The Rosemere Neighborhood Association offers this information to substantiate the objection to the proposed re-dredging of the flushing channel connected to Vancouver Lake. This project is being proposed by the Port of Vancouver as an attempt to rid Vancouver Lake of serious contamination.
This flushing channel was first designed and built using a federal grant award called the Clean Lake Fund, with the work being conducted from 1979-1981.
During the planning phase, there were a number of design elements that were included in the creation of the flushing channel. Eleven separate sediment cells were designed, each one being about as long as a football field, and 15-20 feet deep. Four of these cells were associated with Burnt Bridge Creek, four were associated with the flushing channel itself, and three were placed at the north end of the lake where it connects to Salmon Creek.
The design of these sediment cells required repeated cleaning of the cells themselves (removing sediment buildup) followed by a re-evaluation of the design to determine if the flushing action was working. Wording from the Clean Lake Fund grant specified that these sediment cells needed to be “maintained and evaluated in perpetuity” in order for the flushing plan to work. If the cells were to become clogged, there would be no water circulation, which was the whole point of the project to begin with. Despite the noted requirements within the grant, these sediment cells were not cleaned or evaluated. Had the evaluation been completed, data would have shown that the flushing action was not taking place as was thought, and that the flushing channel was ineffective. There is no baseline information available that indicates each of these individual sediment cells were working as planned. One witness to the failure of the original design of the flushing channel is Steve Willi, a biologist currently working with the US Fish and Wildlife Department.
The Clean Lake Fund award stipulated that the source of contamination to Vancouver Lake must also be addressed, and this source was clearly identified as Burnt Bridge Creek. The leading source of contamination to Burnt Bridge Creek is failing septic systems, as well as other producers of fecal coliform. Clearly, in order to correct the contaminant problem in Vancouver Lake, the septic issue must first be corrected. Unfortunately, Burnt Bridge Creek was not cleaned up as stipulated by the Clean Lake Fund award, for the project was abandoned. Clark County and the City of Vancouver worked on a joint Burnt Bridge Creek Watershed plan, which was adopted by the County, but the city never formally adopted this plan.
There were a number of design flaws with the implementation of the flushing channel:
1) Engineers did not account for the backflow action of Salmon Creek as it reversed course and flowed back into Vancouver Lake, causing additional contamination from other creeks. The Backflushing of Salmon Creek was never factored into the hydrological assessment regarding the workings of the flushing channel, despite the fact that Lewis (of the Lewis and Clark team) recorded a 30″-36″ tidal influence in Vancouver Lake due to backflow from Salmon Creek. Lake River, another tributary of Vancouver Lake, can also reverse flow in this same manner. As a result of the backflow, Vancouver Lake becomes the depository for contaminants from all of the following: Lake River, Whipple Creek, Flume Creek, Salmon Creek, and Gee Creek. Lake River then flows into the Columbia River near Bachelor Island. In effect, through the implementation of the flushing channel, the septic contamination from these connected waterbodies backflows into Vancouver Lake, where it is then discharged into Lake River, and then into the Columbia, where well-documented chum salmon runs are adversely impacted even though they are identified as priority species under the Endangered Species Act.
2) The dredged material from the channel was to be used to build two islands which would serve as “splitters” that would help direct the circulatory flow coming from the flushing channel. The material that was dredged to form the channel was comprised of unstable materials, and when attempts were made to build the islands, the dredged material would pool away instead of becoming compact. According to observers, it was a matter of luck that even one island could be formed (now called Turtle Island). These islands were intended to create a directional flow that would flush the beachfront of Vancouver Lake as much as possible to keep the contaminants away from the beach. The water was to travel through the flushing channel, work through the “splitter” islands in a directional flow like bumpers, and then flush the beach. This water circulation did not occur sufficiently as planned, and contaminant merely reached toxic levels on a seasonal basis.
3) The flushing channel was designed to be a one-way flow from the Columbia River, through one-way gates in the flushing channel, which would then flow into Vancouver Lake. When the flushing channel was opened (one-way gates opened) this created tidal influences within the lake that caused Lake River and Salmon Creek to backflow. This action caused the one-way gates to close, and this, in turn, caused the fecal contaminants (among other pollutants) from Lake River, Salmon Creek and others, to be siphoned right back into Vancouver Lake. In effect, the flushing channel made the nutrient contamination of Vancouver Lake much worse, even during high tide.
4) A float study was performed when the flushing channel was complete in order to identify how the water was being circulated in Vancouver Lake. A line of cans (all strung together) was dropped in the water across the lake to determine flow directions. Each submerged can was to act like a sea anchor, and water movement could be detected by this tool. The test did not anticipate that wind was a factor, and satisfactory test results were not collected. However, this float test did determine that water was not circulating in the Lake as was anticipated, and there was insufficient flushing to the beachfront on the Lake. This test was never repeated, even though it should have been conducted many times to monitor the progress of the flushing channel.
Many of the faulty aspects to the flushing channel were not discovered until the building of the channel had begun. There were a number of compromises in the design of the channel, and it has never functioned properly. The fact that the channel has become clogged with sediment is testimony that the sediment cells were not maintained, cleaned, or evaluated. The backflow of contamination has not been properly evaluated. The main source of contaminant (failed septic systems) within the Burnt Bridge Creek basin (as well as Salmon Creek and other creeks) has not been addressed. There is no official watershed plan for Burnt Bridge Creek to rectify the contaminant source. Spending a mere $190,000 (permits and dredging costs) to re-open the flushing channel will be as ineffectual now as it was more than 30 years ago, and will only make Vancouver Lake a bigger toilet. The Clean Lake Award was many millions of dollars, and as a community, we have nothing to show for these efforts and expenses except a polluted lake and polluted tributaries. The stipulations of the grant award, therefore, were not sufficiently met.
The re-dredging of the flushing channel is not environmentally sound, nor does it serve it purpose as designed. It simply does not work. Alternatives to this proposed re-dredging of this channel must be discussed in open community forums without trying to rush a faulty permit through the system. Granting this permit will only make the contaminant problem worse.
Flushing Vancouver Lake will not address the source of the contaminant, the failed septic systems in the surrounding area. In turn, this could threaten fragile salmon and steelhead runs, and, in the end, fecal coliform will end up in the ocean. There have been a number of beachfronts recently closed along the Columbia due to fecal coliform contaminant, and it does not seem prudent to diffuse or dilute the contaminant in Vancouver Lake by flushing it through other waterbodies when the source of the contaminant is not being addressed.
The Rosemere Neighborhood Association has been working with a number of water quality experts on these issues, and the association is working to establish a watershed council that will engage in a collaborative problem-solving process to find solutions to these important issues. Various federal, state and local agencies have begun participation in this collaborative process, and we invite the various agencies working on the dredging of the Vancouver Lake channel to engage in a similar collaborative process which includes community participation.
Lake River, one of the tributaries that will be effected by the proposed flushing, is a known source of archaeological artifacts attributed to Native American tribes; there have been a great number of Native American arrowheads discovered there, and any dredging activity (designed to increase water flow) may impact the ability to study historically significant finds. The Port should include the Bureau of Indian Affairs and local tribal councils in the discussion about the flushing of these waters and any future dredging plans.
Working together, in a watershed council, we can, through the process of constructive engagement, come up with a better plan that will work to protect our waterways. No one wants to see our drinking water become contaminated with infectious materials — that would cause a bio-hazard of immense proportions. Working together, we can come up with a better solution. Please contact the Rosemere Neighborhood Association to find out more about the proposed Collaborative Problem-Solving process.
