 A crew from the Inyo County Roads Department prepares to pour concrete for the new Oak Creek culvert earlier this month. Representatives of the U.S. Forest Service and Inyo County are now working together to provide erosion control that will protect Oak Creek area residents should a flash flood occur in the future. Photo courtesy Bob Brown/Inyo County Road Department By Mike Gervais
Register Staff
10-16-2008 Fears that construction of the new Oak Creek culvert could be halted by the U.S. Forest Service turned out to be miscommunication between the federal agency and Inyo County.
The county is conducting the work on Forest Service land.
At its meeting Tuesday, the Inyo County Board of Supervisors met with Inyo National Forest District Ranger Margaret Wood and Forest Engineer Olin Beall to discuss issues addressed by the Forest Service in regards to the replacement of the Oak Creek culvert that was destroyed in July’s flash flood west of Independence.
According to Wood, the Forest Service never had any intention of slowing or stopping work on the culvert, but wanted to touch base with the county regarding erosion control measures it is taking and planning specs for the project.
In turn, the county wanted to know what authority the Forest Service has over Oak Creek Road, where the culvert is located. The county has a long-standing agreement with the Forest Service, allowing it to maintain the road.
Wood said the confusion about the Forest Service’s inquiries comes from a lack of communication between the two entities.
Wood said the confusion about the Forest Service’s inquiries comes from a lack of communication between the two entities.
“The Department of Water Resources usually provides erosion control requirements,” Wood explained, but because the county is working in a state of emergency, those requirements were axed to expedite the culvert replacement.
“We want to look at erosion control measures, and that’s really all,” Wood said, noting that the plans and specs for the project are not an immediate concern for the Forest Service.
The Board of Supervisors expressed concern over the request from the Forest Service to provide erosion control at the work site after so much of the work had already been done.
“We had the potential all along that there could have been another storm, there still is that potential,” said First District Supervisor Linda Arcularius, noting that the county wants to have the culvert operational as soon as possible. “I don’t know what kind of erosion control requirements the Forest Service will require, but the sooner we know those the better.”
Wood said that “very specific technical discussions” between Beall and Inyo County Public Works Director Doug Wilson would lead to a fast resolution.
“I hope you guys have a good conversation because it does sound like there has been a lack of communication,” said Second District Supervisor Susan Cash.
“I think we can move forward pretty quickly now that we have the right people on it,” Wood said.
Ultimately Wilson and Beall excused themselves from the meeting to head up to the culvert construction site and discuss erosion control.
Wilson, who was able to report back to the board before it took its lunch break, said that he and Beall agreed that the county could place “a little more rip-wrap (large boulders placed on a slope to prevent erosion) up- and downstream” to protect Forest Service land, the streambed and residents downstream in the event of another flood.
Wood also addressed some of the questions the board had after hearing a report from Wilson at last week’s meeting.
Wilson said the Forest Service had asked the Public Works Department about fish passage through the culvert and requested a copy of the construction plan for the project.
According to Wood, the Forest Service initially wanted to look at the construction plans and specs for the project because the scope of the work had changed, but, because the county is operating on an emergency basis, the California Department of Water Resources did not prepare some of the plans that are usually drafted for such projects.
The original plan for reconstruction of the culvert stated that the new structure would be almost identical to the last. The high volume of flood-waters that flowed through the streambed in July cut its way downstream, dredging the creek and making it deeper.
“The channel is deeper now,” Wilson said, adding that the head wall for the new culvert will be slightly larger than the original, which may have given the Forest Service the impression that the scope of work was larger than originally intended.
Wilson said that, though the project looks extensive due to the larger head wall, the scope of work has not changed.
“No more than half of that head wall will be visible,” he added, noting that much of what is now visible are footings that will be buried when the construction project is finished.
Wood did say that the Forest Service would need some kind of record of the culvert work, as it keeps an archive of infrastructure work on its lands for maintenance and emergencies.
Wilson said he would provide as much of that information as he could.
As far as fish passage in the culvert, Beall said there are no fish in the North Fork of Oak Creek, where the construction is taking place, and that was just “a standard” question Forest Service engineers ask in regards to such projects.
The discussion concluded with some clarification about the Forest Service’s intentions when it expressed interest in the construction project.
“Does the Forest Service assert that it has authority over the culvert?” Cash asked.
“What we’re asserting is a concern about the potential affect on the forest,” Wood said. “We’re not interested in slowing the progress. That’s not good government to stop things.”
|
