| This page and related documents are a work in progress. These are not final documents. Written comments made be made on these topics. |
Ecosystem restoration and Mitigation Planning Strategies
for the Centralia/Chehalis Flood Damage Reduction Study
restoration working group plan
General. It is desirable to produce ecosystem restoration measures in the Centralia/Chehalis area that would be conceptualized simultaneously with the flood damage reduction project being planned by the Corps. It is advantageous to look at ecosystem restoration possibilities early in the planning process so that restoration measures and project alternatives are compatible and the greatest environmental benefit can be realized. One advantage to this approach is that a interrelated restoration program can be conceptualized, not just a series of isolated fragments that are unrelated to one another and whose beneficial value is uncoordinated or disadvantageous to some natural communities. Overall habitat values would be maximized if ecosystem restoration/mitigation measures were synchronized and mutually beneficial.
A Working Group for Ecosystem Restoration Planning. To best utilize existing information and to bring forward several significant ideas regarding ecosystem restoration in the Centralia/Chehalis study area, a working group composed of representatives of Federal, Tribal, State, and Local governments will be formed. The goal of the working group would primarily be to identify habitat needs and opportunities at the landscape scale compatible and complimentary to each specific project alternative for the flood damage reduction study now underway. Because the group can identify site-specific restoration opportunities, the Corps would coordinate with the group to evaluate and develop those restoration measures as appropriate.
Because the working group may make recommendations reached through a consensus of its members, persons not representing Federal, Tribal, State, and Local governments may not participate as decision making members of the working group. Citizens and citizen groups may provide information to government agencies and to elected officials, and are encouraged to comment on public documents.
The following sequence of events shows a possible approach to using a working group to assist in the planning of possible ecosystem restoration measures for the Centralia/Chehalis Flood Damage Reduction Project:
| Ecosystem Restoration/Mitigation Tasks | Timeframe |
| The Corps develops a scope of work and negotiates a contract to prepare conceptual ecosystem restoration plans and options. | Summer 2000 |
| The working group, Lewis County, and the Corps and its contractor meet to review the restoration planning process. The group begins to identify broad-scale habitat needs and opportunities. | Summer 2000 |
| The working group, Lewis County, and the Corps and its contractor meet to assemble more information. The working group finalize a list of broad-scale habitat needs and opportunities. | |
| At this meeting, maps of the Centralia/Chehalis project area will be marked-up to show some site-specific restoration areas and ideas, based on the initial list of needs and opportunities developed by the working group. Constraints and other issues that may limit or at least influence opportunities may be developed. Also goals and objectives may be developed to better define how opportunities will be realized. | Summer 2000 |
| Following the second meeting of the working group, the contractor, the Corps, and Lewis County will review potential project alternatives and to assess habitat restoration needs and opportunities within the context of each potential alternatives all assembled data, ideas, concepts, and drawings. These data will be overlaid or integrated with project alternatives to identify unique opportunities, incompatibilities, and uncertainties. | Summer 2000 |
| The contractor would use information generated during the working group sessions, meetings with the Corps and Lewis County project team and preliminary data from other technical studies for the flood damage reduction project to develop a number of site-specific restoration design options that fit project alternatives. Preliminary data of other technical studies that the contractor could use include the fisheries, wetland, riparian and terrestrial/aquatic studies. As these technical studies and project alternatives are refined and finalized, the ecosystem restoration contractor will adjust the conceptual restoration measures accordingly. The contractor will build on available information, which may include as necessary, soils, vegetation components, fishery resources, existing and proposed future land uses, water source/availability, water table elevations, historic uses, and sensitive species.. For each project alternative, specific restoration options will be identified. It is anticipated that some restoration options will be implemented only if a specific project alternative were selected. Other restoration options may be implemented in association with multiple project alternatives. These will be identified as appropriate. | Summer/Fall 2000 |
| The contractor’s site-specific conceptual restoration options and accompanying drawings and maps will be presented to the working group for a brief preliminary review. The range of restoration options identified for each project alternative will be reviewed and the group will provide input on which options should be further developed and which restoration options should be deleted from further consideration. Following this review, Lewis County, the Corps, and its contractor will meet to discuss and refine the conceptual options. | Fall 2000 |
| The contractor will refine the preferred restoration options for each project alternative, make corrections and additions, and integrate any new information or data. These refined restoration options will be assembled into a draft restoration plan to be distributed to members of the working group. The group will conduct a non-binding review of the draft restoration plan to ensure that the broad goals for habitat restoration identified initially are addressed by the plan. | Fall 2000 |
| Final adjustments to the restoration options will be made as results of the fisheries, wetland, riparian, and terrestrial/aquatic studies were finalized and development of project alternatives completed. The resulting project alternatives will be reviewed for adequacy, Federal interest, costs, and overall acceptability. | Winter 2001 |
| Next, quantified results of flood hazard reduction plans will be used to determine how much of the ecosystem restoration plans will be mitigation for adverse project effects and how much would be actual restoration. The Corps will determine this. | Winter 2001 |
| The resulting refined plans will be provided to the ecosystem restoration contractor so that the contractor could edit the draft ecosystem restoration report for incorporation as an appendix to the Draft General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement. | Spring 2001 |
| Agency | Representative |
| Corps of Engineers | Chris Runner |
| George Hart | |
| Corps Contractor (Tetra Tech, Inc.) | Harry Gibbons |
| Lewis County | Marie Garrett |
| Matthew Boyle | |
| Federated Tribes of the Chehalis | Mike McGinnis |
| Grays Harbor County | Lee Hansmann |
| Thurston County | Dale Rancour |
| Washington Department of Transportation | Rich Hensley |
| Bart Gernhart | |
| Federal Highway Administration | Cathy Nicholas |
| US Fish and Wildlife Service | Lou Ellyn Jones |
| Mike Kelly | |
| Environmental Protection Agency | Richard Clark |
| Washington Department of Wildlife | Craig Olds |
| Sue Patnude | |
| Washington Department of Ecology | Dan Sokol |
| Tim C’Acci |
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council