Town, Army Corps on Crash Course Over River Work

Home Browse Search

Searchable Databases Page 2 of 9 Town Manager Mark Garcia said, "I concur with you Mayor Aragon, I feel we're kind of getting bullied on this," Garcia said. Aragon said he advocated seeking legal counsel and Garcia said he would pursue that course. Phase II of the town's river project encompasses a stretch of river between the Hot Springs Boulevard bridge and the Apache Street bridge. The project, as currently proposed would consist of replacing the previously installed "W" shaped in- stream structures with "U" shaped structures. The "U" structures will provide recreational opportunities for whitewater enthusiasts and are said to increase and improve fish habitat. According to the town's plan, the "U" shaped structures will be an improvement over the "W" structures. Beyond the installation of the structures, the project would include river bank stabilization and revegetation. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers document, there are numerous items in the town's application at issue. First, the document states the town has not provided sufficient scientific or logical data on the function and placement of the proposed "U" structures. Nor had alternative placements designs, and rationale for and against those been presented. The corps document also expresses concern regarding a U- shaped structure that the town installed downstream from the Hot Springs Boulevard bridge in March 2005. The corps document calls it an unauthorized structure and says the structure had raised the flood stage level in the river by 1,000 cubic feet per second and has caused an increase in sediment levels behind the structure and could have negative impacts on water quality. In addition, the corps says the town failed to provide data on preconstruction and post construction river conditions related to the March 2005 installation. The document states, "...the office has determined that the construction completed in the spring of 2005 has greater than minimal adverse impacts to the aquatic environment and does not meet the requirements of Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines. You are therefore required to remove the structures, which include the bank stabilization work, modified deflectors and the "U" structures, and restore the site to its preconstruction contours ... or modify the project so that it meets our program requirements." Other key issues cited in the corps' document is that the town plan lacks sufficient hydraulic information such as 100 -year flow, average width of the floodplain and active channel, average stream velocity and expected changes to these conditions once the plan is completed. The corps charges the town with failure to address a key component of its own proposal, that being the improvement of aquatic characteristics throughout the project area. The corps says the town plan like biological data, species inventories and an analysis of the riparian corridor that could be affected by the proj ect. "This office is concerned that the use of grout and hard bank stabilization will reduce the quality of aquatic habitat rather than enhance it," the document states. Part of the town plan includes anchoring the in- stream structures with grout and this has proved contentious. Some biologists argue that grout eliminates interstitial habitat for insect species upon which trout and other fish species rely for food. http:/ /www.pagosasun.com/frontpage.htm 9/15/2005