Boyer-Tillamook Access Road Improvement Project Preliminary EA
The following comments were submitted in response to the open comment period described below.
Comments are numbered consecutively as they are received. Breaks in the number sequence result when comments are deleted because they
were submitted in error or have inappropriate content (such as SPAM). If you do not see your comment two business days after
you submit it, please contact (800) 622-4519.
The proposed Boyer-Tillamook Access Road Improvement Project is located in Tillamook and Yamhill counties, Oregon. The proposed project would improve 13 miles of transmission line access roads. Associated activities would include resurfacing roads, adding drainage, widening 3 miles of road, constructing 0.1 mile of new road, maintaining culverts, and constructing outlet ditches and retaining walls. In addition, new bridges would be built, and culverts that currently block fish passage for anadromous and resident fish would be replaced.
The project is necessary because existing access road conditions for this transmission line are in poor condition and do not meet current road standards for safety and operation.
BPA has prepared a preliminary environmental assessment EA to understand the potential impacts of the proposed road improvements and identify ways to reduce those impacts. We would like to hear your views. Please submit your comments so that they may be considered in our decision on this project.
View previous comments received during the initial public scoping period:
http://www.bpa.gov/applications/publiccomments/CommentList.aspx?ID=189
For More Information:
http://efw.bpa.gov/environmental_services/Document_Library/Boyer-Tillamook/
Close of comment: 10/21/2013
- BTEA13 0001 -
FarleyPlease see attached document for comment
View Attachment
- BTEA13 0002 -
GreenePlease see attached document for comment
View Attachment
- BTEA13 0003 -
KellowPlease see attached document for comment
View Attachment
- BTEA13 0004 -
WettsteinPlease see attached document for comment
View Attachment
- BTEA13 0005 -
VromanPlease see attached document for comment
View Attachment
- BTEA13 0006 -
Johnson/ODFWPlease see attached document for comment
View Attachment
- BTEA13 0007 -
Landrum/Oregon Dept of State LandsPlease see attached document for comment
View Attachment
- BTEA13 0008 -
/USACEE-mail from USACE on November 18, 2013: We look for alternatives analysis, and the LEDPA (least environmentally damaging practicable alternative). Given there is information sufficient for the LEDPA determination, then you’re good to go. Our EA template guides us to address the following: Purpose Need Water Dependency Determination Proposed Work Avoidance and Minimization Compensatory Mitigation Existing Conditions Scope of Analysis (NEPA/33CFR 325 Appendix C - "Permit Area"/ESA "Action Area"/Public Notice Comments) Alternatives Analysis (both in Location, and Layout) *** Factual Determinations: Physical Substrate Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity Suspended particulate/turbidity Contaminant availability Aquatic ecosystem and organisms Proposed disposal site Cumulative effects on the aquatic ecosystem Secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem **** Public Interest Review: Conservation Economics Aesthetics General environmental concerns Wetlands Historic properties Fish and wildlife values Flood hazards Floodplain values Land use Navigation Shore erosion and accretion Recreation Water supply and conservation Water quality Energy needs Safety Food and fiber production Mineral needs Considerations of property ownership Prime and unique farmland Noise Air quality National parks, Seashores, Wilderness, Research etc. Traffic/Transportation Patterns Listed Species Mixing zone (hydrology) Baseflow Aquifer recharge Substrate Currents, circulation, drainage patterns Needs and welfare of the people Effects, policies and other laws Sounds familiar, right! I was able to flip briefly through the rest of the document. Looks good. Yet, in regards to the alternatives, I hope everyone had the opportunity to think outside of the box ... what alternatives were not brought forth in the document? How do we know that a delay in response time is more important than long-term protection of resources? If a less impactful access would delay power to customers by 24 hours after a storm, what effects would that have? What is more important...annual impacts associated with a road, or customers waiting an additional 24 hours once/twice a year? This is what we have to consider, and your input is essential. E-mail from USACE, 10/25/13: I was able to review Chapters 1 and 2. A couple questions: What type of equipment is required to mobilize a crew, and to perform maintenance once a year, and for emergency response? How many people are in each crew? Is a complete road system really necessary? Cannot transmission line intersections with existing highways and rural roads be utilized for mobilizing crews and their equipment? Could all terrain excavator-type vehicles (similar to a Spyder...GOOGLE) be retrofitted with equipment necessary to provide maintenance and repair...and still provide transmission system reliability efficiently? There are many impacts and costs associated with a continuous access point for the corridor, and there appear to be alternatives beyond "No Action." Corps looks for the least environmentally damaging practical alternative (LEDPA). Decommissioning roads have long term benefits to both water resources and budgets..no maintenance, no bridges...no grading...if there are alternatives for access. Are there other users of the corridor roads? The photos in the report are very useful. If there is a handy template for slope/waterbar increments, please share.
|
|
|
