water or drinking water, to provide water for downstream depth for navigation, to restore reservoir capacity to store spring run-off or potential flood waters from storm events, etc.) are considered de minimis discharges of dredged material. For purposes of the Corps regulatory program, these de minimis discharges of suspended bottom sediments generally do not trigger the need for a DA permit so long as they are consistent with those sediment loads entering the reservoir from the upstream waters.

b. Applicability of 404(f) Exemptions. The discharge of large quantities of sediment through a dam will rarely (if ever) qualify as exempt from CWA regulation under CWA Subsection 404(f), for the reasons explained at length in the Greenfield Mills decision. (Note: There are no statutory exemptions that apply to such large-quantity discharges of sediments for purposes of the Section 10 permit requirements in Section 10 waters.) In summary, CWA Subsection 404(f)(1) exempts from CWA regulation “ . . .the discharge of dredged or fill material . . . for the purpose of maintenance, including emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures, such as . . .dams . . . .” unless the discharge is “recaptured” under Subsection 404(f)(2) (emphasis added). Consequently, the discharge of sediments through a dam cannot be exempted from CWA regulation under Subsection 404(f)(1) unless those sediments must be released for the purpose of dam maintenance, and not for any other purpose such as maintenance of the reservoir pool. Moreover, as a general rule, the Subsection 404(f) exemptions are construed narrowly to avoid their misapplication as well as the resultant adverse environmental impacts, either site-specific or cumulative. As the Greenfield Mills decision explains, for the discharge of sediments to qualify for the Subsection 404(f) exemption for dam maintenance, such discharges of sediments through a dam would have to be both necessary to allow essential dam maintenance to occur, and would have to be proportional to the dam maintenance activities that necessitate the release of sediments. Given the fact that sediments that have accumulated behind a dam can usually be removed practicably and more precisely by mechanical means, with little or no serious adverse downstream environmental effects, it is rarely necessary to sluice substantial quantities of sediments through a dam in order to accomplish essential dam maintenance. The Subsection 404(f) exemption will rarely, if ever, be applicable to the discharge of large quantities of sediments through a dam.

c. Discharges requiring DA permits. As stated above, sediment frequently builds up behind a dam. At times, rather than remove such accumulated sediments by mechanical means, a dam operator may open the bottom gates of the dam, allowing water to flow at high velocity over the sediment and flush it downstream. This can result in significant amounts of accumulated bottom sediment from upstream of the structure being allowed to move downstream with a composition or at a time period that is inconsistent with the viability and health of the downstream system. Discharging large amounts of sediments through a dam may not be planned, but may result when the sediment is mobilized due to

increased water releases through a dam when the reservoir pool is low. Similarly, when a dam is breached, it generally causes the sediment behind the dam to be eroded rapidly, usually in a discrete (single) event or a series of discrete events, which move the sediments downstream.

Regardless of whether the dam operators had the intent to discharge sediment through the dam and out of the water impoundment, the opening of the lower gates of the dam has the effect of allowing substantial quantities of sediment material to travel downstream, thereby constituting the discharge of dredged material (and possibly fill material, as well) from a point source, thereby requiring a DA permit.

4. Analysis and Policy

a.As a general rule, the discharge of substantial quantities of accumulated bottom sediment from or through a dam into downstream waters constitutes a discharge of dredged material (and possibly of fill material) that requires a CWA Section 404 permit. The discharge of substantial quantities of sediment through a dam will rarely, if ever, qualify as exempt under 404(f). Such activities may also require a DA Section 10 permit if they occur in “navigable waters of the United States”, and no statutory exemptions apply to Section 10 for such discharges into navigable waters. This policy includes the human-induced breaching of dams when sediment has accumulated in the reservoir basin and is released downstream.

b. Activities that are not usually considered regulated discharges of dredged material and do not require DA permits include actions such as the operation of continuously sluicing structures that mimic the natural increase and decrease of sediment in a stream (i.e., the amount of sediment discharging from or through a structure is comparable to the amount of material entering the reservoir from upstream); breaching or removal of a dam that results in the movement of only de minimis amounts of material or that results solely from an act of nature; releases during times of high water or flood stages for purposes of passing flood waters through the dam; and the lowering of lake or pond levels that results in the release of only de minimis amounts of sediment.

It should be noted that there is often high variability in the amount of sediment and water carried by rivers and streams over an annual cycle. Such high flows may occur as a result of storm runoff or seasonal runoff of melting snow pack. Larger amounts of sediment may be considered de minimis in relationship to location of the dam and the normal amount of erosion in the watershed, and thus may not require DA authorization. This guidance does not propose to set a specific amount of sediment that could be considered de minimis or “more than de minimis”. When evaluating whether any discharge is de minimis, or may be exempt from the Section 404 permit requirement under CWA Section 404(f)(1) exemption for dam maintenance activities, District Engineers should consider whether the discharge of dredged or fill material through the dam is necessary for dam maintenance, and proportional to the proposed activity and the size of the facility (i.e., size of the dam/structure and the surface acres and storage volume of the resulting impoundment). Other factors in this consideration should include the time of year and normal seasonality of high volume flows, the size of incoming and outgoing stream/river and the intended release volume, the natural hydrograph of the system, the speed of the drawdown, the normal amount of sediment in the watershed, and the potential for environmental harm. These factors should be documented as part of the decision regarding whether a DA permit will be required for the proposed release of sediments through a dam or would have been required in after-the-fact evaluations.

c. On a case-by case basis, District Engineers may consider the need to reduce the level of the reservoir through one or more flood gates and the resultant discharge of dredged material downstream, to avoid potential catastrophic dam failure, to be an emergency subject to the emergency permitting procedures found at 33 CFR 325.2(e)(1). Sluicing through a dam of less than 25 cubic yards of material may be authorized under Nationwide Permit 18, if all other conditions of that nationwide permit are met. Districts may also consider developing Regional General Permits for larger amounts of sediments to be released through a dam, if such Regional General Permits would include appropriate conditions to protect the environment and the overall public interest. Small impact releases of sediments might possibly be authorized under Nationwide Permit 23 if an agency has an approved Categorical Exclusion.

d. When discharging sediment from or through a dam or breaching a dam, reasonable measures should be implemented to reduce potential harm to downstream waters. Reasonable measures include, but are not limited to, prior dewatering by pumping or by releasing water from the upper control structures on a reservoir; mechanical dredging or excavation of sediments and appropriate disposal; timing releases to coincide with high water periods for better dilution; more frequent flushing to keep the discharges small; releasing a sediment amount that is dependent on the amount of water flow; and installing temporary barriers to prevent exposed sediments from being transported by runoff from subsequent storm events.

6. Duration

This guidance remains effective unless revised or rescinded.


Document: Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-04 (PDF)

Pond beset with weeds — again

Frank Loggan thought he’d seen his last underwater weed when Mirror Pond was dredged in 1984.

He was wrong.

In just three summers, Loggan, 84, again has an aquatic garden swaying just beyond his backyard.

“I think you’ll find a lot of weeds upriver wash down and then you have another growth of weeds (in Mirror Pond),” said Loggan, who has lived on the banks of the downtown Bend pond since 1949.

Property owners, the city and the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District shelled out about $280.000 to take roughly 50,000 yards of silt out of the pond in 1984.

Bend Public Works Director Tom Gellner said the dredging made Mirror Pond 4 to 7 feet deep throughout. Before that, the pond was shallow outside the main channel.

“I remember seeing ducks and geese 50 yards off shore standing in 2 or 3 inches of water,” Gellner said.

Dredging uprooted the abundant weeds, but it didn’t take long for them to come back. Last year the first of them made an appearance. This year, they’re sprouting in thickets.

Gellner said the weed resurgence may force the city to find ways to kill the weeds. One possible solution, be said, would be to draining most of the pond during a cold spell this winter and let the cold kill the weeds.

Two areas are most heavily infested. One is near the footbridge connecting Drake and Harmon parks. The other is at Brooks Park southwest of Newport Avenue.

Local officials are at a loss to explain the resurgence of weeds, which proliferate in slow-moving water outside the main river channel.

But one thing they say they’re sure of: Mirror Pond is not re-silting.

Every year, the city measures the depth of Mirror Pond at five points in the river between Tumalo Street and Coyner Point.

Charts of these measurements show some silting along the main river channel at the south end of Minor Pond. However, the silting is minimal, Gellner said.

Depending on how well local officials manage erosion on the upper river, Mirror Pond may not need dredging again for another 50 years. Gellner said.

“I think I’ll make’it to retirement (before more dredging),” he said.

Clay Shepard’s home sits across from Brooks Park, where weeds have taken a foothold. He too was surprised to see the weeds come back so quickly, but be doesn’t think they’re a problem yet.

“My personal feeling is (weeds) are not as bad as they were before dredging,” Shepard said. “There was quite a bit of weed before dredging.”

Vegetation blooms in Lake Tahoe and other areas have been attributed to pollution, but again, that doesn’t seem to be a problem in Mirror Pond. according to the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

“Lab samples are taken (from Mirror Pond) on a regular basis and they don’t show anything out of the ordinary,” said John Hector, Bend regional manager for the DEQ.

Gellner, the public works director, said the city probably will explore ways to combat the weeds as the problem continues to grow.

“We’ll get underwater weeds in lakes 30 feet deep,” Gellner said. “The depth is only 5 or 6 feet in (most of) Mirror Pond.”

Source: The Bulletin ©1987

End to pond dredging expected late tonight

You may hear a few cheers on Mirror Pond tonight.

Workers are expected to finish dredging the pond late tonight, City Engineer Mike Wilson said today.

The celebration likely will include dredge workers, who have suffered through a series of delays, and nearby residents, who have lived with the roar of machinery for two months.

“The wonders never cease,” joked Wilson. who coordinated the project for the city. “I’m glad it’s over with, and we’re happy, but it’s just too bad we had all of the problems.”

Don Sandau. the owner of the company hired to dredge the pond, was in Everett, Wash., preparing for his company’s next project.

Sandau signed a contract with the city for $269,000 to complete the dredge work. His crews began work in late April and expected to finish in three to four weeks.

However, vandals shot holes in dredge equipment. Then the diesel engine on the dredge broke down. A new engine arrived and workmen discovered it was the wrong replacement engine. Three weeks — and $60,000 later — the dredge was back in operation.

The problems continued as crews encountered rocky areas in the pond that wreaked havoc on the dredge shovel. However, the Bend City Commission agreed to allow the work to continue 24 hours a day, and Sandau hoped that would speed up the work.

The Cascade Festival of Music presented the next problem, and Sandau agreed to stop work during the Drake Park concerts. Crewmen were treated to several classical music concerts, but little progress was made in the dredging during that week, Sandau said.

Source: The Bulletin ©1984

Finish date extended for pond dredging

Rock outcroppings and shallow water around the islands in the south end of Mirror Pond have slowed the dredging operation at the pond and pushed back the completion date of the project from this weekend to the middle of next week.

Mike Wilson, Bend city engineer, said today dredge company owner Don Sandau had hoped to complete his work in the pond today or Saturday, but his crews have experienced problems  dredging around the islands.

”Whenever they hit rocks their auger machine slips, their anchor doesn’t hold and they have to pull back and start again,” Wilson said. ”They’ve spent several frustrating days working around the islands.”

The crews will shut down Sunday, Wilson said. He predicted the operation would be completed by Wednesday.

Sandau bid approximately $280,000 to do the project, and work began in April.

The dredge work was needed to improve the fish habitat and the stream flow in the pond, Wilson said. Crews are removing 6 to 7 feet of sediment from most of the pond.

The deeper water will provide more cool water for fish and expand the channel to cover most of the pond, Wilson said.

He said the city has received three complaints from residents living near the pond unhappy with the noise of the dredge. Dredge crews have been working day and night shifts.

Source: The Bulletin ©1984

Dredge job end in sight, Sandau says

The owner of the company hired to dredge Mirror Pond predicted today that his crews would complete the dredging work this week, possibly by Friday.

The work began over two months ago, but mechanical problems and a sna.fu involving a replacement engine cost Don Sandau and his crew about three weeks of work.

Other delays, caused by vandalized equipment and the Cascade Festival of Music concerts, also slowed the dredge operation.

The delays worried city officials because ~e project has to be completed by the July 31 cutoff date established by the State Land Board.

Sandau was concerned because his company stood to lose money if the delays continued. The project initially was planned to take about 30 days.

Last week a water pump coupling on the footbridge split, but Sandau was able to find a part at a local hardware store.

Standing on the footbridge over the pond this morning, Sandau said he hoped his company would make some money on the project.

“I don’t know how much we’ll make,” he said. “But if you don’t lose any, then that ain’t bad.”

The ex-Navy pilot summed up the project another way: “Any landing is a good one if you walk away from it. I think we’ll walk away from this one.”

Source: The Bulletin ©1984

Dredge work to resume after search for engine

A spokesman for the contractor the city of Bend hired to dredge Mirror Pond said the work on the project should resume by Monday, despite another delay in finding a replacement engine for the disabled dredge.

Meanwhile, a city official said he was still optimistic that the project would be finished by the July 31 deadline set by the state Land Board.

Dick Turnow of Bend, project superintendent for the Salem-based Sandau Dredging, said the company is bringing in a rebuilt, 16-cylinder diesel engine with a full warranty from Phoenix, Ariz.

It will replace one that failed April 30, only five days after the dredge began operating. The rebuilt engine was to have left Phoenix Tuesday, Turnow said.

After the breakdown, the company ordered a replacement engine from a company in Hibbing, Minn. But when it arrived earlier this month, it was discovered to be the wrong engine.

After contacting the supplier, the right engine was located and shipped to Salem, where it arrived the middle of last week, Turnow said.

But after mechanics “tore into it” and found it had undergone much wear and tear, the company decided not to use it, he said.

Once a few minor modifications are made to  the new engine and it is shipped to Bend, “We’ll have it together and hooked back up in a day,” Turnow said. “We hope to be going by Monday.”

City Manager Art Johnson said he’s not overly concerned about the delay yet.

“Of course, we wish we wouldn’t have the delay. We would like to get the project accomplished. And I feel sorry for the contractor,” he said. “But we still have until July 31. I’m optimistic we’re going to get the job done (by that date).”

Source: The Bulletin ©1984

Snafus plaguing dredging project

The head of the Salem company hired to dredge Mirror Pond says he’s beginning to think Murphy’s Law is at work in the project.

Murphy’s Law says, “If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong.”

Don Sandau, owner of Sandau Dredging, said today he’s received a newly rebuilt engine to replace one that broke down April 30, but it’s the wrong one. It’s just another in a series of snafus plaguing the project.

Sandau ordered the replacement engine from a company in Hibbing, Minn.

“It’s the same model (as the one ordered), but it’s not the right engine… Someone made a goof in the shipping and it’s causing us a penalty in time lost,” he said.

“We thought we would be in a position to get started right away this weekend, but it looks like we aren’t going to get started (then),” he said.

Sandau speculated that the operations might resume sometime next week, but there’s no way to tell “until we have legal counsel or get the problem rectifies.”

The engine would work in the dredge, but Sandau said the fact that it’s a rebuilt motor he didn’t order means there could be hidden defects in it that could cause another breakdown and another delay.

Sandau said he hasn’t stopped to figure out how much the idle time is costing his company each day, but if the delay goes on much longer, it could amount to a cost of $10,000.

The engine problem is not the only problem the company has had to contend with.

Since the company began setting up the dredge and other equipment in mid-April,vandals have shot bullet holes through the plastic pipeline used to pump the dredged material and have stolen headlights from heavy equipment.

Sandau said he’s reported the problems to Bend police.

“It’s very frustrating,” he said.

The company’s project superintendent, Dick Turnow of Bend, said earlier this month that the company won’t make a profit on the Mirror Pond job.


Source: The Bulletin ©1984

Dredging hit by another delay

Dredging operations on Mirror Pond along Bend’s Drake Park apparently won’t resume this weekend as the dredge company had hoped.

The company, Sandau Dredging of Salem, still has not received a replacement engine for one that broke down April 30, halting the work, owner Don Sandau said today.

The company has ordered a new 16-cylinder diesel engine from a supplier in Hibbing, Minn., which shipped it Tuesday, Sandau said. He expects to receive it “any day now.”

Sandau had hoped to put the idle dredge back to work by this weekend. It will take a day or two from the time the company receives the engine to bring it to Bend and install it in the dredge, he said.

Meanwhile, the 70-foot-long black, orange and yellow vessel, a floating fuel barge and a dredge tender lie quietly near the east bank of the pond next to the Drake Park footbridge.

Source: The Bulletin ©1984