Steigerwald Floodplain Restoration 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 Bonneville Power Administration is proposing to fund the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership’s proposal to restore floodplain connectivity to the Columbia River within the Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in Clark County, WA. The Refuge is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project would help improve water quality and habitat to benefit steelhead and cutthroat trout, Chinook, coho, and chum salmon, and Pacific and western brook lamprey. The project would involve reconnecting Gibbons Creek to the Columbia River by breaching a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ levee; removing a diversion structure, fish ladder, elevated channel, and water control structure; replacing a state highway bridge; constructing a setback levee; enhancing approximately two miles of wetland channels; and re-establishing the site’s riparian forest. BPA will prepare an EA under the National Environmental Policy Act to analyze the potential impacts of the project and identify ways to reduce those impacts. Please tell us what you think we should consider during the environmental assessment of this proposal.
For More Information:
http://www.bpa.gov/goto/SteigerwaldFloodplain
Close of comment: 1/27/2016
- SFREA15 0002 -
Gridley/Gibbons ForeverCould not the present Gibbons Creek fish screen facility be removed and one of the creek's paralleling dikes downstream be widened to accommodate highest creek flows for the same or less cost than would the project as proposed? This alternate approach would in all likelihood result in greater overall Gibbons Creek salmonid survival than offered by the proposed plan, plus allow continued fish use of the adequate ladder at the creek's mouth.
- SFREA15 0003 -
PinkernellI strongly support the Estuary Partnership's proposed project at Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The plan includes critically needed flood control and habitat restoration for the refuge. This is a well engineered plan which will greatly improve the fish habitat, while also reducing flood control costs for the area. As a volunteer at the refuge, I have seen first hand the excellent work of the Estuary Partnership. The coordination between the Estuary Partnership, US Fish & Wildlife, the Port, and many local agencies has been very impressive. With the great teamwork and leadership on this project, I am confident the project can be successful.
- SFREA15 0004 -
StarrPlease view attachment.
View Attachment
- SFREA15 0005 -
DevlinPlease view attachment.
View Attachment
- SFREA15 0006 -
Danielson/Gibbons Creek Mobile Estates LLCPlease view attachment.
View Attachment
- SFREA15 0007 -
SixberryPlease view attachment.
View Attachment
- SFREA15 0008 -
paceI'm having some difficulty locating the Partnership's proposal to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the Council's ISRP recommendations, if any, regarding the project, and preexisting commitments of ratepayers' funds to this particular project. This is of particular concern given the lack of detailed information in BPA's description of what is begin proposed. I'm also unclear why it is necessary for ratepayers to fund replacement of the SR 14 highway bridge. How in the world is replacing a dangerous bridge--there have been two deadly wrecks there just recently--an obligation of the FCRPS? It occurred to me that this might be one of those "shovel money out the door" project that, at the March 2009 hearing on the 2008 BiOp, then-presiding Judge James Redden opened the hearing by acknowledging the presence of then-CEO and BPA Administration, Steve Wright, in open court, thanking Wright "for your money" and directly asking Wright "can we have some more." Redden then went on to grumble about the absence of projects and lack of funding for the lower Columbia River in the so-called "fish accords" that Wright executed with a handful of basin tribes (and others) to purchase their silence in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, and all related forums regarding the obvious, glaring defects in the 2008 BiOp, as well as the follow-up "supplemental" BiOps, which continue to fall short of what is required under law to avoid jeopardy and ensure recovery in something less than a "biblical" time frame. This mess is currently sitting in the lap of Redden's replacement. Meanwhile, the case chugs along, having now attained a sort of permanent continuing jurisdiction legal volcano that, like U.S. v Washington and U.S. v. Oregon, promises to embroil the basin for the next 100 years. If this back story played or now plays a role, this project (no matter its alleged benefits) is "fruit of a poisoned tree." The sooner BPA, the Council and other back themselves out of this continuing and now egregious violation of law, the better off the fish and the people of the Pacific Northwest will be. It really is so simple it's almost laughable. By diverting ratepayers' fund to "hush" litigants, BPA and a majority of the Council has damaged the fish and wildlife program. It's tragic that otherwise worthwhile programs have to carry the baggage of extortion, corruption of the judicial process and continuing violations of law just to get funded. But that is how we roll these days in the Pacific Northwest. I don't see how this ends well for any of the participants. Like the habitat projects, the people who knowingly participate in this kind of chicanery are doing themselves irreversible damage. The region deserves better.
- SFREA15 0009 -
ClappI am currently a volunteer for Steigerwald Lake NWR since April 2014. Prior to that I was the Refuge Manager for this station for 10 years. Since the completion of our Comprehensive Conservation Plan in 1986, our staff and supporters have dreamed of a connection of Gibbons Creek, through Steigerwald Lake, to the Columbia River. The proposed project, worked on primarily by Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership and the USFWS, looks to be a significant step in achieving this goal. I fully support it, and look forward to its completion.
- SFREA15 0010 -
KellyI attended the info meeting last night concerning the Steigerwald Floodplain Restoration Project. I offer the following comments:
I am most interested in how the project will or will not impact fish. Historically, Gibbons Creek supported small runs of salmon and steelhead. I believe the project may improve rearing habitat for salmonids. Most of the spawning habitat in Gibbons Creek is upstream of SR-14 and out of direct project influence.
In order to discern whether or how the project impacts fish, monitoring must be included in the project. First a baseline of historical and current data should be assembled. Are fish utilizing the area now? After project completion, you can then re-survey for fish utilization for comparison. It may take a few years before any change is notable. Water quality data like temperature and pH should also be gathered.
Currently, the lower creek is full of mud and silt and not suitable spawning habitat. This may change post project. Is there any plan to add gravel or structure to lower creek? This might attract chum salmon to the area. The most likely use of new habitat is for rearing, especially coho salmon. It is also possible you might just be improving habitat for a variety of Columbia River fish like pike-minnows, chub, suckers, carp, bass, etc. This can be easily monitored with minnow traps.
I like the idea of the project. Good Luck.
- SFREA15 0011 -
BurhennPlease view attachment.
View Attachment
- SFREA15 0012 -
CampbellPlease view attachment.
View Attachment
- SFREA15 0013 -
RhodigPlease view attachment.
View Attachment
- SFREA15 0015 -
HelmestePlease view attachment.
View Attachment
- SFREA15 0016 -
HickeyMy name is Chris Hickey. Gibbons Creek runs through my property south of the railroad bridge on Evergreen Drive to the edge of the Gibbons Creek trailer park. I am against any modification to my property and the creek as proposed by this project.
- SFREA15 0017 -
Breckel/Lower Columbia Fish Recovery BoardIn summary, the LCFRB recommends that the EA take into consideration:
The Steigerwald Lake municipal water source proposed by the Cities of Camas and Washougal is a high priority for protecting Washougal River instream flows identified in the Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 28) watershed management plans. The EA should thoroughly evaluate the impacts of the project on the development of the Steigerwald Lake regional municipal water supply;
Coordinate closely with the Cities of Camas and Washougal to develop a design that allows the restoration project to move forward, while fully meeting the Cities’ needs relating to the development of a regional water supply wellfield; and
Provide more detailed information on the anticipated duration, frequency and extent of fish access, in relation to the key life history stages of each population expected to use the site.
See the LCFRB letter attached for more details.
View Attachment
- SFREA15 0018 -
Barsness/WSDOTPlease view attachment.
View Attachment
- SFREA15 0019 -
Charles/City of WashougalBonneville Power Administration
Public Affairs - DKE-7
P.O. Box 14428
Portland, OR 97293-4428
Re: Steigerwald Floodplain Restoration Project (DOE/EA-2027)
The purpose of this letter is to provide written comments on the scoping of the EA for the referenced project. The project includes a flood control levee modification proposal by the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, working in conjunction with ESA Vigil-Agrimis, for the reconnection of Gibbons Creek to the Columbia River and Steigerwald Lake area floodplain restoration. The Cities of Camas and Washougal own property currently protected by the existing levee system at the proposed termination of a new west side setback levee. This property is the site of the future Steigerwald Well Field, a groundwater supply project critical to meeting the long-term water supply needs of the region. Modifications to the existing levee system has the potential to adversely impact future development of the well field on this property.
Two setback levee alternatives were initially presented to the cities for comment. The Alternative A setback levee alignment intersects the well field parcel providing flood protection to less than half the total property area. The Alternative B setback levee alignment is routed around the property, providing flood protection to the entire well field parcel. Alternative B is the preferred alternative for the Cities of Camas and Washougal, providing the greatest flexibility in developing the future well field by avoiding the loss of developable property due to levee construction and easements, higher infrastructure costs to accommodate the intersecting setback levee and loss of east side flood protection, and uncertainty related to future regulatory permitting.
The Alternative A levee alignment, currently the basis of 30% Design efforts, raises a number of concerns and potential risks for the Cities, including the following:
• Flood Protection: Without levee protection, site grading will be required to ensure all access roads and well buildings are located above the 500-year flood elevation (38 feet) and the entire wellhead sanitary control zone is located above the 100-year flood elevation (35 feet). The cities would recommend that on our property, the elevation of the entire site be raised to 38 feet to eliminate any issues with access or maintenance of the wells during a large flood event.
• Access: The Alternative A setback levee will divide the well field property. Access provisions to the east half of property will be required, designed to accommodate construction and maintenance equipment vehicle loadings, limited clearance and turning movements. These vehicles could be up to 80,000 pounds and the access roads and pads should be constructed to accommodate this weight of vehicle.
• Levee Pipeline Crossings: Proposed site utilities include raw water transmission, water treatment plant backwash discharge, power / communication conduits and pipeline air release / siphon breaker installations at the levee crest. Increased construction costs and future permitting requirements resulting from levee routing through the property would dictate that the installation of these pipeline crossings occur with the proposed levee construction. This eliminates any additional permitting, time delays, and cost increases associated with installing these pipelines.
• Levee Easement Restrictions: Levee construction will result in a loss of developable property. Levee easement, setback and use restrictions must be identified and compatible with well field development including potential overlap of wellhead sanitary control zones. It also appears that only 5 wellheads are shown east of the proposed levy. To produce the anticipated 25 million gallons per day, the cities will need 6 wellheads east of the proposed levee.
• Security: New and modified levees are proposed to include pedestrian trails. Increased security for this critical drinking water facility will be required, including security fencing and maintenance access gates for multiple entry points due to levee construction. The city must have the surety that protection of cities assets with fencing and/or other security measures will be permitted when the wells are developed.
• Guarantees: Will BPA back up the restoration project commitments to the cities? Who will own and manage the restoration project systems? Well drilling, withdrawal of well water, building construction, security fencing, treatment plant backwash discharge, installation and operation of emergency generators, and all other necessary equipment to ensure the efficient and safe operation of the well field water production and treatment facilities are uses anticipated on the property. Will these uses be permitted and what guarantee will the cities have that at some time in the future the water production and treatment facilities may not be an allowed use?
• Future Environmental Challenges: The NEPA (and SEPA if applicable) process needs to identify the well fields as environmentally compatible with the restoration project, and that the implementation of the restoration project will not now or in the future be a basis for any challenge to the development and operation of the well field.
The Cities purchase of the Steigerwald Well Field property from the Port of Camas-Washougal was the result of significant financial investment and years of planning and investigation, beginning with water resource planning for the Salmon-Washougal Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 28) under the state Watershed Planning Act. The WRIA 28 planning study did not identify other potential water resources with available capacity to meet growing urban drinking water supply needs without detrimental impacts to the natural environment, and as such, this site and the groundwater aquifer beneath it are critical to meeting the long-term water supply needs of the region.
There are also additional financial burdens for the city to permit the wells on the east side of the levee. The city looks forward to working with real estate team from BPA to come to agreement on these financial impacts.
In light of the decrease in developable property, increased well field development costs, and regulatory / permitting uncertainties associated with the proposed setback levee routing through the property, the Cities’ staff would not be able to make a recommendation to their respective governing bodies to grant an easement for the levee prior to the satisfactory resolution of these concerns.
As we have discussed throughout the project, the cities are excited for this project and the benefits to salmon recovery as well as recreational opportunities within the Steigerwald Refuge area. We are committed to a partnership that allows development in a timely manner of the wellfields as identified in the WRIA 28 plan for Clark County.
We look forward to further discussions and resolution to these items regarding these issues.
Sincerely,
_____________________ _____________________
Steve Wall, PE Trevor Evers
Public Works Director Public Works Director
City of Camas City of Washougal
- SFREA15 0020 -
HutchisonPlease view attachment.
View Attachment
- SFREA15 0021 -
Tetz/Clark Public UtilltiesPlease view attachment.
View Attachment
- SFREA15 0022 -
Karnosh/The Confederated Tribes of the Grande RondePlease view attachment.
View Attachment
- SFREA15 0023 -
JamesPlease view attachment.
View Attachment
|
|
|
