Chehalis Basin Partnership

Introduction

Chairman Spahr welcomed everyone and opened the meeting.

Introductions: Lee Hansmann introduced Paul Easter, the new Director of Public Services for Grays Harbor County. Paul replaces Mike Daniels, who left to go to work for Pacific International Engineering, in the position.

Member Organizations represented: sixteen of the thirty-two member organizations had a representative or alternate at the meeting. Thirty-one additional citizens, alternates, or visitor attended.

Centralia Flood Damage Reduction Project Computer Model

Mike Daniels introduced Albert Liou, P.E. from Pacific International Engineering (PIE) who worked on the computer model and would be making the presentation. The Chehalis flood damage reduction project is looking at ways to reduce the flood damage in the area around Centralia, Chehalis and the lower Skookumchuck River. It includes the portion of I-5 that has been closed due to flooding. This is the project that Richard Graham, Lewis County Commissioner, reports on to the Partnership. The purpose of today's presentation is to describe the flood prediction model, explain how it works, and show how it can be used to model various flood damage reduction alternatives so that an alternative can be picked that provides the maximum benefit for the public at the lowest cost to the taxpayer.

As part of the flood damage reduction project PIE has taken existing computer models and, using data from the 1996 flood event, adopted them to the specific conditions in the Chehalis Basin. The model was calibrated using other recent flood events. The result is a sophisticated model that uses two-foot contour intervals, and can model any flood event between Pe Ell and Grays Harbor.

Albert Liou showed several slides that compared the flood flows predicted by the computer model with the actual flows at several sites along the river. The correlation was very close - essentially the actual flood flow curves on the slides matched the predicted flows for those locations.

A handout describing the alternatives being evaluated under the flood damage reduction project was provided by PIE (attached). Albert used the computer model to demonstrate the effects of some of the alternatives. This information will be presented in the completed study so it hasn't been summarized here to avoid the risk of miss-characterizing the results.

Questions and

Responses :

The cost of the flood damage reduction study so far is reported to be between $2.7 and $3 million dollars, with an eventual cost for actually implementing some of the proposed alternatives projected to be as high as $80 million dollars. Ten percent of that will be local matching funds. Is the cost/benefit ratio for this project justified?

In 1990 and 1996 there was $30 million in direct local damage and an additional $26 million in losses due to interruption of trucking transportation along I-5. DOT estimates that it will cost $110 million to raise I-5 so that it won't be closed by extremely high flood events and that won't solve the local flooding problems. Some of these alternatives might accomplish both.

Would it be possible to build a "temporary lake" to store water during a flood event and then release it slowly when the danger of flooding is past? In the winter we have plenty of water in the river; during the summer the flows are very low -- what about developing off-channel storage capacity for winter high flows that can augment summer low flows?

These are essentially variations of Alternative #5. You need some kind of structure in the upper watershed to store the water temporarily; you can't accomplish much by just digging a big hole in the ground. The hole would fill with water before the system got close to flood stage and once it is full it would stay full, providing no capacity for flood storage.

If you can't model non-structural alternatives with this model (because it's a hydraulic model) how do you compare structural alternatives with non-structural alternatives?

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will do that comparison.

What are the characteristics of the river during flood events - does it scour the riverbed deeper or erode banks and make the river wider?

It does both depending on specific location. Around Doty, it incises the bed of the river; around Oakville, it scours the banks.

If I-5 is raised and widened, won't that reduce the area of the flood plain and result in bigger flood problems for communities in the area - has there been any consideration of building an elevated road that would let water pass underneath instead of raising and widening the road?

DOT has said that they are holding off further work on raising/widening I-5 pending the results of this study.

What about relocating I-5 to higher ground?

This would do nothing to relieve flooding in the basin.

Several people shared localized problems they are familiar with. This includes log jams in the vicinity of Moon Road (near Oakville) which are causing overland scouring, and a buildup of gravel in the system that should be removed by dredging or gravel bar scalping.

Some people feel that using an inflatable rubber crest weir is a disaster waiting to happen.

The project is also looking at other ways to raise the height of the dam.

How detailed and accurate is the model - is it trustworthy?

It is very accurate where we have observed data to calibrate the model - within a couple of inches. Where we do not have observed data it is not as accurate. It is the best tool we have available.

Did you use USGS flood frequency data or your own flood frequency data?

This model does not do flood frequency analysis. In 1998 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers looked at flood frequency after the last big flood. We did not directly look at USGS flood frequency data; we used the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood frequency data. It will be interesting to see how the USGS study compares.

How does the model deal with localized high rainfall?

One thing we have learned is that flooding during big rain events is not caused by localized high rainfall, it is caused by a storm that is spread over more of the basin.

Is this information available to the public?

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a web page and information about this project will be linked to that page. Summaries of this information should be available within 30 to 60 days. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers web page address is www.nws.usace.army.mil. Additional presentations on the subject will be made by PIE to the City of Aberdeen and in other areas of the Chehalis basin. This model is huge and would be cumbersome to put out for public use at this time. Once the model is more complete and the project has been through independent review it can be made available.

The information from this study should be coordinated with the state "Framework" process that is establishing data standards to make sure it is compatible with other data and accessible to local governments and the public.

Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

At the November partnership meeting the current Chair and Vice-Chair were nominated to serve another one-year term. No new nominations were received. The Partnership agreed by consensus that Bob Spahr, Mayor of Chehalis, and Dr. C.S. Sodhi, Director of the Chehalis Tribe Department of Natural Resources should serve another one-year term as Chair and Vice-Chair respectively.

Brian Shea shared with the group that the Mayor of Aberdeen instructed him to personally say "thank you" to Bob Spahr and Dr. Sodhi for the work they have done in these positions.

Salmon Recovery Project Application Status

Lee Hansmann, Grays Harbor County staff responsible for carrying out Lead Entity responsibilities, summarized the presentation on Chehalis Basin salmon habitat projects made to the SRF Scientific Review Panel during December. The presentation included a GIS map showing the location of the projects, photographs of the sites, a description of the projects, and questions/answers. It included interaction with the twelve sponsors of individual projects that attended. Some of the strengths of the Chehalis Basin proposal that the panel noted were our recognition of the connection between water management planning and salmon recovery, our use of the Limiting Factors Analysis that have been completed to date, and the local review process (time spent and diversity of the local review panel). We have responded to the SRF panel's request for additional information and should know the final results of the SRF Board's funding decision by the end of January. This is one reason for rescheduling the January Chehalis Basin Partnership meeting to Friday February 2nd.

Report on the Meeting of Initiating Governments

A meeting of was held on November 30 to update the Initiating Governments on the Watershed Planning efforts. There was good representation from the Initiating Governments -- all four counties, Centralia, Aberdeen, the Chehalis Tribe, the Quinault Tribe, and observers attended. One concern was identified at the meeting: lack of participation on the Partnership by some members. Counties will eventually have the final say on approval of the watershed plan that is developed by the Partnership under RCW 90.82. All members of the Partnership need to stay involved because it is anticipated that the counties will turn to them to see if the plan meets their needs before approving it. It was also recognized that there is frustration with the slow progress that is being made on the watershed plan. It is a long-term project, but something needs to be done to make it more tangible.

There was a discussion of the role of the Initiating Governments in the Partnership. Should they have a stronger role through something like an executive committee, or would that give them some special status that would only be more divisive? There was also a discussion of the responsibilities and structure of the Technical Advisory Committee. Perhaps it would be better described as a "steering committee" since it is not limited to technical issues.

There was general agreement that the Chehalis Basin Partnership was originally formed in December 1997 as the Chehalis Basin Council to coordinate basin-wide issues such as flooding, water quality, river flow, and salmon habitat. The Watershed Planning Act (RCW 90.82) came along after the Partnership was formed. The law required that specific organizations it labeled "Initiating Governments" meet and agree on a Local Planning Unit to be eligible for state funding. The members of the Initiating Governments were already involved in the Partnership so it made sense for the Partnership to assume the responsibilities of the Local Planning Unit. The name was changed at that time to the Chehalis Basin Partnership. Naming an executive committee made up of the Initiating Governments may not be the best approach because the Partnership already exists as the Coordinating body.

Centralia representatives stated that they were interested in accelerating the decision-making process. Centralia is a member of the Partnership and wants to participate. But it also has to build a new wastewater treatment facility at the cost of approximately $35 million. Each year, inflation adds $650,000 to the capital costs of the project that must be absorbed by 6,000 ratepayers. Centralia wants to see expedited decision-making by the Partnership so it can afford to coordinate its planning with the Partnership's planning.

Chehalis representatives agreed that a long drawn-out process could affect them too. Chehalis is faced with high capital costs to remove its discharge from the river during low-flow conditions. They have not been convinced that the river is really better off without the flow from the City's wastewater treatment facility then it would be if they treated their effluent to a higher standard and continued to discharge it to the river. The water "management" plan the Partnership is working towards could be a key part of convincing state and federal regulators that it would be better to leave the treated effluent from Chehalis in the river.

It was agreed that some time should be devoted at subsequent meetings to reviewing the history of the Chehalis Basin Partnership, its organizational structure, and responsibilities. Perhaps this could be done as part of the effort to review and update the by-laws

Report on the by-laws Subcommittee Meeting

A handout of the major comments from the first meeting was briefly reviewed (attached). The by-law subcommittee will meet again on January 11 to review an updated draft.

Citizen's Advisory Committee Report

The CAC has been meeting jointly with the Technical Advisory Committee for the last couple of months to focus on the draft Level 1 Assessment prepared by Envirovision. The next meeting will be in Chehalis on Wednesday January 10 with a focus on learning about the City of Chehalis' wastewater treatment facility. In future meetings the CAC will start looking at public communication and outreach.

Open comment

Two citizens from Pacific County introduced themselves and asked about Pacific County's role in the Chehalis Basin Partnership. Pacific County includes a small portion of the Chehalis Basin within its boundaries. Originally, Pacific County sent a letter saying that the land area involved was so small that they didn't feed it was necessary to commit their limited resources to the Chehalis Basin Partnership effort. The county could choose to change its mind, in which case they should send a letter to the Chehalis Basin Partnership in care of Lee Hansmann at Grays Harbor County. Pacific County could also initiate its own Watershed Planning effort for Willapa Bay and its tributaries.

J. Roach informed the group that he brought copies of the Revised Salmon Recovery Data Viewer Compact Disk developed by DNR for WRIA 22 with him today for anyone who is interested. See him after the meeting if you would like a copy.

Dave Rountry from the Department of Ecology handed out information on the Department's annual process of determining where to start new water quality studies. Dave emphasized the importance of participating in this process. Five years ago, it resulted in the study of fecal coliform bacteria loading in Grays Harbor. Ecology is interested in what local governments, tribes, and citizen's have to say about what studies are needed. Dave provided a handout, which is enclosed.

Margaret Rader asked how Ecology's effort to identify sources of water pollution and develop clean-up plans for those sources meshes with the work the Partnership is doing. Dave responded that a formal link between the Partnership and the work he is doing on several TMDLs in the basin doesn't exist, but that he thinks it would be great if the Partnership took a more formal role in these efforts. This is especially true for the work being done on the Grays Harbor Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL, which showed a very large loading of bacteria coming from the upper basin. Margaret indicated that she would bring this issue of integration up with the Technical Advisory Committee for discussion.

Doug Fricke asked if the Partnership should receive another update on the Grays Harbor Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL. Dave responded that the next meeting of the advisory group set up for that TMDL is scheduled to meet January 24th a the Chehalis River Council offices in Oakville. Every one is welcome to attend those meetings, and he is available to provide updates on the project directly to this group as requested.

Dr. Sodhi asked for an update on the revised Temperature TMDL for the upper Chehalis Basin. This is a lengthy topic so it will be discussed at one of the next meetings.

Mark Swartout (Thurston County) reported that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a press release one week ago that postponed any additional listings of fish species for at least a year. So far the only listing affecting the Chehalis Basin directly is the threatened listing for Bull Trout.

Brian Shea 1) welcomed Paul Easter (Grays Harbor County Director of Public Services) to the Partnership; 2) formally requested that Dave Rounty and Kahle Jennings meet to discuss and suggest ways of integrating Ecology's work on the Grays Harbor Fecal Coliform TMDL with the Partnership; and 3) suggested that the Partnership adopt the 1993 U.S. Fish and Wildlife study titled Chehalis River Basin Fishery Resources: Status, Trends, and Restoration Goals as our basin plan for salmon recovery until a updated salmon recovery plan is completed.

Lee Hansmann mentioned that work on the salmon recovery Limiting Factors Analysis is wrapping up. It is being done by sub-basin. Information from the U.S. F&WS document that Brian mentioned has been incorporated into the analysis. Once the Limiting Factors Analysis has been completed, work will begin on prioritizing the sub-basins and prioritizing the limiting factors within each sub-basin for restoration work. This will eventually result in a detailed salmon recovery plan.

Dr. Sodhi added that he, along with many others, was involved in the U.S. F&WS Report. The document is used by the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force, the Chehalis Tribe, as well as in the development of the Limiting Factors Analysis. There are things that could be added to the report, but it is a good foundation to build on.

Update on Flood Projects

Due to the length of the meeting not update was given.

Wrap-up/Adjourn

Next Meeting -- Due to a conflict with the meeting of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board that Grays Harbor County staff feel obligated to attend the January meeting of the Partnership has been changed from the fourth Friday of January to Friday February 2nd at the Chehalis Tribal Center. The meeting time remains the same, 9:00 to 11:30 a.m.

This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council