Last modified: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:50 AM PDT Nearly $2.3 million was spent on the construction of a new port for Gilliam County, including money for this access bridge, before construction was shut down because of a conflict with tribal fishing rights. Another boondoggle? ARLINGTON (AP) — Nine miles east of Arlington near Willow Creek a new bridge crosses the railroad tracks. Completed in 2006 as part of a new Port of Arlington project, it would have linked Gilliam County’s planned new port facility to the rest of the world. Today it’s Eastern Oregon’s version of the Bridge to Nowhere, a term made famous by a multimillion-dollar span built from the Alaska mainland to a sparsely-inhabited island and considered by some to be a classic case of government ‘‘pork.’’ But here, the issues are different. Work on the port is 75 percent done, but may have to be dismantled even though Gilliam County has spent, with the help of a $1.9 million Connect- Oregon grant, almost $2.3 million. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers granted the county a permit to drive the pilings at the port site but revoked it in April 2008, saying the pilings would interfere with a fishing site granted to Columbia River tribes by an 1855 treaty. Project manager Gene Leverton said the Port of Arlington has appealed the corps’ decision, saying the corps should have known about the treaty site. ‘‘We did everything by the book, and they’re just saying, well, sorry,’’ he said. Scott Clemans, corps spokesman, said the agency mistakenly granted the permit and blamed miscommunication. The tribes raised the issue in 2006 but the corps received no written complaint until after the permit was granted last year, he said. It went to a branch not involved in the issue. Clemans said the corps will help find other possibilities. But Paul Conable, an attorney for Gilliam County, said the corps has made fundamental mistakes. ‘‘The port’s dock pilings are sitting in a spot that was not under water in 1855,’’ he said. ‘‘It was about 300 feet from the bank, up on a side of a hill. He said that when many Columbia River fishing sites were inundated by the John Day dam in 1968 the federal government tried to repay the tribes with cash and nearby ‘‘in-lieu’’ fishing spots. ‘‘We’re not saying the 1855 treaty should be ignored,’’ Conable said. But ‘‘our pilings aren’t anywhere where they have a treaty.’’ Brent Hall, an attorney for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla, said the site has been known as a tribal fishing area for more than 200 years. Hall said the tribes had been poorly informed and knew of the project only when a member noticed a large crane at the site. Hall said the ‘‘in-lieu’’ sites don’t compensate the tribes for lost fishing rights at their ‘‘usual and accustomed areas’’ but are supposed to offset harm caused by the dams.