Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the River Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Northeast Region raises two Browns Park proposals: private bank stabilization and Bridgeport ramp upgrade
Summary
Northeast Region staff presented linked proposals for Browns Park on the Green River: a private‑land engineering/design request for large‑scale bank stabilization (landowner‑triggered, multi‑year construction cost estimated near $1 million) and a separate boat‑ramp relocation and parking upgrade on WMA land to improve public access; committees discussed public‑access tradeoffs and political sensitivity of private‑land work.
Brian Inglebert, assistant aquatics manager for the Northeast Region, presented two related Browns Park items to the joint councils: a private‑land stream‑bank stabilization project to arrest severe lateral erosion on about 2,100 feet of trout stream and a Bridgeport ("cowboy bar") boat‑ramp relocation and parking upgrade on WMA property to provide safer and more usable boater access.
On the private‑land restoration, Inglebert said the landowner has repeatedly pressed for assistance as erosion accelerates; he estimated that full construction could cost on the order of $1,000,000 but framed the current request as a starting point for engineering and permitting. "I would expect this project over a couple years to cost somewhere around 1,000,000 dollars, to actually do the construction," Inglebert said, acknowledging the councils must weigh habitat benefits against the scale of public investment on mostly private‑benefit land.
On the Bridgeport boat ramp, Inglebert proposed moving the ramp upstream to a sediment‑neutral site, installing a low‑grade flex‑mat ramp, creating a parking lot and closing the existing unsafe ramp. He said archaeology review (ARRI) and NEPA/404 permitting will be required and that some funding lines in the proposal are earmarked specifically for the Bridgeport work. He also said the region has applied for boater‑access and outdoor‑recreation grant funds and expects other funding sources to contribute.
Council members asked several questions about potential public‑access easements, whether the owner would convey land or an angler easement, and whether Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) emergency watershed funds might be available. Inglebert said an easement might be possible but that full donation of land was unlikely; he recommended splitting the two proposals if councils wished to fund one portion (for example, funding the WMA boat‑ramp work while deferring private‑land construction until partnerships and easements were secured).
Chair Eric Edgley reminded members to evaluate the projects on habitat and access merits and noted that political considerations are handled in separate review layers beyond the council evaluation.
