Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lower American River topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter urges peer review of Army Corps contract for Lower American River Parkway bank protection
Summary
At the March 20 Secretary of Flood Control Agency meeting, a public commenter asked the board to delay implementation of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contract 3b on the Lower American River Parkway and to convene a peer review and expanded advisory committee to seek alternatives that reduce habitat and vegetation loss.
Joe O'Connor, a member of the Lower American River Task Force, the bank protection working group and the Parkway Coalition, told the Secretary of Flood Control Agency board of directors on March 20 that he is asking the board to consider a peer review before the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proceeds with Contract 3b on the Lower American River Parkway between Howe Avenue and Mayhew Drain.
O'Connor said the Corps' plan would provide flood protection but would “do a great deal of damage to the parkway, including wildlife habitat loss,” and that the plan calls for the removal of a large number of trees and extensive rock bank protection that, he said, “means it’ll never return to its present condition.”
Why it matters: the Lower American River Parkway is used for recreation and supports riparian habitat. O'Connor urged the board to seek methods that deliver the same flood-protection performance while reducing long-term damage to the parkway’s vegetation and wildlife habitat.
At the meeting, O'Connor proposed several specific steps: reconvening and reforming the Technical Resource and Advisory Committee (a subcommittee of the bank protection working group) to add members with alternative technical approaches; holding in-person meetings rather than virtual-only sessions; and adding additional geotechnical borings along the project reach “to determine exactly where erosion is unlikely to occur,” he said. He also said he provided the board a handout that he previously submitted to the project’s environmental impact report.
“Often, peer reviews produced improvements,” O'Connor said, arguing that a second look could “gain the same level of flood protection with less damage.” He identified himself as a Lockheed Missiles and Space Company employee and recounted personal experience with flood impacts in New Orleans to underscore his concerns about flood planning.
Chairman Rodriguez noted that the contract discussion was not an agendized item and the board could not take formal comment or action during the public-comment period, but he said staff would follow up with O'Connor after the meeting.
No formal board action on Contract 3b was taken at the March 20 meeting.
