Camas: GP demolitions won’t have significant environmental impacts

Today is the final day for written comments regarding the environmental impact of Georgia-Pacific’s planned removal of Camas paper mill structures located in and over the Columbia River and the Camas Slough. The city of Camas ruled Aug. 3, that the Georgia-Pacific (GP) demolition project would not have significant adverse environmental impacts and gave the project a “determination of non-significant” pursuant to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) rules. Members of the public who have environmental concerns regarding the project have until the end of the business day on Thursday, Aug. 17, to submit written comments to communitydevelopment@cityofcamas.us. At issue is GP’s plan to remove a warehouse, five docks/piers, conveyor housings, an above-ground oil tank, a crane foundation and approximately 3,000 pilings associated with those structures over a three-year period. In its application for a SEPA determination, GP officials said the company “is planning to remove and demolish several structures associated with prior operations” at the Camas paper/pulp mill and that “the structures to be removed are located in-water and overwater on the Columbia River and Camas Slough and are located within the Shoreline Management Zone of the city of Camas or are in-water within unincorporated Clark County.” Some of the structures included in the demolition plans are on state-owned land GP leases from the Washington Department of Natural Resources, according to the SEPA determination documents. GP said they do not anticipate any waste materials will enter the ground or surface waters near the demotion and dredging sites. “No waste is anticipated to enter groundwater because of this proposed project,” the company stated in its application. “The proposed project includes in-water work for removal of dolphins (piles driven into the riverbed) and piers as well as over-water structure removals. Inadvertent introduction of debris to surface waters could occur during activities. All demolition would be planned to reduce the risk of introduction of debris to surface waters.” The company said that, for overwater structures, “several approaches will be employed to reduce the risk of materials entering surface waters.” “To the extent that agencies allow, all overwater structure demolition will be timed to occur when river stages are low so that the riverbank is not covered by water,” the company stated in its application. “Riverbank structures would be demolished with upper stories removed first and working from the upland side, so that ground floors and riverside walls serve to contain debris. Other management practices to contain debris and potential sedimentation include floating silt curtains in-water and silt curtains on the riverbank. Debris nets and utilizing barges to protect surface waters would also be implemented.” The company said it also plans to use best-management practices — including minimizing disturbances to existing vegetation, adding a “stabilizing layer of crushed gravel” to areas that would be bare earth after the demolition, having collection points and water bars during demotion to help direct stormwater to the Lady Island Wastewater Treatment facility, minimizing debris piles, and installing silt fences, straw bales and other containment materials to catch any loose debris — to “control stormwater runoff and reduce or control surface runoff.” The company’s application notes that several species of birds, mammals and fish have been observed at or near the proposed demolition sites, including red-tailed hawks, bald eagles, crows, osprey, deer, river otters, coyotes, salmon, steelhead and sturgeon. There are threatened and endangered species known to have habitat within the area, including Lower Columbia River fall Chinook, Coho and Steelhead. “Other species that are threatened or endangered that may occur near (the) project area … included gray wolf, northern spotted owl, streaked horn lark and yellow-billed cuckoo,” GP noted in its application, adding that “these species are all deemed to be unlikely to occur within the project site due to the lack of recent observations or lack of suitable habitat within the project area.” The company said its demolition plan would eventually preserve or enhance wildlife in the area. “The project would enhance wildlife habitats by the removal of numerous in-water and overwater structures, which would result in a net increase in wildlife habitat by removing overwater shade, and removal of refugia for aquatic predators, reducing avian predator perches, and increasing shallow nearshore habitat,” GP noted in its application. “Other long-term beneficial effects that would enhance wildlife include the removal of creosote treated pilings. Following the structures removal activities, areas of disturbed riverbanks and uplands, such as the Berger Crane foundation, would be graded to slopes similar to adjacent natural riverbank areas. Shallow nearshore area will be created in a former area dredged for navigation purposes.” In a question regarding any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses, GP administrators stated that, “in 2020, (the Washington state Department of) Ecology assigned the main mill parcel as Site No. 15156 under the state cleanup program. At the time of this checklist, planning for site investigations has not started and site investigations have not occurred,” therefore “no information on possible contamination of the main mill parcel is available.” The company added that “sediments slated for dredging (will) be evaluated by chemical and physical testing and results reviewed by agencies prior to receiving approvals for disposal or reuse of sediments” and said “no other portions of the project have known or suspected contamination.”

Related Stories